WINETASTER ON 05/17/22 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 6 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2022 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 Hermitage La Chapelle 1983 tied for 2nd place Wine B is Hermitage La Chapelle 1985 ........ 5th place Wine C is Hermitage La Chapelle 1988 tied for 2nd place Wine D is Hermitage La Chapelle 1989 ........ 1st place Wine E is Hermitage La Chapelle 1995 ........ 6th place Wine F is Hermitage La Chapelle 1998 ........ 4th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F Frank 2. 5. 4. 6. 3. 1. Mike 5. 4. 1. 6. 2. 3. Zaki 3. 6. 2. 1. 4. 5. Ed 5. 4. 2. 3. 1. 6. Burt 1. 4. 5. 3. 6. 2. Bob 4. 1. 3. 2. 5. 6. Orley 2. 4. 3. 1. 6. 5. Dick 3. 4. 5. 1. 6. 2.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F
Group Ranking -> 2 5 2 1 6 4 Votes Against -> 25 32 25 23 33 30
( 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 = 0.0786
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.6780. 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 0.7247 Orley 0.7247 Bob -0.0290 Dick -0.0883 Burt -0.0883 Ed -0.3189 Frank -0.6000 Mike -0.6000
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 Hermitage La Chapelle 1989 2. tied for 2nd place Wine C is Hermitage La Chapelle 1988 3. tied for 2nd place Wine A is Hermitage La Chapelle 1983 4. ........ 4th place Wine F is Hermitage La Chapelle 1998 5. ........ 5th place Wine B is Hermitage La Chapelle 1985 6. ........ 6th place Wine E is Hermitage La Chapelle 1995 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 3.1429. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.6780 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 Frank Mike Zaki Frank 1.000 0.314 -0.371 Mike 0.314 1.000 -0.200 Zaki -0.371 -0.200 1.000 Ed -0.486 0.429 0.371 Burt 0.371 -0.657 0.029 Bob -0.886 -0.371 0.143 Orley -0.486 -0.657 0.714 Dick -0.086 -0.771 0.257 Ed Burt Bob Frank -0.486 0.371 -0.886 Mike 0.429 -0.657 -0.371 Zaki 0.371 0.029 0.143 Ed 1.000 -0.886 0.200 Burt -0.886 1.000 -0.143 Bob 0.200 -0.143 1.000 Orley -0.143 0.486 0.543 Dick -0.657 0.771 0.086 Orley Dick Frank -0.486 -0.086 Mike -0.657 -0.771 Zaki 0.714 0.257 Ed -0.143 -0.657 Burt 0.486 0.771 Bob 0.543 0.086 Orley 1.000 0.600 Dick 0.600 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.771 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.714 Zaki and Orley Not significant 0.600 Orley and Dick Not significant 0.543 Bob and Orley Not significant 0.486 Burt and Orley Not significant 0.429 Mike and Ed Not significant 0.371 Frank and Burt Not significant 0.371 Zaki and Ed Not significant 0.314 Frank and Mike Not significant 0.257 Zaki and Dick Not significant 0.200 Ed and Bob Not significant 0.143 Zaki and Bob Not significant 0.086 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.029 Zaki and Burt Not significant -0.086 Frank and Dick Not significant -0.143 Burt and Bob Not significant -0.143 Ed and Orley Not significant -0.200 Mike and Zaki Not significant -0.371 Frank and Zaki Not significant -0.371 Mike and Bob Not significant -0.486 Frank and Ed Not significant -0.486 Frank and Orley Not significant -0.657 Mike and Orley Not significant -0.657 Mike and Burt Not significant -0.657 Ed and Dick Not significant -0.771 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.886 Ed and Burt Significantly negative -0.886 Frank and Bob Significantly negative
COMMENT: The wines were marvellous, mature and drinking extremely well.We believe that the lack of agreement was more a testament to the great overall qualityof the wines, with the youngest being 24 years old. The tasting was followed by two 100 point wines: the 1990 Hermitage La Chapelle and the 1989 Chave Hermitage. The Chave '89 could well have been part of the earlier tasting, with the caveat that the '89 was a little fresher. The '90 was a league apart. Still with a deep color and soft tannins. A brief vote confirmed that we had a 7/8 preference for the La Chapelle. Both were delicious. The chocolate dessert was a triumph to finish off a great tasting.
Return to previous page