WINETASTER ON 10/05/22 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2003 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 Peter Michael Moulin Rouge 2011 ........ 4th place Wine B is Kistler Natalie 2016 tied for 7th place Wine C is Occidental Elizabeth 2012 ........ 6th place Wine D is Kistler Laguna Ridge 2017 tied for 7th place Wine E is Kistler Laguna Ridge 2018 ........ 5th place Wine F is Occidental Elizabeth 2015 ........ 1st place Wine G is Kistler Laguna Ridge 2019 ........ 2nd place Wine H is Peter Michael Ma Danseuse 2016 ........ 3rd place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H Alan 7. 6. 5. 8. 2. 1. 4. 3. Ed 4. 8. 6. 7. 5. 1. 2. 3. Mike 2. 8. 6. 4. 5. 1. 3. 7. Bob 4. 5. 8. 7. 6. 3. 2. 1. Burt 3. 8. 1. 2. 6. 4. 7. 5. Zaki 7. 3. 4. 6. 8. 1. 2. 5. Dick 2. 1. 6. 4. 3. 5. 8. 7. Orley 5. 7. 6. 8. 1. 4. 3. 2.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 4 7 6 7 5 1 2 3 Votes Against -> 34 46 42 46 36 20 31 33
( 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 = 0.1972
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.1368. 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 0.9701 Orley 0.5714 Alan 0.5389 Bob 0.5270 Mike 0.3810 Zaki -0.0359 Burt -0.4524 Dick -0.5952
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 F is Occidental Elizabeth 2015 --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine G is Kistler Laguna Ridge 2019 3. ........ 3rd place Wine H is Peter Michael Ma Danseuse 2016 4. ........ 4th place Wine A is Peter Michael Moulin Rouge 2011 5. ........ 5th place Wine E is Kistler Laguna Ridge 2018 6. ........ 6th place Wine C is Occidental Elizabeth 2012 7. tied for 7th place Wine B is Kistler Natalie 2016 8. tied for 7th place Wine D is Kistler Laguna Ridge 2017 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 11.0417. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.1368 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 Alan Ed Mike Alan 1.000 0.667 0.143 Ed 0.667 1.000 0.643 Mike 0.143 0.643 1.000 Bob 0.429 0.738 0.190 Burt -0.310 -0.071 0.286 Zaki 0.310 0.381 0.143 Dick -0.381 -0.595 -0.119 Orley 0.786 0.643 0.095 Bob Burt Zaki Alan 0.429 -0.310 0.310 Ed 0.738 -0.071 0.381 Mike 0.190 0.286 0.143 Bob 1.000 -0.500 0.357 Burt -0.500 1.000 -0.238 Zaki 0.357 -0.238 1.000 Dick -0.405 -0.119 -0.405 Orley 0.548 -0.381 -0.143 Dick Orley Alan -0.381 0.786 Ed -0.595 0.643 Mike -0.119 0.095 Bob -0.405 0.548 Burt -0.119 -0.381 Zaki -0.405 -0.143 Dick 1.000 -0.381 Orley -0.381 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.786 Alan and Orley Significantly positive 0.738 Ed and Bob Significantly positive 0.667 Alan and Ed Significantly positive 0.643 Ed and Orley Not significant 0.643 Ed and Mike Not significant 0.548 Bob and Orley Not significant 0.429 Alan and Bob Not significant 0.381 Ed and Zaki Not significant 0.357 Bob and Zaki Not significant 0.310 Alan and Zaki Not significant 0.286 Mike and Burt Not significant 0.190 Mike and Bob Not significant 0.143 Alan and Mike Not significant 0.143 Mike and Zaki Not significant 0.095 Mike and Orley Not significant -0.071 Ed and Burt Not significant -0.119 Burt and Dick Not significant -0.119 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.143 Zaki and Orley Not significant -0.238 Burt and Zaki Not significant -0.310 Alan and Burt Not significant -0.381 Dick and Orley Not significant -0.381 Burt and Orley Not significant -0.381 Alan and Dick Not significant -0.405 Bob and Dick Not significant -0.405 Zaki and Dick Not significant -0.500 Bob and Burt Not significant -0.595 Ed and Dick Not significant
COMMENT: This will be added later.
Return to previous page