WINETASTER ON 09/16/02 WITH 7 JUDGES AND 7 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2002 Richard E. Quandt
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 7 Number of Wines = 7
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Ch. Kirwan 1962 ........ 4th place Wine B is Ch. Cheval Blanc 1962 ........ 1st place Wine C is Ch. Mouton Baron Philippe 1961 ........ 2nd place Wine D is Ch. Rausan Segla 1962 ........ 3rd place Wine E is Ch. Ausone 1962 ........ 6th place Wine F is Ch. Rouget 1962 ........ 7th place Wine G is Ch. Rouget 1961 ........ 5th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G Burt 7. 5. 2. 1. 3. 4. 6. John 3. 2. 4. 6. 5. 7. 1. Frank 6. 1. 2. 4. 5. 3. 7. Scott 6. 1. 2. 3. 5. 4. 7. Orley 3. 2. 1. 4. 7. 6. 5. Ed 2. 1. 4. 5. 7. 6. 3. Dick 5. 2. 1. 6. 3. 7. 4.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G
Group Ranking -> 4 1 2 3 6 7 5 Votes Against -> 32 14 16 29 35 37 33
( 7 is the best possible, 49 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 = 0.3732
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0156. 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 0.6487 Scott 0.5559 Frank 0.5225 Dick 0.4643 Ed 0.2342 John 0.0000 Burt -0.2500
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 B is Ch. Cheval Blanc 1962 2. ........ 2nd place Wine C is Ch. Mouton Baron Philippe 1961 --------------------------------------------------- 3. ........ 3rd place Wine D is Ch. Rausan Segla 1962 4. ........ 4th place Wine A is Ch. Kirwan 1962 5. ........ 5th place Wine G is Ch. Rouget 1961 6. ........ 6th place Wine E is Ch. Ausone 1962 --------------------------------------------------- 7. ........ 7th place Wine F is Ch. Rouget 1962 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 15.6735. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0156 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 Burt John Frank Burt 1.000 -0.643 0.429 John -0.643 1.000 -0.250 Frank 0.429 -0.250 1.000 Scott 0.536 -0.214 0.964 Orley 0.000 0.393 0.500 Ed -0.607 0.786 0.107 Dick 0.071 0.536 0.357 Scott Orley Ed Burt 0.536 0.000 -0.607 John -0.214 0.393 0.786 Frank 0.964 0.500 0.107 Scott 1.000 0.571 0.143 Orley 0.571 1.000 0.714 Ed 0.143 0.714 1.000 Dick 0.393 0.536 0.321 Dick Burt 0.071 John 0.536 Frank 0.357 Scott 0.393 Orley 0.536 Ed 0.321 Dick 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.964 Frank and Scott Significantly positive 0.786 John and Ed Significantly positive 0.714 Orley and Ed Significantly positive 0.571 Scott and Orley Not significant 0.536 Burt and Scott Not significant 0.536 John and Dick Not significant 0.536 Orley and Dick Not significant 0.500 Frank and Orley Not significant 0.429 Burt and Frank Not significant 0.393 John and Orley Not significant 0.393 Scott and Dick Not significant 0.357 Frank and Dick Not significant 0.321 Ed and Dick Not significant 0.143 Scott and Ed Not significant 0.107 Frank and Ed Not significant 0.071 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.000 Burt and Orley Not significant -0.214 John and Scott Not significant -0.250 John and Frank Not significant -0.607 Burt and Ed Not significant -0.643 Burt and John Not significant
COMMENT: There are two critical pieces of information: 1. the two highest rated wines came from bottles with serious ullage, midshoulder; 2. the wines demonstrate how important it is to have mature old Bordeaux wines in the context of a meal. To elaborate: virtually all of the wines would have been partners at a dinner party. Tasted alone, they are not competitive with modern juicy-fruity high alcohol wines. The wines that were ranked low seemed in poorer condition than the wines that were ranked highly.
Return to previous page