WINETASTER ON 11/07/16 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2003 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 8 Number of Wines = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is de la tour de Bon 2007 ........ 4th place Wine B is Tempier Migoua 2004 ........ 7th place Wine C is Ch. de Pibarnon 2005 ........ 3rd place Wine D is Terrebrune 2007 ........ 1st place Wine E is Tempier Tourtine 2003 ........ 2nd place Wine F is Tempier Cabassou 2006 tied for 5th place Wine G is Tempier Tourtine 1995 tied for 5th place Wine H is Gros Nore 2007 ........ 8th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Alexa 1. 3. 2. 4. 8. 5. 6. 7. Mike 7. 8. 4. 6. 3. 2. 1. 5. Zaki 5. 7. 6. 4. 3. 1. 2. 8. Burt 6. 4. 2. 5. 1. 8. 7. 3. Orley 3. 2. 1. 4. 7. 8. 6. 5. Ed 7. 6. 5. 1. 4. 2. 8. 3. Bob 1. 6. 5. 4. 2. 8. 3. 7. Dick 3. 6. 7. 1. 2. 4. 5. 8.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 4 7 3 1 2 5 5 8 Votes Against -> 33 42 32 29 30 38 38 46
( 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 = 0.0945
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.6244. 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 Dick 0.4671 Bob 0.2619 Zaki 0.0238 Burt -0.0719 Alexa -0.0843 Ed -0.2530 Orley -0.3234 Mike -0.4286
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 D is Terrebrune 2007 2. ........ 2nd place Wine E is Tempier Tourtine 2003 3. ........ 3rd place Wine C is Ch. de Pibarnon 2005 4. ........ 4th place Wine A is de la tour de Bon 2007 5. tied for 5th place Wine F is Tempier Cabassou 2006 6. tied for 5th place Wine G is Tempier Tourtine 1995 7. ........ 7th place Wine B is Tempier Migoua 2004 8. ........ 8th place Wine H is Gros Nore 2007 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 5.2917. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.6244 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 Alexa Mike Zaki Alexa 1.000 -0.571 -0.262 Mike -0.571 1.000 0.714 Zaki -0.262 0.714 1.000 Burt -0.214 -0.214 -0.548 Orley 0.762 -0.690 -0.714 Ed -0.286 0.000 0.071 Bob 0.143 -0.071 0.167 Dick -0.024 0.000 0.595 Burt Orley Ed Alexa -0.214 0.762 -0.286 Mike -0.214 -0.690 0.000 Zaki -0.548 -0.714 0.071 Burt 1.000 0.333 0.095 Orley 0.333 1.000 -0.310 Ed 0.095 -0.310 1.000 Bob 0.143 0.119 -0.500 Dick -0.190 -0.333 0.262 Bob Dick Alexa 0.143 -0.024 Mike -0.071 0.000 Zaki 0.167 0.595 Burt 0.143 -0.190 Orley 0.119 -0.333 Ed -0.500 0.262 Bob 1.000 0.548 Dick 0.548 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.762 Alexa and Orley Significantly positive 0.714 Mike and Zaki Significantly positive 0.595 Zaki and Dick Not significant 0.548 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.333 Burt and Orley Not significant 0.262 Ed and Dick Not significant 0.167 Zaki and Bob Not significant 0.143 Burt and Bob Not significant 0.143 Alexa and Bob Not significant 0.119 Orley and Bob Not significant 0.095 Burt and Ed Not significant 0.071 Zaki and Ed Not significant 0.000 Mike and Ed Not significant 0.000 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.024 Alexa and Dick Not significant -0.071 Mike and Bob Not significant -0.190 Burt and Dick Not significant -0.214 Alexa and Burt Not significant -0.214 Mike and Burt Not significant -0.262 Alexa and Zaki Not significant -0.286 Alexa and Ed Not significant -0.310 Orley and Ed Not significant -0.333 Orley and Dick Not significant -0.500 Ed and Bob Not significant -0.548 Zaki and Burt Not significant -0.571 Alexa and Mike Not significant -0.690 Mike and Orley Significantly negative -0.714 Zaki and Orley Significantly negative
COMMENT: Of the many tastings we have had, this may be the4 only that we have dedicated to the wines of Bandol. These wines spanned an age range of 21 to 9 years of age, which is particularly important given Bandol's reputation for age in bottle. Nonethe;less, the bulk of the wines tasted in the ten year old range. Some of us were pleasantly surprised by the high quality of the wines, and others expected the wines would have a more rustic quality. These wines were uniformly consistent in their style. Bandol reds use Mourvedre (>50%) and may also use Grenache and Cinsault,
Return to previous page