home - to The Greyhound-Database
Home  |  Dog-Search  |  Dogs ID  |  Races  |  Race Cards  |  Coursing  |  Tracks  |  Statistic  |  Testmating  |  Kennels  
 
Facebook
Login  |    |  add_race  |  add_coursing  |  add_dog  |  Membership  |  Advertising  |  Ask the Vet    Help  print pedigree      
TV  |  Active-Sires  |  Sire-Pages  |  Which Sire?  |  Classifieds  |  Auctions  |  Photos  |  Videos  |  Library  |  Adoption  |  Forum  |  About_us  |  Site Usage

Welcome to the Greyhound Knowledge Forum

   

The Greyhound-Data Forum has been created to act as a platform for greyhound enthusiasts to share information on this magnificent animal called a greyhound.

Greyhound-Data reserve the right to remove any post that is off topic, advertisements or opinions they consider to be offensive.

Please read the forum usage manual please note:

If you answer then please try to stay on topic. It's absolutely okay to answer in a broader scope but don't hijack posts by switching to something off topic.

In case you see an insulting post: DO NOT REPLY TO IT!
Use the report button to inform the moderators so that we can delete it.

Read more...

All TopicsFor SaleGD-WebsiteBreedingHealthRacingCoursingRetirementBettingTalkLogin to post
Do you have questions about breeding theories?
Or do you need tips on how to rear your pups?

Major flaw in breeding stat's - FASTTRACKS


Steven Martin
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 7517
Dogs 179 / Races 66

11 Sep 2018 06:43


 (3)
 (1)


I just picked up a major flaw in the breeding stats in FASTTRACKS.

For example when you do a litter search between 01/01/2018 & 31/01/2018 ---> EXTERNAL LINK you'll notice the bitch SHELLEY KEEPING returned a "0" litter to FABREGAS. But when you click on the bitch in question and manually go to her litters, it states she had a litter of 4 dogs & 2 bitches ---> EXTERNAL LINK

You'll also notice that there's a lot of "Misses" on that page too but when you click on those bitches & check the litters manually, once again most show a positive result not "0".

I hope GRV are reading & not using these stats for anything major as they're inaccurate & don't show the real picture of what's really happening regarding breeding in Australia.


Hayden Gilders
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 812
Dogs 26 / Races 0

11 Sep 2018 08:05


 (3)
 (0)


grv have a huge disclaimer on all the information on fasttrack and take no responsibilty for any information - not even the pedigree that grv provide

Oddly enough they argue that this disclaimer mitigates or clears their responsibility if data is relied on and loss is incurred,but stewards have no issue with using site content as evidence against participants when investigating rule breaches


Ian Bradshaw
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 237
Dogs 6 / Races 0

11 Sep 2018 10:49


 (6)
 (6)


steven martin wrote:

I just picked up a major flaw in the breeding stats in FASTTRACKS.

For example when you do a litter search between 01/01/2018 & 31/01/2018 ---> EXTERNAL LINK you'll notice the bitch SHELLEY KEEPING returned a "0" litter to FABREGAS. But when you click on the bitch in question and manually go to her litters, it states she had a litter of 4 dogs & 2 bitches ---> EXTERNAL LINK

You'll also notice that there's a lot of "Misses" on that page too but when you click on those bitches & check the litters manually, once again most show a positive result not "0".

I hope GRV are reading & not using these stats for anything major as they're inaccurate & don't show the real picture of what's really happening regarding breeding in Australia.

Steven, obviously there is a major glich with the breeding stats website pages. These things can happen, and GRV may not even aware of the problem.

Instead of raising the issue here, GRV should have been contacted first.

I have always found them to be very approachable.




Steven Martin
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 7517
Dogs 179 / Races 66

11 Sep 2018 12:41


 (2)
 (4)


Ian...I'm pretty levelled headed. This post is not a vendetta against them. The service is great & I'm obviously gratefully.
I've raised the issue here for all that may use this great site, for whatever reason.
I'm sure GRV read G-Data. In fact, I'm 100% sure all State authorities do so I'm pretty sure the error will be corrected & I will get a gold star for bringing it to their attention.

