WINETASTER ON 5/8/96 WITH 7 JUDGES AND 5 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2011 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 7 Number of Wines = 5
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Ch. La Fleur 1989 ........ 3rd place Wine B is Ch. Latour 1989 ........ 4th place Wine C is Ch. Palmer 1989 ........ 1st place Wine D is Ch. La Mission 1989 ........ 2nd place Wine E is Ch. Cheval Blanc 1989 ........ 5th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E Richard 3. 4. 2. 1. 5. Ken 1. 3. 4. 5. 2. Bob 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. John 3. 4. 1. 2. 5. Ed 5. 3. 1. 2. 4. Frank 1. 4. 5. 2. 3. Orley 3. 2. 1. 5. 4.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E
Group Ranking -> 3 4 1 2 5 Votes Against -> 20 25 15 19 26
( 7 is the best possible, 35 is the worst)
Here is a measure of the correlation in the preferences of the judges which ranges between 1.0 (perfect correlation) and 0.0 (no correlation):
W = 0.1673
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.3211. Most analysts would say that unless this probability is less than 0.1, the judges' preferences are not strongly related. We now analyze how each taster's preferences are correlated with the group preference. A correlation of 1.0 means that the taster's preferences are a perfect predictor of the group's preferences. A 0.0 means no correlation, while a -1.0 means that the taster has the reverse ranking of the group. This is measured by the correlation R.
Correlation Between the Ranks of Each Person With the Average Ranking of Others
Name of Person Correlation R John 0.9487 Richard 0.6669 Bob 0.5000 Ed 0.3591 Orley -0.1026 Frank -0.2000 Ken -0.6000
The wines were preferred by the judges in the following order. When the preferences of the judges are strong enough to permit meaningful differentiation among the wines, they are separated by -------------------- and are judged to be significantly different.
1. ........ 1st place Wine C is Ch. Palmer 1989 2. ........ 2nd place Wine D is Ch. La Mission 1989 3. ........ 3rd place Wine A is Ch. La Fleur 1989 4. ........ 4th place Wine B is Ch. Latour 1989 5. ........ 5th place Wine E is Ch. Cheval Blanc 1989 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 4.6857. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.3211 We now undertake a more detailed examination of the pair-wise rank correla- tions that exist between pairs of judges. First, we present a table in which you can find the correlation for any pair of judges, by finding one of the names in the left hand margin and the other name on top of a column. A second table arranges these correlations in descending order and marks which is significantly positive significantly negative, or not significant. This may allow you to find clusters of judges whose rankings were particularly similar or particularly dissimilar. Pairwise Rank Correlations Correlations must exceed in absolute value 1.00 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 0.90 for significance at the 0.1 level Richard Ken Bob Richard 1.000 -0.700 0.600 Ken -0.700 1.000 -0.600 Bob 0.600 -0.600 1.000 John 0.900 -0.600 0.700 Ed 0.600 -0.900 0.700 Frank 0.100 0.400 -0.300 Orley -0.100 0.100 0.000 John Ed Frank Richard 0.900 0.600 0.100 Ken -0.600 -0.900 0.400 Bob 0.700 0.700 -0.300 John 1.000 0.700 -0.200 Ed 0.700 1.000 -0.700 Frank -0.200 -0.700 1.000 Orley 0.300 0.300 -0.700 Orley Richard -0.100 Ken 0.100 Bob 0.000 John 0.300 Ed 0.300 Frank -0.700 Orley 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.900 Richard and John Significantly positive 0.700 Bob and John Not significant 0.700 John and Ed Not significant 0.700 Bob and Ed Not significant 0.600 Richard and Bob Not significant 0.600 Richard and Ed Not significant 0.400 Ken and Frank Not significant 0.300 Ed and Orley Not significant 0.300 John and Orley Not significant 0.100 Ken and Orley Not significant 0.100 Richard and Frank Not significant 0.000 Bob and Orley Not significant -0.100 Richard and Orley Not significant -0.200 John and Frank Not significant -0.300 Bob and Frank Not significant -0.600 Ken and John Not significant -0.600 Ken and Bob Not significant -0.700 Ed and Frank Not significant -0.700 Frank and Orley Not significant -0.700 Richard and Ken Not significant -0.900 Ken and Ed Significantly negative
COMMENT: No comments were made at this tasting.
Return to previous page