WINETASTER ON 11/06/17 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 6 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2017 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 8 Number of Wines = 6
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Ch. Margaux ........ 5th place Wine B is Ch. Clinet ........ 1st place Wine C is Ch. Lynch Bages ........ 6th place Wine D is Ch. Mouton Rothschild ........ 2nd place Wine E is Ch. Lafite Rothschild tied for 3rd place Wine F is Ch. La Mission Haut Brion tied for 3rd place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F Alexa 4. 1. 5. 3. 6. 2. Mike-H 6. 2. 1. 3. 4. 5. Bob 6. 4. 3. 2. 1. 5. Jerry 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 2. Mike-D 2. 1. 3. 4. 6. 5. Ed 6. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. Angus 1. 2. 6. 3. 5. 4. Dick 4. 6. 5. 3. 2. 1.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F
Group Ranking -> 5 1 6 2 3 3 Votes Against -> 32 24 33 25 27 27
( 8 is the best possible, 48 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 = 0.0607
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.7872. 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 Ed 0.4928 Alexa -0.0580 Angus -0.0911 Mike-H -0.0911 Dick -0.1160 Bob -0.2319 Jerry -0.3714 Mike-D -0.7062
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 Ch. Clinet 2. ........ 2nd place Wine D is Ch. Mouton Rothschild 3. tied for 3rd place Wine F is Ch. La Mission Haut Brion 4. tied for 3rd place Wine E is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 5. ........ 5th place Wine A is Ch. Margaux 6. ........ 6th place Wine C is Ch. Lynch Bages We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 2.4286. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.7872 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-H Bob Alexa 1.000 0.029 -0.486 Mike-H 0.029 1.000 0.486 Bob -0.486 0.486 1.000 Jerry -0.257 -0.600 -0.086 Mike-D 0.486 0.257 -0.543 Ed 0.029 0.086 0.714 Angus 0.543 -0.486 -0.600 Dick -0.200 -0.600 0.143 Jerry Mike-D Ed Alexa -0.257 0.486 0.029 Mike-H -0.600 0.257 0.086 Bob -0.086 -0.543 0.714 Jerry 1.000 -0.486 -0.029 Mike-D -0.486 1.000 -0.657 Ed -0.029 -0.657 1.000 Angus -0.086 0.600 -0.257 Dick 0.543 -0.886 0.543 Angus Dick Alexa 0.543 -0.200 Mike-H -0.486 -0.600 Bob -0.600 0.143 Jerry -0.086 0.543 Mike-D 0.600 -0.886 Ed -0.257 0.543 Angus 1.000 -0.257 Dick -0.257 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.714 Bob and Ed Not significant 0.600 Mike-D and Angus Not significant 0.543 Jerry and Dick Not significant 0.543 Ed and Dick Not significant 0.543 Alexa and Angus Not significant 0.486 Mike-H and Bob Not significant 0.486 Alexa and Mike-D Not significant 0.257 Mike-H and Mike-D Not significant 0.143 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.086 Mike-H and Ed Not significant 0.029 Alexa and Ed Not significant 0.029 Alexa and Mike-H Not significant -0.029 Jerry and Ed Not significant -0.086 Jerry and Angus Not significant -0.086 Bob and Jerry Not significant -0.200 Alexa and Dick Not significant -0.257 Angus and Dick Not significant -0.257 Ed and Angus Not significant -0.257 Alexa and Jerry Not significant -0.486 Jerry and Mike-D Not significant -0.486 Alexa and Bob Not significant -0.486 Mike-H and Angus Not significant -0.543 Bob and Mike-D Not significant -0.600 Bob and Angus Not significant -0.600 Mike-H and Jerry Not significant -0.600 Mike-H and Dick Not significant -0.657 Mike-D and Ed Not significant -0.886 Mike-D and Dick Significantly negative
COMMENT: The 1995 vintage was deemed a good but not great viuntage. The left bank was slightly better. At 22 years of age these wines are all approachable a and should be at their peak for drinking, but one member of the group did not think that they were as good as they should have been. One taster thought that they were austere and several others seemed to concur. There were very little differences among the wines, which is a reason why we could not tell them apart.There was a debate in the group whether there would have been more distinctiveness if they had been decanted earlier.
Return to previous page