WINETASTER ON 05/06/02 WITH 7 JUDGES AND 8 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2002 Richard E. Quandt
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 7 Number of Wines = 8
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1961 ........ 5th place Wine B is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1982 tied for 3rd place Wine C is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1975 ........ 6th place Wine D is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1966 tied for 3rd place Wine E is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1959 ........ 1st place Wine F is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1945 ........ 2nd place Wine G is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1970 ........ 7th place Wine H is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1947 ........ 8th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G H John 1. 4. 2. 6. 3. 7. 5. 8. Tom 2. 1. 3. 4. 7. 5. 6. 8. Orley 5. 4. 7. 3. 2. 1. 8. 6. Bob 2. 7. 8. 4. 3. 1. 5. 6. Grant 6. 5. 3. 4. 1. 2. 7. 8. Dick 6. 3. 8. 4. 2. 1. 5. 7. Burt 6. 2. 3. 1. 5. 7. 4. 8.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G H
Group Ranking -> 5 3 6 3 1 2 7 8 Votes Against -> 28 26 34 26 23 24 40 51
( 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 = 0.3207
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0279. 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 0.7319 Dick 0.5302 Grant 0.4947 Bob 0.1198 Tom 0.1190 John -0.0120 Burt -0.0952
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 E is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1959 2. ........ 2nd place Wine F is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1945 3. tied for 3rd place Wine D is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1966 4. tied for 3rd place Wine B is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1982 5. ........ 5th place Wine A is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1961 6. ........ 6th place Wine C is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1975 7. ........ 7th place Wine G is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1970 --------------------------------------------------- 8. ........ 8th place Wine H is Ch. Lafite Rothschild 1947 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 15.7143. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0279 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 John Tom Orley John 1.000 0.571 -0.190 Tom 0.571 1.000 0.000 Orley -0.190 0.000 1.000 Bob -0.071 -0.167 0.643 Grant 0.238 0.071 0.690 Dick -0.238 -0.048 0.833 Burt 0.286 0.548 -0.071 Bob Grant Dick John -0.071 0.238 -0.238 Tom -0.167 0.071 -0.048 Orley 0.643 0.690 0.833 Bob 1.000 0.310 0.595 Grant 0.310 1.000 0.571 Dick 0.595 0.571 1.000 Burt -0.429 0.190 0.024 Burt John 0.286 Tom 0.548 Orley -0.071 Bob -0.429 Grant 0.190 Dick 0.024 Burt 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.833 Orley and Dick Significantly positive 0.690 Orley and Grant Significantly positive 0.643 Orley and Bob Not significant 0.595 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.571 John and Tom Not significant 0.571 Grant and Dick Not significant 0.548 Tom and Burt Not significant 0.310 Bob and Grant Not significant 0.286 John and Burt Not significant 0.238 John and Grant Not significant 0.190 Grant and Burt Not significant 0.071 Tom and Grant Not significant 0.024 Dick and Burt Not significant 0.000 Tom and Orley Not significant -0.048 Tom and Dick Not significant -0.071 John and Bob Not significant -0.071 Orley and Burt Not significant -0.167 Tom and Bob Not significant -0.190 John and Orley Not significant -0.238 John and Dick Not significant -0.429 Bob and Burt Not significant
COMMENT: This was an unbelievably wonderful tasting. Not a single oxidized bottle, and some of the wines were of the same age as some of the drinkers. In general, the wines were of extraordinarily high quality. The wines were thought to be all good but nevertheless noticeably different, and in particular, the 1975 was too acidic. The 1945 was in gorgeous condition but was edged out by the 1959, also in terrific condition. Unlike what some ill-informed critics will say, the 1966 was in terrific condition and one of the top wines of the tasting---and is far and away the least expensive wine served. Unlike some wines, these wines are quite different from one another year by year. The wines reflect the vintages quite accurately. The vintages differ in terms of bouquet, acidity, fruit and tannin. We note as a general conclusion that these wines should not be drunk too young.
Return to previous page