Report

WINETASTER ON 06/06/11 WITH 6 JUDGES AND 6 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=Y
Copyright (c) 1995-2011 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65

FLIGHT 1:
Number of Judges = 6
Number of Wines = 6

Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking: Grape:

Wine A is Mer etSoleil Chardonnay 2007 ........ 3rd place Chardonnay, unoaked, US
Wine B is Clos de la Bolliataz 2009 ........ 1st place Chasselas, Switzerland
Wine C is Cuma 2009 ........ 6th place Torrontes, Argentina
Wine D is Céleste Saint Joseph 2008 ........ 4th place Rousanne, Rhone
Wine E is Furmint Royal Tokaji 2006 ........ 2nd place Furmint, Hungary
Wine F is Quinta de Muradella 2006 ........ 5th place Dona Blanca, Spain

The Judges's Rankings

Judge Wine -> A B C D E F

Alexa 5. 3. 6. 4. 2. 1.
Mike 1. 2. 3. 5. 4. 6.
Orley 4. 5. 6. 2. 1. 3.
Burtr 1. 3. 2. 6. 5. 4.
John 6. 3. 5. 2. 1. 4.
Dick 2. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Table of Votes Against

Wine -> A B C D E F

Group Ranking -> 3 1 6 4 2 5
Votes Against -> 19 17 25 23 18 24

( 6 is the best possible, 36 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 = 0.0921

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation
is rather large, 0.7366. 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.

The correlation I measures the degree to which the identification of each
judge is correlated with the truth. Here a 1.0 means that the judge identified
the wines perfectly, and a 0 means that he identified none of them.

Correlation Between the Ranks of
Each Person With the Average Ranking of Others

Name of Person Correlation R Correlation I

Dick 0.0857 1.0000
Mike 0.0304 1.0000
Alexa -0.2648 0.0000
John -0.3479 1.0000
Orley -0.3479 1.0000
Burtr -0.4857 1.0000

Next, we show the correlation among the wine identifications of the judges,
which also ranges between 1.0 and 0.0:

C = 0.6667

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation
is rather large: > 10%. Most people would say that unless this probability
is less than 0.1, the judges' identifications are not highly related.

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 B is Clos de la Bolliataz 2009
2. ........ 2nd place Wine E is Furmint Royal Tokaji
3. ........ 3rd place Wine A is Mer et`Soleil Chardonnay 2007
4. ........ 4th place Wine D is Céleste Saint Joseph 2008
5. ........ 5th place Wine F is Quinta de Muradella
6. ........ 6th place Wine C is Cuma 2009

We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering.
The Friedman Chi-square value is 2.7619. The probability that this could
happen by chance is 0.7366

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 0.89 for significance at the 0.05
level and must exceed 0.83 for significance at the 0.1 level

Alexa Mike Orley

Alexa 1.000 -0.600 0.600
Mike -0.600 1.000 -0.543
Orley 0.600 -0.543 1.000
Burtr -0.543 0.771 -0.771
John 0.543 -0.486 0.714
Dick -0.600 0.886 -0.657

Burtr John Dick

Alexa -0.543 0.543 -0.600
Mike 0.771 -0.486 0.886
Orley -0.771 0.714 -0.657
Burtr 1.000 -0.886 0.600
John -0.886 1.000 -0.371
Dick 0.600 -0.371 1.000

Pairwise correlations in descending order

0.886 Mike and Dick Significantly positive
0.771 Mike and Burtr Not significant
0.714 Orley and John Not significant
0.600 Alexa and Orley Not significant
0.600 Burtr and Dick Not significant
0.543 Alexa and John Not significant
-0.371 John and Dick Not significant
-0.486 Mike and John Not significant
-0.543 Alexa and Burtr Not significant
-0.543 Mike and Orley Not significant
-0.600 Alexa and Mike Not significant
-0.600 Alexa and Dick Not significant
-0.657 Orley and Dick Not significant
-0.771 Orley and Burtr Not significant
-0.886 Burtr and John Significantly negative

COMMENT:

The objective of this winetasting was to get a wide cross section of grapes that were
used to make these wines. The wines were arranged into three flights, since it was deemed
difficult to cope with tasting 18 wines in a single flight. The division of the 18 wines
into the three flights was not based on any scientific principles.

