I searched the Wine Spectaor 2008 ratings database and plotted the
distribution for wines in the 80-100 point range. See a small image
of the plot attached.

Please not the kink in the distribution at the 89-90 break. Wondering
how you interpret it.

I had see this in someone else's plot for 12002, but the kink was not
as noticeable.

My conjecture is that the tasters first categorize the wine by tier
and then assign a number with the tier.

Your thoughts please.

On Mar 8, 4:22*pm, Leo Bueno >
wrote:
> I searched the Wine Spectaor 2008 ratings database and plotted the
> distribution for wines in the 80-100 point range. *See a small image
> of the plot attached.
>
> Please not the kink in the distribution at the 89-90 break. *Wondering
> how you interpret it.
>
> I had see this in someone else's plot for 12002, but the kink was not
> as noticeable.
>
> My conjecture is that the tasters first categorize the wine by tier
> and then assign a number with the tier.
>
> Your thoughts please.

There is no image attached when viewed using Google Groups. Either you
forgot the image, or Google discarded it from the post. In the past,
many Usenet groups would support an html post that could include
images, but those who so posted tended to be scolded for so doing so.
You might try posting a url to the image on a webpage. There are
several places that will let you store web pages or images for free if
you do not have your own web site. Many isps now include a limited
amount of space for their clients.

cwdjrxyz wrote:

> There is no image attached when viewed using Google Groups. Either you
> forgot the image, or Google discarded it from the post. In the past,
> many Usenet groups would support an html post that could include
> images, but those who so posted tended to be scolded for so doing so.
> You might try posting a url to the image on a webpage. There are
> several places that will let you store web pages or images for free if
> you do not have your own web site. Many isps now include a limited
> amount of space for their clients.

There was no attachment to the post doenloaded from my NNTP server,
either. Moreover, on viewing the headers, it doesn't appear that the
post ever had an attachment, so either Leo forgot it or his server
silently dropped the attachment, which on the whole is a better outcome
than the entire post being nuked for posting a binary to a texts group.

Mark Lipton


--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net