WINETASTER ON 01/03/17 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2003 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
A Tasting of Pinot Noir Wines
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 8 Number of Wines = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Gary Farrell 2014 tied for 5th place Wine B is Kistler Catherine 2009 ........ 2nd place Wine C is Ponzi 2010 ........ 1st place Wine D is Corton Latour 2008 tied for 7th place Wine E is Papietro Perry 2004 ........ 3rd place Wine F is Roserock Drouhin 2014 tied for 7th place Wine G is Peter Michael Ma Danseuse 2010 ........ 4th place Wine H is Drouhin Dundee Hills 2014 tied for 5th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Ed 6. 5. 4. 8. 7. 1. 3. 2. Zaki 1. 4. 3. 5. 6. 8. 7. 2. Lori 8. 6. 1. 5. 3. 4. 2. 7. Burt 8. 1. 5. 2. 3. 7. 6. 4. Alan 5. 3. 4. 8. 1. 7. 2. 6. Bob 4. 1. 3. 7. 6. 8. 2. 5. Mike 3. 8. 6. 4. 1. 2. 5. 7. Dick 4. 1. 2. 5. 3. 7. 8. 6.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 5 2 1 7 3 7 4 5 Votes Against -> 39 29 28 44 30 44 35 39
( 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 = 0.1101
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.5204. 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 Price Alan 0.6946 0.0476 Bob 0.5238 0.3095 Dick 0.3473 0.7381 Burt 0.1190 0.0476 Lori 0.0000 -0.2381 Zaki -0.2755 0.4524 Ed -0.4910 -0.5714 Mike -0.5238 -0.0238
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 Ponzi 2010 2. ........ 2nd place Wine B is Kistler Catherine 2009 3. ........ 3rd place Wine E is Papietro Perry 2004 4. ........ 4th place Wine G is Peter Michael Ma Danseuse 2010 5. tied for 5th place Wine H is Drouhin Dundee Hills 2014 6. tied for 5th place Wine A is Gary Farrell 2014 7. tied for 7th place Wine F is Roserock Drouhin 2014 8. tied for 7th place Wine D is Corton Latour 2008 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 6.1667. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.5204
We now test whether the group ranking of wines is correlated with the prices of the wines. The rank correlation between them is 0.3012. At the 10% level of significance this would have to exceed the critical value of 0.5240 to be significant.
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 Ed Zaki Lori Ed 1.000 -0.214 0.119 Zaki -0.214 1.000 -0.571 Lori 0.119 -0.571 1.000 Burt -0.452 -0.024 0.000 Alan -0.119 -0.119 0.405 Bob 0.024 0.333 0.071 Mike -0.238 -0.429 0.143 Dick -0.500 0.452 -0.048 Burt Alan Bob Ed -0.452 -0.119 0.024 Zaki -0.024 -0.119 0.333 Lori 0.000 0.405 0.071 Burt 1.000 0.119 0.143 Alan 0.119 1.000 0.595 Bob 0.143 0.595 1.000 Mike -0.405 0.000 -0.690 Dick 0.500 0.310 0.381 Mike Dick Ed -0.238 -0.500 Zaki -0.429 0.452 Lori 0.143 -0.048 Burt -0.405 0.500 Alan 0.000 0.310 Bob -0.690 0.381 Mike 1.000 -0.262 Dick -0.262 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.595 Alan and Bob Not significant 0.500 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.452 Zaki and Dick Not significant 0.405 Lori and Alan Not significant 0.381 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.333 Zaki and Bob Not significant 0.310 Alan and Dick Not significant 0.143 Lori and Mike Not significant 0.143 Burt and Bob Not significant 0.119 Ed and Lori Not significant 0.119 Burt and Alan Not significant 0.071 Lori and Bob Not significant 0.024 Ed and Bob Not significant 0.000 Lori and Burt Not significant 0.000 Alan and Mike Not significant -0.024 Zaki and Burt Not significant -0.048 Lori and Dick Not significant -0.119 Ed and Alan Not significant -0.119 Zaki and Alan Not significant -0.214 Ed and Zaki Not significant -0.238 Ed and Mike Not significant -0.262 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.405 Burt and Mike Not significant -0.429 Zaki and Mike Not significant -0.452 Ed and Burt Not significant -0.500 Ed and Dick Not significant -0.571 Zaki and Lori Not significant -0.690 Bob and Mike Significantly negative
COMMENT: The wines were all very delicious and were very difficult to separate which largely depended on individual preference. The wide range of vintage dates and geography proved challenging. The older vintages did well except for ome wine and the first place went to the Ponzi. The most expensive wine in the group, Peter Michael, scored fourth. The only Grand Cru from Burgundy tied for last place.
Return to previous page