WINETASTER ON 10/06/20 WITH 5 JUDGES AND 7 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2020 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 5 Number of Wines = 7
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Archaval Ferrer 2013 tied for 2nd place Wine B is Archaval Ferrer 2000 ........ 4th place Wine C is Archaval Ferrer 2005 ........ 1st place Wine D is Archaval Ferrer 2004 tied for 6th place Wine E is Archaval Ferrer 2007 ........ 5th place Wine F is Archaval Ferrer 2009 tied for 6th place Wine G is Archaval Ferrer 2011 tied for 2nd place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G Dick 2. 7. 4. 3. 1. 5. 6. Bob 3. 1. 5. 7. 4. 6. 2. Mike 4. 5. 3. 7. 6. 1. 2. Zaki 5. 4. 2. 6. 3. 7. 1. Burt 4. 2. 3. 1. 6. 5. 7.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G
Group Ranking -> 2 4 1 6 5 6 2 Votes Against -> 18 19 17 24 20 24 18
( 5 is the best possible, 35 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 = 0.0714
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.9061. 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 Zaki 0.1871 Bob 0.0182 Mike -0.3152 Dick -0.6728 Burt -0.7042
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 Archaval Ferrer 2005 2. tied for 2nd place Wine A is Archaval Ferrer 2013 3. tied for 2nd place Wine G is Archaval Ferrer 2011 4. ........ 4th place Wine B is Archaval Ferrer 2000 5. ........ 5th place Wine E is Archaval Ferrer 2007 6. tied for 6th place Wine F is Archaval Ferrer 2009 7. tied for 6th place Wine D is Archaval Ferrer 2004 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 2.1429. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.9061 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 0.79 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 0.71 for significance at the 0.1 level Dick Bob Mike Dick 1.000 -0.429 -0.464 Bob -0.429 1.000 0.107 Mike -0.464 0.107 1.000 Zaki -0.143 0.536 0.107 Burt -0.071 -0.286 -0.536 Zaki Burt Dick -0.143 -0.071 Bob 0.536 -0.286 Mike 0.107 -0.536 Zaki 1.000 -0.429 Burt -0.429 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.536 Bob and Zaki Not significant 0.107 Mike and Zaki Not significant 0.107 Bob and Mike Not significant -0.071 Dick and Burt Not significant -0.143 Dick and Zaki Not significant -0.286 Bob and Burt Not significant -0.429 Dick and Bob Not significant -0.429 Zaki and Burt Not significant -0.464 Dick and Mike Not significant -0.536 Mike and Burt Not significant
COMMENT: The wine group has not had a tasting since March 2, 2020 because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Recently, one3 of our ingenious members figured out how we could continue out tasting while maintaining social distance. One mem- ber (the "host") would decant each of the bottles to be tasted into the requisite number of 100 mL bottles and then physically deliver all these bottles to the other members' doorstep. At the appointed time a zoom session would be initiated among the group members. The present tasting is a vertical tasting of Archaval Ferrarfrom Mendoza, Argentina. The wines were all of high quality and eminently drinkable, with some variation in the degree of spiciness. But on the whole, they were very similar, with no wone standing out as significantly good or bad. we were overjoyed to see out colleagues on zoom and to be, so to speak, back in the groove.
Return to previous page