A few days ago I tried posting a graph of the 2008 Wine Spectator
ratings distribution but the server just didn't take it.

Please take a look at the graph at www.MiamiWine.com. Note the kink
in the distribution at the 90 point mark.

Wondering: 1. Is the kink significant? 2. What does it mean?

Thanks.

Leo wrote on Sat, 14 Mar 2009 07:40:02 -0400:

> Please take a look at the graph at www.MiamiWine.com. Note
> the kink in the distribution at the 90 point mark.

> Wondering: 1. Is the kink significant? 2. What does it mean?

It looks like the ratings might follow a normal distribution tho' they
probably don't publish results of ratings like 10 or so (even as you say
under 79) to avoid being sued or lose advertizing. I'm not sure the dip
is significant since I don't know the statistics, including actual
numbers of wines rated. Does the dip occur in other years?

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Leo Bueno > wrote in
:

>
> A few days ago I tried posting a graph of the 2008 Wine Spectator
> ratings distribution but the server just didn't take it.
>
> Please take a look at the graph at www.MiamiWine.com. Note the kink
> in the distribution at the 90 point mark.
>
> Wondering: 1. Is the kink significant? 2. What does it mean?


Depending on how you see it, you can think that there are less than
expected wines rated 89 points or more than expected wines rated 90 points.

Even a bit of both effects.

The fact could be that, being the rating a subjective measure, a taster
would prefer to rate 90 points a wine that perhaps he is not sure if it
should be 89 or 90, since 90 marks the entrance to the "great wines"
category.

If you have a file with the raw data you could ask someone with an
statistic software to do a K-S test to see if the data follow a normal
distribution pattern. If you do not know anyone, I can do it with SPSS.

Best,

s.

santiago wrote:

> If you have a file with the raw data you could ask someone with an
> statistic software to do a K-S test to see if the data follow a normal
> distribution pattern. If you do not know anyone, I can do it with SPSS.

I get a chuckle every time I read some referring to SPSS. 32 years ago,
I got my first job in college helping to administer an old IBM 360
computer at college. The majority of users were social scientists at a
neighboring college running SPSS (Statistics Package for the Social
Sciences). It is amazing to me that all these long years later,
researchers are still using this software package. Multivariate
analysis hasn't changed much in the intervening years, though, I suppose.

Mark Lipton
(A user instead of BMDP)

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

Hi Mark,

fortunately enough, no need to use it with the command line anymore

ANACOR(TABLE)=VAR1;VAR2;

etc.

Never used BMDP, but did use EQS many times to perfom SEM (Structural
Equations Modelling)

s.

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 10:17:30 -0400, "James Silverton"
> wrote:

> I'm not sure the dip
>is significant since I don't know the statistics, including actual
>numbers of wines rated.

Unless I am misreading the graph, the actual numbers are on the
vertical axis:
88pts ~2,400 wines
89pts ~ 1,500 wines
90pts ~2,000 wines

They are large numbers and I do not need a statistical test to tell me
that these results are extremely unlikely to follow a normal
distribution - or any other smooth distribution for that matter.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

On 15 Mar 2009 01:28:05 +0100, santiago > wrote:

>The fact could be that, being the rating a subjective measure, a taster
>would prefer to rate 90 points a wine that perhaps he is not sure if it
>should be 89 or 90, since 90 marks the entrance to the "great wines"
>category.

I would wager that is the correct explanation.

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:08:27 +0000, Steve Slatcher
> wrote:


>They are large numbers and I do not need a statistical test to tell me
>that these results are extremely unlikely to follow a normal
>distribution - or any other smooth distribution for that matter.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am saying: Yes the kink is significant -
VERY significant.

(Apologies for all the follow-ups to my own posts today - I am far too
used to Web forums these days - where you can go back an edit your own
posts.)

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

Steve wrote on Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:22:39 +0000:

>> They are large numbers and I do not need a statistical test
>> to tell me that these results are extremely unlikely to
>> follow a normal distribution - or any other smooth
>> distribution for that matter.

> For the avoidance of doubt, I am saying: Yes the kink is significant
> - VERY significant.

> (Apologies for all the follow-ups to my own posts today - I am
> far too used to Web forums these days - where you can go back
> an edit your own posts.)

I'd like to have seen the raw data as I mentioned but you confirm that
the dip is probably significant. The other question in my mind remains,
is this a one-off phenomenon and would the previous year's data show the
same thing? Apart from the kink, I think a normal distribution would
describe the published graph apart from the fact that the lower numbers
are not given.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

I posted the Excel data file. Hope you get chance to crunch the
numbers.

