WINETASTER ON 01/03/05 WITH 11 JUDGES AND 3 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2005 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 11 Number of Wines = 3
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Ch.Pichon Longueville Baron 1997 tied for 1st place Wine B is Ch.Latour 1997 tied for 1st place Wine C is Ch. Longueville Contesse Lalande 1997 tied for 1st place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C Burt 1. 2. 3. Mike 1. 3. 2. John 3. 2. 1. Orley 2. 1. 3. Barbara 3. 2. 1. Claire 3. 1. 2. Amanda 2. 1. 3. Denise 1. 3. 2. Ginna 2. 3. 1. Frank 2. 3. 1. Dick 2. 1. 3.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C
Group Ranking -> 1 1 1 Votes Against -> 22 22 22
(11 is the best possible, 33 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 = 0.0000
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 1.0000. 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 Correlation Price Burt -1.0000 -0.5000 Mike -1.0000 -1.0000 John -1.0000 0.5000 Orley -1.0000 0.5000 Barbara -1.0000 0.5000 Claire -1.0000 1.0000 Amanda -1.0000 0.5000 Denise -1.0000 -1.0000 Ginna -1.0000 -0.5000 Frank -1.0000 -0.5000 Dick -1.0000 0.5000
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. tied for 1st place Wine A is Ch.Pichon Longueville Baron 1997 2. tied for 1st place Wine B is Ch.Latour 1997 3. tied for 1st place Wine C is Ch. Longueville Contesse Lalande 1 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 0.0000. The probability that this could happen by chance is 1.0000
We now test whether the group ranking of wines is correlated with the prices of the wines. The rank correlation between them is 0.0000. At the 10% level of significance this would have to exceed the critical value of 1.0000 to be significant.
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 1.00 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 1.00 for significance at the 0.1 level Burt Mike John Burt 1.000 0.500 -1.000 Mike 0.500 1.000 -0.500 John -1.000 -0.500 1.000 Orley 0.500 -0.500 -0.500 Barbara -1.000 -0.500 1.000 Claire -0.500 -1.000 0.500 Amanda 0.500 -0.500 -0.500 Denise 0.500 1.000 -0.500 Ginna -0.500 0.500 0.500 Frank -0.500 0.500 0.500 Dick 0.500 -0.500 -0.500 Orley Barbara Claire Burt 0.500 -1.000 -0.500 Mike -0.500 -0.500 -1.000 John -0.500 1.000 0.500 Orley 1.000 -0.500 0.500 Barbara -0.500 1.000 0.500 Claire 0.500 0.500 1.000 Amanda 1.000 -0.500 0.500 Denise -0.500 -0.500 -1.000 Ginna -1.000 0.500 -0.500 Frank -1.000 0.500 -0.500 Dick 1.000 -0.500 0.500 Amanda Denise Ginna Burt 0.500 0.500 -0.500 Mike -0.500 1.000 0.500 John -0.500 -0.500 0.500 Orley 1.000 -0.500 -1.000 Barbara -0.500 -0.500 0.500 Claire 0.500 -1.000 -0.500 Amanda 1.000 -0.500 -1.000 Denise -0.500 1.000 0.500 Ginna -1.000 0.500 1.000 Frank -1.000 0.500 1.000 Dick 1.000 -0.500 -1.000 Frank Dick Burt -0.500 0.500 Mike 0.500 -0.500 John 0.500 -0.500 Orley -1.000 1.000 Barbara 0.500 -0.500 Claire -0.500 0.500 Amanda -1.000 1.000 Denise 0.500 -0.500 Ginna 1.000 -1.000 Frank 1.000 -1.000 Dick -1.000 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 1.000 Orley and Dick Significantly positive 1.000 John and Barbara Significantly positive 1.000 Orley and Amanda Significantly positive 1.000 Mike and Denise Significantly positive 1.000 Amanda and Dick Significantly positive 1.000 Ginna and Frank Significantly positive 0.500 Mike and Frank Not significant 0.500 Orley and Claire Not significant 0.500 Burt and Amanda Not significant 0.500 Mike and Ginna Not significant 0.500 Barbara and Ginna Not significant 0.500 Barbara and Frank Not significant 0.500 Burt and Mike Not significant 0.500 Claire and Amanda Not significant 0.500 Barbara and Claire Not significant 0.500 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.500 Burt and Orley Not significant 0.500 Denise and Frank Not significant 0.500 Claire and Dick Not significant 0.500 Denise and Ginna Not significant 0.500 John and Frank Not significant 0.500 Burt and Denise Not significant 0.500 John and Claire Not significant 0.500 John and Ginna Not significant -0.500 John and Orley Not significant -0.500 Mike and Barbara Not significant -0.500 Mike and Amanda Not significant -0.500 Burt and Frank Not significant -0.500 Burt and Ginna Not significant -0.500 Burt and Claire Not significant -0.500 Claire and Frank Not significant -0.500 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.500 Amanda and Denise Not significant -0.500 Orley and Barbara Not significant -0.500 Barbara and Dick Not significant -0.500 Orley and Denise Not significant -0.500 Barbara and Denise Not significant -0.500 Mike and John Not significant -0.500 Mike and Orley Not significant -0.500 John and Dick Not significant -0.500 John and Amanda Not significant -0.500 John and Denise Not significant -0.500 Claire and Ginna Not significant -0.500 Denise and Dick Not significant -0.500 Barbara and Amanda Not significant -1.000 Burt and John Significantly negative -1.000 Claire and Denise Significantly negative -1.000 Mike and Claire Significantly negative -1.000 Amanda and Frank Significantly negative -1.000 Burt and Barbara Significantly negative -1.000 Orley and Ginna Significantly negative -1.000 Orley and Frank Significantly negative -1.000 Amanda and Ginna Significantly negative -1.000 Ginna and Dick Significantly negative -1.000 Frank and Dick Significantly negative
COMMENT: This is the only case on record that we had a total tie of votes against for all the wines. All the wines were excellent, once a corked bottle was removed from the testing and replaced. These wines are incredible values and it is to be noted that one was bought locally. The wines have some bottle aging potential and we will have to retry them several times in the future.
Return to previous page