WINETASTER ON 03/05/18 WITH 6 JUDGES AND 6 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2018 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
A Tasting of Châieauneuf du Pape
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 6 Number of Wines = 6
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Domaine du Pegau 2000 ........ 2nd place Wine B is La Bernardine 2000 ........ 5th place Wine C is Les Silex 2000 ........ 3rd place Wine D is Domaine Janasse Chaupin 2005 ........ 6th place Wine E is Domaqin la Barroche 2005 ........ 4th place Wine F is Domain du Père Caboche 2005 ........ 1st place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F Zaki 2. 1. 5. 6. 4. 3. Alexa 1. 5. 3. 4. 6. 2. Bob 3. 6. 1. 5. 4. 2. Ed 2. 4. 5. 6. 3. 1. Mike 4. 5. 3. 6. 2. 1. Dick 6. 5. 4. 1. 3. 2.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F
Group Ranking -> 2 5 3 6 4 1 Votes Against -> 18 26 21 28 22 11
( 6 is the best possible, 36 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 = 0.2921
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.1189. 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 Mike 0.7714 Ed 0.7062 Bob 0.4638 Alexa 0.2571 Zaki -0.0580 Dick -0.2571
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 Domain du Père Caboche 2005 --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine A is Domaine du Pegau 2000 3. ........ 3rd place Wine C is Les Silex 2000 4. ........ 4th place Wine E is Domain la Barroche 2005 5. ........ 5th place Wine B is La Bernardine 2000 --------------------------------------------------- 6. ........ 6th place Wine D is Domaine Janasse Chaupin 2005 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 8.7619. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.1189 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 Zaki Alexa Bob Zaki 1.000 0.143 -0.257 Alexa 0.143 1.000 0.600 Bob -0.257 0.600 1.000 Ed 0.600 0.429 0.314 Mike 0.086 0.143 0.657 Dick -0.714 -0.257 -0.029 Ed Mike Dick Zaki 0.600 0.086 -0.714 Alexa 0.429 0.143 -0.257 Bob 0.314 0.657 -0.029 Ed 1.000 0.714 -0.257 Mike 0.714 1.000 0.086 Dick -0.257 0.086 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.714 Ed and Mike Not significant 0.657 Bob and Mike Not significant 0.600 Alexa and Bob Not significant 0.600 Zaki and Ed Not significant 0.429 Alexa and Ed Not significant 0.314 Bob and Ed Not significant 0.143 Alexa and Mike Not significant 0.143 Zaki and Alexa Not significant 0.086 Zaki and Mike Not significant 0.086 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.029 Bob and Dick Not significant -0.257 Zaki and Bob Not significant -0.257 Alexa and Dick Not significant -0.257 Ed and Dick Not significant -0.714 Zaki and Dick Not significant
COMMENT: Our host upon opening these wines had some trepidatiion about how they would perform in a tasting. As it turns, out with an hour in the glass they opened up and revealed their true character. It was noticeable as remarked by several tasters that the wines has a sweet quality. There was no strong preference between the 2000 and 2005 vintages. These wines are all aging beatifully, The Janasse '05 differfentiated itself from the greoup negatively and this was confirmed in the overrall rating.
Return to previous page