Here it is.
http://miamiwine.com/files/42777-390...se_Results.xls

On 15 Mar 2009 01:28:05 +0100, santiago > wrote:

>If you have a file with the raw data you could ask someone with an
>statistic software to do a K-S test to see if the data follow a normal
>distribution pattern. If you do not know anyone, I can do it with SPSS.
>
>Best,
>
>s.

"Steve Slatcher" > wrote in message
...
> On 15 Mar 2009 01:28:05 +0100, santiago > wrote:
>
>>The fact could be that, being the rating a subjective measure, a taster
>>would prefer to rate 90 points a wine that perhaps he is not sure if it
>>should be 89 or 90, since 90 marks the entrance to the "great wines"
>>category.
>
> I would wager that is the correct explanation.
>

But it also points out the flaws in assigning such precise numerical values
to an essentially subjective experience.

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 07:40:02 -0400, Leo Bueno
> wrote:

Also note the reluctance to give 85pts - perhaps because it sounds
like a round number without making the wine much more desirable than
84. Was that noticeable in previous years?

--
Steve Slatcher
http://pobox.com/~steve.slatcher

Leo Bueno > wrote in
:

>
> I posted the Excel data file. Hope you get chance to crunch the
> numbers.

Still had no time to do it. The data need some transforming which I
performed at home with Excel, but I am too lazy to install the VPN-
connection and the SPSS in my laptop at home. And, then, when I arrive at
my office, work abduces me and I forgot. Perhaps tomorrow.

s

On Mar 18, 4:42*pm, santiago > wrote:
> Leo Bueno > wrote :
>
>
>
> > I posted the Excel data file. *Hope you get chance to crunch the
> > numbers.
>
> Still had no time to do it. The data need some transforming which I
> performed at home with Excel, but I am too lazy to install the VPN-
> connection and the SPSS in my laptop at home. And, then, when I arrive at
> my office, work abduces me and I forgot. Perhaps tomorrow.
>
> s

It would be interesting to see if that kink was there in other years.
If you have asked me to plot the score distribution, I'd have been
exactly wrong on this one. My prediction would have been a fairly
normal curve, but with a spike (as opposed to this drop) at 89. I'd
have thought there would be alot of wine that they liked but weren't
sure they wanted to give the bump to the 90. Shows what I know!

DaleW > wrote in
:
>
> It would be interesting to see if that kink was there in other years.

Or if it is the same patterns in other guides or wine writers.

> If you have asked me to plot the score distribution, I'd have been
> exactly wrong on this one. My prediction would have been a fairly
> normal curve, but with a spike (as opposed to this drop) at 89. I'd
> have thought there would be alot of wine that they liked but weren't
> sure they wanted to give the bump to the 90. Shows what I know!

You probably think of tasting for a wine magazine from a consumer point of
view: "Is this really that good?". Pro tasters probably think that a 90
increases the chance of the winery to advertise in the magazine.

Oh, I also forgave to do the test today. Again. Let's see tomorrow.

s.

Finally I had the time to do some basic analysis. You can download a pdf
file he

http://www.flyupload.com/?fid=258178062

I did some transformation to the data because I do not think SPSS can work
with a frequency table so I had to build a 19001 cases table with just one
column.

Just in case the problem was because of the 89-90 strange pattern, I built
another set of data, exchanging the number of cases of 89 and 90.


First page is just some descriptives.

Second page shows that the data do not follow a normal distribution since
the Null Hypothesis is that the variable is normal. However, if we look at
the second data set, in which there is not the indent at 89 (see page 7 for
a histogram), even without the dent at 89, the data does not follow a
normal distribution.

Pages 5 and 9 show a Q-Q graphic, in which a point in the horizontal line
means that the data goes as expected in a normal distribution. If the dot
is above the line, there are more wines rated with a particular score than
expected for a normal distribution.

All the best,

s.

What are you looking for a grading curve? lol
"Leo Bueno" > wrote in message
...
>
> A few days ago I tried posting a graph of the 2008 Wine Spectator
> ratings distribution but the server just didn't take it.
>
> Please take a look at the graph at www.MiamiWine.com. Note the kink
> in the distribution at the 90 point mark.
>
> Wondering: 1. Is the kink significant? 2. What does it mean?
>
> Thanks.