Long live FASTTRACKS ;-)


Bruce Teague
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 1864
Dogs 0 / Races 0

12 Sep 2018 01:39


 (1)
 (1)


Ian,

Stats-wise, when a dog is euthanized at a Vic track, its permanent classification is immediately (and I mean automatically) changed to "Retired".

For that to occur, the program must have been written to filter the import of data (from club to GRV) so as to produce the word "Retired". It cannot be an accident. But it must distort the archives. You also have to wonder how they tot up the number of euthanized dogs correctly. Maybe they don't?

By comparison, individual dog/litter records always correctly show "dcd" where applicable.

A few years back, OzChase contained a programming instruction which caused the printout of a race result to delete each box number - the space was left blank. It has since been changed but the purpose was clearly to deny the reader the means of obtaining full info. This is consistent with other GRNSW measures which stopped readers
obtaining any complete files - ie for further processing at home.

No amount of "approaching" has done any good with either mob.

However, for other purposes Fasttrack is quite good. Not so GRNSW. For example, the standard OzChase formguide - with the last 5 races - takes up three pages when printed and even then uses a small font which is extremely difficult to read in ordinary light while on the go at the track. (Sensibly, GRV puts it all on one page).

Maybe there are "glitches" but most of the issues are deliberately organised. A notable one is both jurisdictions publishing prices which add up to a book of around 130%. I could understand 100% or 112% (Tote) but why 130%?

Some of these guys need to descend from the ivory tower and get their hands dirty at the coalface. They are not helping the customers.


Bruce Teague
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 1864
Dogs 0 / Races 0

12 Sep 2018 06:25


 (1)
 (1)


Ian,

Further, you wrote "Instead of raising the issue here, GRV should have been contacted first. I have always found them to be very approachable".

For both GRV and GRNSW, contacts can be made only with "admin". Having done that, you then cross your fingers that the message goes to the right place and to someone sensible. If you are lucky enough to get a personal reply, you will then know that someone's personal address - and off you go. More often, your inquiry will disappear.

Over many years, I have written to those two states, and Qld as well, on dozens of occasions (technically, I was employed by QGRA as I wrote articles for them until the Chairman sacked me for pointing out that Betfair was here to stay and we should get used to it).

Anyway, in all that time I have had replies only from Stewards, with the exception of CEO Hogan, who replied for a while until I disagreed with him about a matter and he cut me off completely, and from previous GRV CEOs, not the current one. (Actually, Hogan did even worse than that but it is water under the bridge now).

This is poor form for public bodies who are supposed to take a consultative approach.

This contrasts sharply with SA, WA and Tasmania, where you can freely exchange views and we both learn.

Of course, these folk may well get all sorts of oddball messages which warrant being sent to the bin but that is hardly the point. Anyone or their assistant can do that in a flash (I do it every day).

My messages are never oddball, but they or my other writing may well criticise them, with evidence, in which case it still warrants courteous handling. Mostly, it does not get that. The reference I made to euthanased/retired is a case in point. I have written at least twice about that but nothing changes.

In such a climate, you can see why such authorities are always reluctant to let out any information at all - hence the example I quoted about access to meeting files in OzChase.(This is a hangover from the old deFax days). Then GRV has data about trials of the hooped lure, injury rates at various tracks, trials for the finish-on lure, and a survey of public attitudes - all kept secret in the GRV dungeon. To which you can add the recent GRNSW media release about Gosford - it tells you when the track will re-open but says not a word about what they have done. Wenty's alleged "improvements" fall into the same category. In those cases it has nothing to do with me personally; rather the whole industry is being kept in the dark.

So, lucky you Ian, but maybe you are the exception and not the rule.




Ian Bradshaw
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 237
Dogs 6 / Races 0

12 Sep 2018 07:02


 (1)
 (1)


steven martin wrote:

I just picked up a major flaw in the breeding stats in FASTTRACKS.

