IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jns/jbstat/v220y2000i3p302-314.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Das Aggregationsproblem bei der Erstellung von Rankings. Einige Anmerkungen am Beispiel der Formel 1 Weltmeisterschaft 1998 / The Problem of Aggregation Arising in the Process of Building Rankings. Some Remarks with the Example of the Formula 1 Championship 1998

Author

Listed:
  • Kladroba Andreas

    (Universität GH Essen, Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Fachgebiet Statistik, Universitätsstraße 12, D-45117 Essen)

Abstract

Especially in the US but also in Europe there has been a vast mass of rankings for the past years. Magazines report about the best universities, the most beautiful golf courses, the most successful lawyers and so on. But in spite of the popularity of rankings there are obvious problems with statistical methods. Especially the aggregation of single rankings to a common ranking seems to be problematic. Aggregation to a common ranking is as difficult as finding a common decision in a group. It is easy to understand that there is no difference between the aggregation of different people’s preferences to a common preference and the aggregation of some single rankings to a common ranking. This paper introduces some well-known methods of aggregation and demonstrates them with a very simple example: the formula 1 championship 1998.

Suggested Citation

  • Kladroba Andreas, 2000. "Das Aggregationsproblem bei der Erstellung von Rankings. Einige Anmerkungen am Beispiel der Formel 1 Weltmeisterschaft 1998 / The Problem of Aggregation Arising in the Process of Building Rankings. So," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 220(3), pages 302-314, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:jns:jbstat:v:220:y:2000:i:3:p:302-314
    DOI: 10.1515/jbnst-2000-0304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jbnst-2000-0304
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jbnst-2000-0304?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1982. "On the Borda-Kendall Consensus Method for Priority Ranking Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 621-637, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rodríguez Alcantud, José Carlos & de Andrés Calle, Rocío & González-Arteaga, Teresa, 2013. "Codifications of complete preorders that are compatible with Mahalanobis disconsensus measures," MPRA Paper 50533, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. González-Arteaga, T. & Alcantud, J.C.R. & de Andrés Calle, R., 2016. "A cardinal dissensus measure based on the Mahalanobis distance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(2), pages 575-585.
    3. Cascón, J.M. & González-Arteaga, T. & de Andrés Calle, R., 2019. "Reaching social consensus family budgets: The Spanish case," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 28-41.
    4. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2008. "The Measurement of Consensus: An Axiomatic Analysis," Working Papers 2008-28, FEDEA.
    5. András Farkas, 2013. "The Depiction of Advertising Industry in Novels and Their Incorporation in Education," Proceedings- 11th International Conference on Mangement, Enterprise and Benchmarking (MEB 2013),, Óbuda University, Keleti Faculty of Business and Management.
    6. Kelin Luo & Yinfeng Xu & Bowen Zhang & Huili Zhang, 2018. "Creating an acceptable consensus ranking for group decision making," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 307-328, July.
    7. Hanna Bury & Dariusz Wagner, 2009. "Group judgement with ties. A position-based approach," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Technology, Institute of Organization and Management, vol. 4, pages 9-26.
    8. Edith Elkind & Piotr Faliszewski & Arkadii Slinko, 2015. "Distance rationalization of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(2), pages 345-377, September.
    9. Cook, Wade D. & Kress, Moshe & Seiford, Lawrence M., 1997. "A general framework for distance-based consensus in ordinal ranking models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 392-397, January.
    10. András Farkas, 2011. "Budapest Bridges Benchmarking," Proceedings- 9th International Conference on Mangement, Enterprise and Benchmarking (MEB 2011),, Óbuda University, Keleti Faculty of Business and Management.
    11. G. Laffond & J. Lainé, 2013. "Unanimity and the Anscombe’s paradox," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 21(3), pages 590-611, October.
    12. Hanna Bury & Dariusz Wagner, 2009. "Group judgment with ties. A position-based approach," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 19(4), pages 7-26.
    13. Jos'e Luis Garc'ia-Lapresta & Miguel Mart'inez-Panero, 2023. "Two characterizations of the dense rank," Papers 2306.17546, arXiv.org.
    14. Yeşilçimen, Ali & Yıldırım, E. Alper, 2019. "An alternative polynomial-sized formulation and an optimization based heuristic for the reviewer assignment problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(2), pages 436-450.
    15. Way C.W. Chang & Po-Young Chu & Cherng G. Ding & Soushan Wu, 2000. "Analyzing Ordinal Data for Group Representation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 47-61, January.
    16. Sun, Bingzhen & Ma, Weimin, 2015. "An approach to consensus measurement of linguistic preference relations in multi-attribute group decision making and application," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 83-92.
    17. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2016. "Do we agree? Measuring the cohesiveness of preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 313-339, February.
    18. I. Contreras, 2012. "Ordered Weighted Disagreement Functions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 345-361, May.
    19. Saaty, Thomas L. & Shang, Jen S., 2007. "Group decision-making: Head-count versus intensity of preference," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 22-37, March.
    20. Angappa Gunasekaran & Rameshwar Dubey & Surya Prakash Singh, 2016. "Flexible Sustainable Supply Chain Network Design: Current Trends, Opportunities and Future," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 17(2), pages 109-112, June.

    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:jns:jbstat:v:220:y:2000:i:3:p:302-314. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.