WINETASTER ON 01/02/12 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2012 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
2007 American and French Pinot Noirs
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 8 Number of Wines = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Capiaux Wilson Vineyard ........ 2nd place Wine B is Le Moine Chambolle Musigny Amoureuse tied for 3rd place Wine C is Kistler Cuvee Catherine ........ 1st place Wine D is Roumier Morey St. Denis 1er Bussière ........ 8th place Wine E is Meo-Camuzet Clos Vougeot Grand Cru ........ 7th place Wine F is Calera Jensen Vineyard tied for 3rd place Wine G is Kanzler Sonoma Coast ........ 6th place Wine H is Pisoni Estate Santa Lucia Highland ........ 5th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Orley 1. 5. 4. 2. 3. 6. 7. 8. Zaki 4. 5. 3. 7. 6. 1. 8. 2. Bob 1. 3. 2. 7. 5. 4. 6. 8. Burt 4. 8. 5. 6. 7. 2. 3. 1. Jerry 4. 1. 5. 7. 2. 6. 3. 8. Mike 7. 3. 2. 5. 4. 8. 6. 1. Mark 6. 2. 3. 8. 7. 5. 4. 1. Dick 4. 6. 2. 8. 7. 1. 3. 5.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 2 3 1 8 7 3 6 5 Votes Against -> 31 33 26 50 41 33 40 34
( 8 is the best possible, 64 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 = 0.1429
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.3326. 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 Zaki 0.4148 Dick 0.4072 Mark 0.3571 Bob 0.3114 Mike -0.0838 Burt -0.1190 Jerry -0.3114 Orley -0.4762
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 Kistler Cuvee Catherine 2. ........ 2nd place Wine A is Capiaux Wilson Vineyard 3. tied for 3rd place Wine B is Le Moine Chambolle Musigny Amoureuse 4. tied for 3rd place Wine F is Calera Jensen Vineyard 5. ........ 5th place Wine H is Pisoni Estate Santa Lucia Highland 6. ........ 6th place Wine G is Kanzler Sonoma Coast 7. ........ 7th place Wine E is Meo-Camuzet Clos Vougeot Grand Cru --------------------------------------------------- 8. ........ 8th place Wine D is Roumier Morey St. Denis 1er Bussière We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 8.0000. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.3326 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 0.74 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 0.64 for significance at the 0.1 level Orley Zaki Bob Orley 1.000 -0.262 0.500 Zaki -0.262 1.000 0.238 Bob 0.500 0.238 1.000 Burt -0.571 0.500 -0.310 Jerry 0.190 -0.452 0.476 Mike -0.286 0.095 -0.262 Mark -0.738 0.429 -0.024 Dick -0.381 0.548 0.405 Burt Jerry Mike Orley -0.571 0.190 -0.286 Zaki 0.500 -0.452 0.095 Bob -0.310 0.476 -0.262 Burt 1.000 -0.667 -0.167 Jerry -0.667 1.000 -0.095 Mike -0.167 -0.095 1.000 Mark 0.310 -0.024 0.595 Dick 0.595 -0.119 -0.310 Mark Dick Orley -0.738 -0.381 Zaki 0.429 0.548 Bob -0.024 0.405 Burt 0.310 0.595 Jerry -0.024 -0.119 Mike 0.595 -0.310 Mark 1.000 0.357 Dick 0.357 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.595 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.595 Mike and Mark Not significant 0.548 Zaki and Dick Not significant 0.500 Orley and Bob Not significant 0.500 Zaki and Burt Not significant 0.476 Bob and Jerry Not significant 0.429 Zaki and Mark Not significant 0.405 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.357 Mark and Dick Not significant 0.310 Burt and Mark Not significant 0.238 Zaki and Bob Not significant 0.190 Orley and Jerry Not significant 0.095 Zaki and Mike Not significant -0.024 Jerry and Mark Not significant -0.024 Bob and Mark Not significant -0.095 Jerry and Mike Not significant -0.119 Jerry and Dick Not significant -0.167 Burt and Mike Not significant -0.262 Bob and Mike Not significant -0.262 Orley and Zaki Not significant -0.286 Orley and Mike Not significant -0.310 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.310 Bob and Burt Not significant -0.381 Orley and Dick Not significant -0.452 Zaki and Jerry Not significant -0.571 Orley and Burt Not significant -0.667 Burt and Jerry Significantly negative -0.738 Orley and Mark Significantly negative
Comments: The wines were quite exceptional. On the whole, the tasters were able to tell the French and American wines apart.Testing the rank sums over the French and American wines yields a critical value of 1.261, just significant at the 0.05 level, suggesting that as a whole the American wines were preferred to the French.This result differs from the result of Report 130 in which two Kistlers are matched against six French wines. While one of the Kistlers was the most preferred wine in that tasting, on the whole the American wines were not preferred to the French.
Return to previous page