WINETASTER ON 04/07/21 WITH 7 JUDGES AND 6 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2021 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 7 Number of Wines = 6
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Griotte Chambertin 1997 Chezeaux tied for 2nd place Wine B is Gevrey Chambertin 1995 Groffier ........ 6th place Wine C is Mazis Chambertin 2001 Faivelet ........ 1st place Wine D is Charmes Chambertin 1995 Laurent tied for 2nd place Wine E is Chambertin Clos de Bèze 2000 Drouhin-Laroze ........ 5th place Wine F is Latricières Chambertin 2005 Potel ........ 4th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F Burt 5. 6. 2. 1. 4. 3. Zaki 5. 4. 3. 6. 2. 1. Ed 1. 6. 2. 3. 5. 4. Bob 2. 5. 1. 3. 6. 4. Dick 4. 3. 2. 1. 6. 5. Mike 4. 6. 3. 5. 1. 2. Stephen 1. 6. 2. 3. 5. 4.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F
Group Ranking -> 2 6 1 2 5 4 Votes Against -> 22 36 15 22 29 23
( 7 is the best possible, 42 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 = 0.3003
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0620. 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 Bob 0.7537 Ed 0.6377 Stephen 0.6377 Burt 0.4286 Dick 0.1739 Mike 0.0286 Zaki -0.3143
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 C is Mazis Chambertin 2001 Faivelet --------------------------------------------------- 2. tied for 2nd place Wine A is Griotte Chambertin 1997 Chezeaux 3. tied for 2nd place Wine D is Charmes Chambertin 1995 Laurent 4. ........ 4th place Wine F is Latricières Chambertin 2005 Potel 5. ........ 5th place Wine E is Chambertin Clos de Bèze 2000 Drouh --------------------------------------------------- 6. ........ 6th place Wine B is Gevrey Chambertin 1995 Groffier We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 10.5102. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0620 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 Burt Zaki Ed Burt 1.000 -0.086 0.371 Zaki -0.086 1.000 -0.371 Ed 0.371 -0.371 1.000 Bob 0.429 -0.371 0.886 Dick 0.486 -0.714 0.314 Mike 0.200 0.771 0.029 Stephen 0.371 -0.371 1.000 Bob Dick Mike Burt 0.429 0.486 0.200 Zaki -0.371 -0.714 0.771 Ed 0.886 0.314 0.029 Bob 1.000 0.600 -0.200 Dick 0.600 1.000 -0.714 Mike -0.200 -0.714 1.000 Stephen 0.886 0.314 0.029 Stephen Burt 0.371 Zaki -0.371 Ed 1.000 Bob 0.886 Dick 0.314 Mike 0.029 Stephen 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 1.000 Ed and Stephen Significantly positive 0.886 Ed and Bob Significantly positive 0.886 Bob and Stephen Significantly positive 0.771 Zaki and Mike Not significant 0.600 Bob and Dick Not significant 0.486 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.429 Burt and Bob Not significant 0.371 Burt and Ed Not significant 0.371 Burt and Stephen Not significant 0.314 Ed and Dick Not significant 0.314 Dick and Stephen Not significant 0.200 Burt and Mike Not significant 0.029 Ed and Mike Not significant 0.029 Mike and Stephen Not significant -0.086 Burt and Zaki Not significant -0.200 Bob and Mike Not significant -0.371 Zaki and Ed Not significant -0.371 Zaki and Bob Not significant -0.371 Zaki and Stephen Not significant -0.714 Zaki and Dick Not significant -0.714 Dick and Mike Not significant
COMMENT: The tasting was entitled Chambertin and his cousins and featured six Chambertins of various types and vintages ranging from 1995 to 2005. The wines were absoluitely delicious. Most of the wines have age on them and they are all holding up well. The outlier was the village wine whjich performed poorly.This supports the superiority of the grands crus and they performed as expected. Burgundy has proved once again that it is a rare pleasure to enjoy these wines; terrific wines with some overwhelming bouquets. The correlation among the group was unusually high.
Return to previous page