WINETASTER ON 01/26/99 WITH 5 JUDGES AND 9 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-98 Richard E. Quandt


FLIGHT 1: All wines are 1995 Number of Judges = 5 Number of Wines = 9
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Sainte Agnes, Ermitage de Pic St L ........ 8th place Wine B is La Roque, Cupa Numismae tied for 2nd place Wine C is L'Aigueliere, Cote Doree ........ 1st place Wine D is Lascaux, Nobles Pierres ........ 5th place Wine E is Hortus, Grande Cuvee tied for 2nd place Wine F is Prieure de Ch de Segure, Vielles V ........ 9th place Wine G is Mansenoble, Corbiere ........ 6th place Wine H is Mortes, Grande Cuvee ........ 7th place Wine I is L'Aigueliere, Fut de Chene ........ 4th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H I Andre 6. 7. 2. 4. 3. 9. 8. 5. 1. Roland 9. 3. 1. 8. 5. 6. 7. 4. 2. Kai 7. 4. 9. 2. 3. 5. 1. 6. 8. Wolfgang 4. 2. 1. 6. 3. 8. 5. 9. 7. Karl 8. 3. 1. 4. 5. 7. 6. 9. 2.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H I
Group Ranking -> 8 2 1 5 2 9 6 7 4 Votes Against -> 34 19 14 24 19 35 27 33 20
( 5 is the best possible, 45 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 = 0.3120

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.1310. 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 Karl 0.8167 Wolfgang 0.4519 Roland 0.4118 Andre 0.3123 Kai -0.2929

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 L'Aigueliere, Cote Doree --------------------------------------------------- 2. tied for 2nd place Wine B is La Roque, Cupa Numismae 3. tied for 2nd place Wine E is Hortus, Grande Cuvee 4. ........ 4th place Wine I is L'Aigueliere, Fut de Chene 5. ........ 5th place Wine D is Lascaux, Nobles Pierres 6. ........ 6th place Wine G is Mansenoble, Corbiere 7. ........ 7th place Wine H is Mortes, Grande Cuvee 8. ........ 8th place Wine A is Sainte Agnes, Ermitage de Pic St L --------------------------------------------------- 9. ........ 9th place Wine F is Prieure de Ch de Segure, Vielles V We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 12.4800. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.1310 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 0.70 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 0.60 for significance at the 0.1 level Andre Roland Kai Andre 1.000 0.517 -0.483 Roland 0.517 1.000 -0.550 Kai -0.483 -0.550 1.000 Wolfgang 0.200 0.233 -0.067 Karl 0.583 0.633 -0.233 Wolfgang Karl Andre 0.200 0.583 Roland 0.233 0.633 Kai -0.067 -0.233 Wolfgang 1.000 0.567 Karl 0.567 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.633 Roland and Karl Significantly positive 0.583 Andre and Karl Not significant 0.567 Wolfgang and Karl Not significant 0.517 Andre and Roland Not significant 0.233 Roland and Wolfgang Not significant 0.200 Andre and Wolfgang Not significant -0.067 Kai and Wolfgang Not significant -0.233 Kai and Karl Not significant -0.483 Andre and Kai Not significant -0.550 Roland and Kai Not significant




COMMENT: Kai: The L'Aigueliere, Cote Doree seems to be by far to green; the Mortes has a rough structure; Andre: There are two different kinds of wine: the spicy and the fruity. The result of such a tasting depends on the preferences.
Return to previous page