WINETASTER ON 04/06/22 WITH 7 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2003 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65

FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 7 Number of Wines = 8

Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:

Wine A is Alpine 2009 ........ 2nd place Wine B is Alpine 2014 ........ 6th place Wine C is Horseshoe 2010 tied for 3rd place Wine D is Alpine 2008 ........ 1st place Wine E is Horseshoe 2011 ........ 7th place Wine F is Alpine 2007 ........ 8th place Wine G is Horseshoe 2008 tied for 3rd place Wine H is Horseshow 2014 tied for 3rd place

The Judges's Rankings

Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Zaki 2. 7. 1. 3. 8. 5. 6. 4. Mike 4. 7. 6. 1. 3. 8. 5. 2. Bob 3. 1. 4. 5. 7. 8. 6. 2. Ed 7. 4. 8. 2. 6. 5. 1. 3. Burt 3. 5. 1. 4. 6. 8. 2. 7. Angus 1. 6. 2. 5. 4. 8. 7. 3. Dick 5. 3. 6. 4. 8. 2. 1. 7.

Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H

Group Ranking -> 2 6 3 1 7 8 3 3 Votes Against -> 25 33 28 24 42 44 28 28

( 7 is the best possible, 56 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 = 0.1963

The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.2112. 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 Burt 0.3114 Zaki 0.2857 Bob 0.2515 Angus 0.1429 Mike 0.1084 Dick -0.2036 Ed -0.2381

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 Alpine 2008 2. ........ 2nd place Wine A is Alpine 2009 3. tied for 3rd place Wine C is Horseshoe 2010 4. tied for 3rd place Wine H is Horseshow 2014 5. tied for 3rd place Wine G is Horseshoe 2008 6. ........ 6th place Wine B is Alpine 2014 --------------------------------------------------- 7. ........ 7th place Wine E is Horseshoe 2011 8. ........ 8th place Wine F is Alpine 2007 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 9.6190. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.2112 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 Zaki Mike Bob Zaki 1.000 0.143 0.238 Mike 0.143 1.000 0.119 Bob 0.238 0.119 1.000 Ed -0.357 0.310 -0.024 Burt 0.476 0.024 0.190 Angus 0.595 0.429 0.476 Dick -0.119 -0.524 -0.190 Ed Burt Angus Zaki -0.357 0.476 0.595 Mike 0.310 0.024 0.429 Bob -0.024 0.190 0.476 Ed 1.000 -0.143 -0.595 Burt -0.143 1.000 0.381 Angus -0.595 0.381 1.000 Dick 0.500 0.119 -0.738 Dick Zaki -0.119 Mike -0.524 Bob -0.190 Ed 0.500 Burt 0.119 Angus -0.738 Dick 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.595 Zaki and Angus Not significant 0.500 Ed and Dick Not significant 0.476 Zaki and Burt Not significant 0.476 Bob and Angus Not significant 0.429 Mike and Angus Not significant 0.381 Burt and Angus Not significant 0.310 Mike and Ed Not significant 0.238 Zaki and Bob Not significant 0.190 Bob and Burt Not significant 0.143 Zaki and Mike Not significant 0.119 Mike and Bob Not significant 0.119 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.024 Mike and Burt Not significant -0.024 Bob and Ed Not significant -0.119 Zaki and Dick Not significant -0.143 Ed and Burt Not significant -0.190 Bob and Dick Not significant -0.357 Zaki and Ed Not significant -0.524 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.595 Ed and Angus Not significant -0.738 Angus and Dick Significantly negative

COMMENT: A memorable tasting indeed. Wonderful wines and companionship. The tasting was a comparison of two adjacent vineyards that had conmpletely different soils and different elevations. What characterizes these wines is that for California in particular they are low alcohol, ranging between 12.4% and 13.3% with the Horseshoe being at the lower level of the range. The sum of the ranks for the ALPINE and HORSESHOE were identical suggesting that in the aggregate the wines from these two vineyards were equally well liked. The difference between the oldest and youngest vintages was not significant. These wines were noticeably distinguished New World Pinot Noirs. They had great balance and none of the wines showed any meningful aging. With between 8 and 15 years of age, they suggested that they will continue to drink well for another 5+ years at least.

Return to previous page