WINETASTER ON 05/01/06 WITH 7 JUDGES AND 7 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2006 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 7 Number of Wines = 7
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Giusto dei Notri 1997 ........ 6th place Wine B is Giusto dei Notri 2002 tied for 3rd place Wine C is Giusto dei Notri 1996 ........ 5th place Wine D is Giusto dei Notri 2001 ........ 7th place Wine E is Giusto dei Notri 1999 ........ 1st place Wine F is Giusto dei Notri 2000 ........ 2nd place Wine G is Giusto dei Notri 1998 tied for 3rd place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G Burt 3. 5. 4. 7. 1. 6. 2. John 7. 6. 1. 5. 2. 3. 4. Ed 6. 3. 7. 2. 4. 1. 5. Frank 2. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Bob 4. 6. 5. 7. 1. 2. 3. Mike 7. 1. 5. 4. 3. 2. 6. Dick 4. 7. 5. 6. 3. 1. 2.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G
Group Ranking -> 6 3 5 7 1 2 3 Votes Against -> 33 29 30 35 19 21 29
( 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 = 0.1531
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is rather large, 0.3769. 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 0.5714 Dick 0.3243 John 0.2143 Mike 0.0714 Burt 0.0000 Ed 0.0000 Frank -0.6487
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 Giusto dei Notri 1999 2. ........ 2nd place Wine F is Giusto dei Notri 2000 3. tied for 3rd place Wine G is Giusto dei Notri 1998 4. tied for 3rd place Wine B is Giusto dei Notri 2002 5. ........ 5th place Wine C is Giusto dei Notri 1996 6. ........ 6th place Wine A is Giusto dei Notri 1997 7. ........ 7th place Wine D is Giusto dei Notri 2001 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 6.4286. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.3769 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 Ed Burt 1.000 0.214 -0.607 John 0.214 1.000 -0.143 Ed -0.607 -0.143 1.000 Frank -0.214 -0.464 -0.250 Bob 0.643 0.429 0.000 Mike -0.393 0.143 0.714 Dick 0.357 0.357 0.107 Frank Bob Mike Burt -0.214 0.643 -0.393 John -0.464 0.429 0.143 Ed -0.250 0.000 0.714 Frank 1.000 -0.607 0.107 Bob -0.607 1.000 0.000 Mike 0.107 0.000 1.000 Dick -0.821 0.857 -0.179 Dick Burt 0.357 John 0.357 Ed 0.107 Frank -0.821 Bob 0.857 Mike -0.179 Dick 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.857 Bob and Dick Significantly positive 0.714 Ed and Mike Significantly positive 0.643 Burt and Bob Not significant 0.429 John and Bob Not significant 0.357 John and Dick Not significant 0.357 Burt and Dick Not significant 0.214 Burt and John Not significant 0.143 John and Mike Not significant 0.107 Ed and Dick Not significant 0.107 Frank and Mike Not significant 0.000 Ed and Bob Not significant 0.000 Bob and Mike Not significant -0.143 John and Ed Not significant -0.179 Mike and Dick Not significant -0.214 Burt and Frank Not significant -0.250 Ed and Frank Not significant -0.393 Burt and Mike Not significant -0.464 John and Frank Not significant -0.607 Burt and Ed Not significant -0.607 Frank and Bob Not significant -0.821 Frank and Dick Significantly negative
COMMENT: The wines were all extraordinary and that may explain why the group was not able to make significant distinctions among the different wines. Overall the wines were delicious, they were full of fruit, good lusciousness, potentially good food, thanks to the underlying acidity and the only question mark would be their long term aging ability. These wines were a more lush version of Bordeaux employing the same blend of cabernet, merlot and cabernet franc and reminding us of Sophia Loren. The relatively high content of Merlot in these wines is consistent with the fact that they are drinkable very early.
Return to previous page