Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T09:26:50.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comments on the Judgment of Princeton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2013

Richard E. Quandt
Richard E. Quandt*
Affiliation:
Economics Department, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544-1021. Email: metrics@quandt.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Wine tastings inevitably involve some form of grading or ranking the wines, since the objective of tastings is to determine which wine is best, second best, etc., at least among the tasters on that particular occasion. Much has been written about the care that has to be taken that judges are not influenced by extraneous and irrelevant factors and that they do not influence one another. Ultimately, of course, the views of the judges need to be congealed in a single ranking that expresses the “social preference” among the wines. And therein lies the rub: how to aggregate individual preferences into a social ranking.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Wine Economics , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , November 2012 , pp. 152 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © American Association of Wine Economists 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashenfelter, O. and Storchmann, K. (2012). Editorial: The Judgment of Princeton and other papers. Journal of Wine Economics, 7(2), 139–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balinski, M. and Laraki, R. (2010). Majority Judgment. Measuring Ranking, and Electing. Cambridge, MA and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ginsburgh, V. and Zang, I. (2012). Shapley ranking of wines. Journal of Wine Economics, 7(2), 169–180.Google Scholar