IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jwecon/v12y2017i02p203-210_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Different Ranking Methods in Wine Tasting

Author

Listed:
  • Cao, Jing
  • Stokes, Lynne

Abstract

In this paper, we compare three ranking methods in wine tasting in terms of their respective accuracy levels. The first two are the original-score average and rank average, which are conventional methods in practice. The third is a relatively new ranking method called Shapley ranking. It is a game-theory-based ranking method, whereby judges are required not to rank order or score all the wines but only to choose a subset that they find meritorious. A simulation study is designed, wherein the data-generating scheme mimics how the real wine-tasting data are produced. We also consider two criteria in the comparison: the squared-error loss, which is a suitable measure when accurate ranking of all wines is of interest; and the percentile loss, which only considers whether the wines are correctly put in a certain subset. The main conclusion from our study is that the ranking based on score average is generally more accurate than that based on rank average. Shapley ranking, with the consideration that it puts less burden on judges in wine tasting, may outperform the other methods in certain conditions. (JEL Classifications: C11, C15, D72, D81)

Suggested Citation

  • Cao, Jing & Stokes, Lynne, 2017. "Comparison of Different Ranking Methods in Wine Tasting," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 203-210, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jwecon:v:12:y:2017:i:02:p:203-210_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1931436117000220/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C11 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Bayesian Analysis: General
    • C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods: General
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jwecon:v:12:y:2017:i:02:p:203-210_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jwe .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.