Pairwise human judgments are pivotal in guiding large language models (LLMs) to generate outputs that align with human preferences. They are also often used in summarization evaluation, complementing existing automatic metrics. Despite their significance, however, there has been limited research probing these pairwise human judgments. The collective impact and respective weights of factors such as informativeness, coherence, fluency, and factual consistency remain elusive. The impact of hidden factors on the final judgment is also unclear. In this paper, we conduct an in-depth examination of a dataset of pairwise human judgments released by OpenAI. Utilizing the Bradley-Terry-Luce model, we identify key factors that could potentially influence human judgments. Our research uncovers the inherent preferences embedded in human judgments and suggests strategies to boost sample efficiency. Finally, we provide insights on the construction of balanced datasets for human judgment evaluations, a crucial step in shaping the behaviors of future LLMs.