For example when you do a litter search between 01/01/2018 & 31/01/2018 ---> EXTERNAL LINK you'll notice the bitch SHELLEY KEEPING returned a "0" litter to FABREGAS. But when you click on the bitch in question and manually go to her litters, it states she had a litter of 4 dogs & 2 bitches ---> EXTERNAL LINK

You'll also notice that there's a lot of "Misses" on that page too but when you click on those bitches & check the litters manually, once again most show a positive result not "0".

I hope GRV are reading & not using these stats for anything major as they're inaccurate & don't show the real picture of what's really happening regarding breeding in Australia.

Bruce , Steven,

I have just rang GRV and explained the problem - all the matings and pup numbers, both Victorian and interstate, are correctly shown up to 31/12/17.

From 1/1/18, all the matings, both Victorian and interstate are correct, and the Victorian pup numbers are correct.
However, the interstate pup figures are missing.

I was told the issue would be referred to their IT people.



Steven Martin
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 7517
Dogs 179 / Races 66

12 Sep 2018 10:04


 (1)
 (2)


ian bradshaw wrote:

Bruce , Steven,

I have just rang GRV and explained the problem - all the matings and pup numbers, both Victorian and interstate, are correctly shown up to 31/12/17.

From 1/1/18, all the matings, both Victorian and interstate are correct, and the Victorian pup numbers are correct.
However, the interstate pup figures are missing.

I was told the issue would be referred to their IT people.

Well done Ian. You're the "GO 2" man in that neck of the woods ;-)

I'll check the stat's again in a fortnight. That should give them plenty of time.

Cheers, Steve.



Steven Martin
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 7517
Dogs 179 / Races 66

23 May 2020 01:22


 (0)
 (0)


Just come across this thread I started nearly 2 years and if you read my opening comments, the glitch in FASTTRACKS still exists.

steven martin wrote:

I just picked up a major flaw in the breeding stats in FASTTRACKS.

For example when you do a litter search between 01/01/2018 & 31/01/2018 ---> EXTERNAL LINK you'll notice the bitch SHELLEY KEEPING returned a "0" litter to FABREGAS. But when you click on the bitch in question and manually go to her litters, it states she had a litter of 4 dogs & 2 bitches ---> EXTERNAL LINK

You'll also notice that there's a lot of "Misses" on that page too but when you click on those bitches & check the litters manually, once again most show a positive result not "0".

I hope GRV are reading & not using these stats for anything major as they're inaccurate & don't show the real picture of what's really happening regarding breeding in Australia.





Shayne Stiff
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 100
Dogs 27 / Races 0

23 May 2020 06:09


 (0)
 (0)


steven martin wrote:

Just come across this thread I started nearly 2 years and if you read my opening comments, the glitch in FASTTRACKS still exists.

steven martin wrote:

I just picked up a major flaw in the breeding stats in FASTTRACKS.

For example when you do a litter search between 01/01/2018 & 31/01/2018 ---> EXTERNAL LINK you'll notice the bitch SHELLEY KEEPING returned a "0" litter to FABREGAS. But when you click on the bitch in question and manually go to her litters, it states she had a litter of 4 dogs & 2 bitches ---> EXTERNAL LINK

You'll also notice that there's a lot of "Misses" on that page too but when you click on those bitches & check the litters manually, once again most show a positive result not "0".

I hope GRV are reading & not using these stats for anything major as they're inaccurate & don't show the real picture of what's really happening regarding breeding in Australia.


Glad she didnt
squiggle keeping


David Plumridge
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 374
Dogs 551 / Races 117

23 May 2020 06:12


 (0)
 (0)


Steven, is it that Fasttrack is a Greyhound Racing Victoria system database and this lies the issue with the glitch, as when you do the search for a month it appears to show all the Victorian litters details but with interstate litters it shows sometimes the litters numbers but also there are a lot of zero zeros 0 0



Steven Martin
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 7517
Dogs 179 / Races 66

23 May 2020 07:27


 (0)
 (0)


No David.

If you click on that link I provided 2 years ago (here it is ---> EXTERNAL LINK ) right up the top there's a box which states "Show Victorian Litters Only".....which is blank.

posts 12