One wine had some residual sugar and at least one person loved it
and one person did not. It turned out to be the unoaked California
chardonnay. These wines were all of high quality and which you would want to drink would depend
on what you are eating and where you are eating it. There was basically a
bipolar distribuition by which three people liked the driest and least
fruity wines and the other three preferred the fruiter ones.

Return to previous page

Report

WINETASTER ON 06/06/11 WITH 6 JUDGES AND 6 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=Y
Copyright (c) 1995-2011 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65

FLIGHT 2:
Number of Judges = 6
Number of Wines = 6

Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking: Grape:

Wine A is Spies Gruner Veltliner 2008 ........ 5th place Grüer Veltliner, Austria
Wine B is Cour Cheverney 2005 tied for 1st place Sauvignon blanc, Loire
Wine C is Schloss Gobelsburg 2007 tied for 1st place Riesling, Austria
Wine D is Qupe 2009 tied for 3rd place Marsanne 85%, Rousane 15%, US
Wine E is Bourgogne Aligote2008 tied for 3rd place Aligoté, Burgundy
Wine F is In Fine 2008 ........ 6th place Clairette 80%, Bourboulenc 20%, Côtes Ventoux

The Judges's Rankings

Judge Wine -> A B C D E F

Alexa 3. 4. 2. 6. 1. 5.
Mike 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 6.
Orley 5. 1. 4. 2. 3. 6.
Burtr 5. 3. 1. 4. 2. 6.
John 4. 1. 3. 2. 5. 6.
Dick 1. 6. 4. 3. 5. 2.

Table of Votes Against

Wine -> A B C D E F

Group Ranking -> 5 1 1 3 3 6
Votes Against -> 23 16 16 20 20 31

( 6 is the best possible, 36 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 = 0.2476

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation
is rather large, 0.1907. 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 Correlation I

Mike 0.8857 0.0000
Burtr 0.6377 1.0000
Orley 0.5218 1.0000
John 0.4928 1.0000
Alexa -0.0290 0.0000
Dick -0.8857 1.0000

Next, we show the correlation among the wine identifications of the judges,
which also ranges between 1.0 and 0.0:

C = 0.4667

1. tied for 1st place Wine B is Cour Cheverney 2005
2. tied for 1st place Wine C is Schloss Gobelsburg 2007
3. tied for 3rd place Wine D is Qupe 2009
4. tied for 3rd place Wine E is Bourgogne Aligote2008
5. ........ 5th place Wine A is Spies Gruner Veltliner 2008
---------------------------------------------------
6. ........ 6th place Wine F is In Fine 2008

We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering.
The Friedman Chi-square value is 7.4286. The probability that this could
happen by chance is 0.1907

Pairwise Rank Correlations

Correlations must exceed in absolute value 0.89 for significance at the 0.05
level and must exceed 0.83 for significance at the 0.1 level

Alexa Mike Orley

Alexa 1.000 0.086 -0.086
Mike 0.086 1.000 0.829
Orley -0.086 0.829 1.000
Burtr 0.657 0.714 0.486
John -0.257 0.886 0.829
Dick -0.314 -0.771 -0.771

Burtr John Dick

Alexa 0.657 -0.257 -0.314
Mike 0.714 0.886 -0.771
Orley 0.486 0.829 -0.771
Burtr 1.000 0.371 -0.714
John 0.371 1.000 -0.486
Dick -0.714 -0.486 1.000

Pairwise correlations in descending order

0.886 Mike and John Significantly positive
0.829 Mike and Orley Not significant
0.829 Orley and John Not significant
0.714 Mike and Burtr Not significant
0.657 Alexa and Burtr Not significant
0.486 Orley and Burtr Not significant
0.371 Burtr and John Not significant
0.086 Alexa and Mike Not significant
-0.086 Alexa and Orley Not significant
-0.257 Alexa and John Not significant
-0.314 Alexa and Dick Not significant
-0.486 John and Dick Not significant
-0.714 Burtr and Dick Not significant
-0.771 Mike and Dick Not significant
-0.771 Orley and Dick Not significant

COMMENT:

In this tasting we had one oxidized wine, namely the one rated last.
The high quality riesling, though not significant, was the highest
scorer along with wine B,from the Côte de Ventoux.

