WINETASTER ON 03/02/20 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2020 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 Marques de Riscal R. 2007 tied for 3rd place Wine B is Baron de Ley G.R. 2004 ........ 1st place Wine C is Rioja Alta G. R. 1998 ........ 7th place Wine D is Bodegas Muga Torre Muga 2001 tied for 3rd place Wine E is Marques de Riscal R. 2007 ........ 8th place Wine F is Rioja Alta G. R. 2001 ........ 6th place Wine G is Rioja Alta Vina Ardanza G. R. 2001 ........ 2nd place Wine H is Marques de Murrieta G. R. 2005 ........ 5th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Glen 2. 3. 8. 6. 4. 7. 5. 1. Bob 5. 1. 3. 2. 4. 6. 7. 8. Orley 5. 6. 7. 1. 8. 3. 2. 4. Zaki 5. 7. 8. 6. 4. 2. 1. 3. Amgus 1. 4. 2. 6. 8. 7. 5. 3. Mike 8. 6. 3. 5. 7. 4. 2. 1. Frank 3. 2. 8. 5. 7. 1. 4. 6. Dick 4. 1. 3. 2. 5. 7. 6. 8.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 3 1 7 3 8 6 2 5 Votes Against -> 33 30 42 33 47 37 32 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 = 0.0863
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.6803. 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 Orley 0.2635 Frank 0.1649 Glen -0.0488 Amgus -0.2275 Mike -0.2994 Dick -0.3735 Zaki -0.3832 Bob -0.5509
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 Baron de Ley G.R. 2004 2. ........ 2nd place Wine G is Rioja Alta Vina Ardanza G. R. 2001 3. tied for 3rd place Wine A is Marques de Riscal R. 2007 4. tied for 3rd place Wine D is Bodegas Muga Torre Muga 2001 5. ........ 5th place Wine H is Marques de Murrieta G. R. 2005 6. ........ 6th place Wine F is Rioja Alta G. R. 2001 7. ........ 7th place Wine C is Rioja Alta G. R. 1998 --------------------------------------------------- 8. ........ 8th place Wine E is Marques de Riscal R. 2007 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 4.8333. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.6803 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 Glen Bob Orley Glen 1.000 -0.286 -0.119 Bob -0.286 1.000 -0.286 Orley -0.119 -0.286 1.000 Zaki 0.167 -0.833 0.452 Amgus 0.310 -0.048 -0.143 Mike -0.167 -0.548 0.381 Frank 0.119 -0.024 0.405 Dick -0.190 0.952 -0.190 Zaki Amgus Mike Glen 0.167 0.310 -0.167 Bob -0.833 -0.048 -0.548 Orley 0.452 -0.143 0.381 Zaki 1.000 -0.405 0.357 Amgus -0.405 1.000 0.071 Mike 0.357 0.071 1.000 Frank 0.310 -0.095 -0.238 Dick -0.833 0.167 -0.524 Frank Dick Glen 0.119 -0.190 Bob -0.024 0.952 Orley 0.405 -0.190 Zaki 0.310 -0.833 Amgus -0.095 0.167 Mike -0.238 -0.524 Frank 1.000 0.000 Dick 0.000 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.952 Bob and Dick Significantly positive 0.452 Orley and Zaki Not significant 0.405 Orley and Frank Not significant 0.381 Orley and Mike Not significant 0.357 Zaki and Mike Not significant 0.310 Zaki and Frank Not significant 0.310 Glen and Amgus Not significant 0.167 Amgus and Dick Not significant 0.167 Glen and Zaki Not significant 0.119 Glen and Frank Not significant 0.071 Amgus and Mike Not significant 0.000 Frank and Dick Not significant -0.024 Bob and Frank Not significant -0.048 Bob and Amgus Not significant -0.095 Amgus and Frank Not significant -0.119 Glen and Orley Not significant -0.143 Orley and Amgus Not significant -0.167 Glen and Mike Not significant -0.190 Glen and Dick Not significant -0.190 Orley and Dick Not significant -0.238 Mike and Frank Not significant -0.286 Bob and Orley Not significant -0.286 Glen and Bob Not significant -0.405 Zaki and Amgus Not significant -0.524 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.548 Bob and Mike Not significant -0.833 Bob and Zaki Significantly negative -0.833 Zaki and Dick Significantly negative
COMMENT: Overall, the tasting proves what fantastic quality and valuethese Rioja w2inbes represent. The group found difficulty separating these wines from each other, although one did stand out as significantly worse than the others. Compared to other similar wines of comparable bottle age, all represent fantastic values. (Price range $35 to $75). All wines are under 14% alcohol. They are well balanced an made. Overall, we found that these wines are relatively attractive because of the low alcohol level combined with aging, which makes them an attractive lternative to Bordeaux.
Return to previous pÛage