Return to previous page

Report

WINETASTER ON 06/06/11 WITH 6 JUDGES AND 6 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N
Copyright (c) 1995-2011 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65

FLIGHT 3:
Number of Judges = 6
Number of Wines = 6

Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking: Grape:

Wine A is Efeso Val di Neto 2004 ........ 6th place Efeso, Italy
Wine B is Domaine de Villargeau 2009 ........ 1st place Sauvignon blanc. Loire
Wine C is Pannonhalmi Tricollis 2008 ........ 2nd place Riesling 40%, Welsh Riesling 40%, Traminer 20%
Wine D is Apremont 2008 tied for 4th place Jacquère, Savoie
Wine E is Dom Bardo 2007 tied for 4th place Albariño, Spain
Wine F is Trimbach Gewürztraminer 2006 ........ 3rd place Gewürztraminer, Alsace

The Judges's Rankings

Judge Wine -> A B C D E F

Alexa 6. 1. 4. 3. 2. 5.
Mike 4. 1. 3. 6. 5. 2.
Orley 6. 3. 2. 4. 5. 1.
Burt 5. 1. 4. 3. 2. 6.
John 6. 3. 2. 4. 5. 1.
Dick 2. 3. 1. 5. 6. 4.

Table of Votes Against

Wine -> A B C D E F

Group Ranking -> 6 1 2 4 4 3
Votes Against -> 29 12 16 25 25 19

( 6 is the best possible, 36 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 = 0.3270

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation
is quite small, 0.0808. 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

Mike 0.7143
Orley 0.7143
John 0.7143
Alexa 0.3769
Burt 0.3143
Dick 0.1739

1. ........ 1st place Wine B is Domaine de Viullargeau 2009
---------------------------------------------------
2. ........ 2nd place Wine C is Pannonhalmi TRricollis 2008
3. ........ 3rd place Wine F is Efeso Val di Neto 2004
4. tied for 4th place Wine D is Apremont 2008
5. tied for 4th place Wine E is Dom Baredo 2007
---------------------------------------------------
6. ........ 6th place Wine A is Efeso Val di Neto 2004

We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering.
The Friedman Chi-square value is 9.8095. The probability that this could
happen by chance is 0.0808

Pairwise Rank Correlations

Correlations must exceed in absolute value 0.89 for significance at the 0.05
level and must exceed 0.83 for significance at the 0.1 level

Alexa Mike Orley

Alexa 1.000 0.086 0.029
Mike 0.086 1.000 0.600
Orley 0.029 0.600 1.000
Burt 0.943 -0.029 -0.257
John 0.029 0.600 1.000
Dick -0.429 0.486 0.200

Burt John Dick

Alexa 0.943 0.029 -0.429
Mike -0.029 0.600 0.486
Orley -0.257 1.000 0.200
Burt 1.000 -0.257 -0.314
John -0.257 1.000 0.200
Dick -0.314 0.200 1.000

Pairwise correlations in descending order

1.000 Orley and John Significantly positive
0.943 Alexa and Burt Significantly positive
0.600 Mike and John Not significant
0.600 Mike and Orley Not significant
0.486 Mike and Dick Not significant
0.200 Orley and Dick Not significant
0.200 John and Dick Not significant
0.086 Alexa and Mike Not significant
0.029 Alexa and John Not significant
0.029 Alexa and Orley Not significant
-0.029 Mike and Burt Not significant
-0.257 Orley and Burt Not significant
-0.257 Burt and John Not significant
-0.314 Burt and Dick Not significant
-0.429 Alexa and Dick Not significant

COMMENT:

The clear winner was the sauvignong blanc, but close behind was the
Pannonhalmi Tr1eicollis.

Return to previous page