Mislabeled races

[Cholly]

Earlier today I brought to the attention of Brisnet they had mislabeled Belmont's 1st, 2nd, and 5th races. These were allowance/optional claiming races, but in Brisnet's header on their pp's they were referring to them as only optional claiming races. Also they had left out the trainer allowance statistics normally included.

Looking at the Equibase results charts, they also referred to them as "optional claiming".

[Tom]

They called it AOC and OC both between entries, charts and PPs.
Did Burger King buy BRIS...have it your way? :rolleyes:

Sad that this is the level of quality the game has in this information age.
I guess it doesn't matter if it is good info , just as long you have something.
Make you really wonder how much else if wrong in their products.

Rocket science.

[BlueChip@DRF]

They called it AOC and OC both between entries, charts and PPs.
Did Burger King buy BRIS...have it your way? :rolleyes:

Sad that this is the level of quality the game has in this information age.
I guess it doesn't matter if it is good info , just as long you have something.
Make you really wonder how much else if wrong in their products.

Rocket science.


Imagine the LP figures are incorrect.....

[therussmeister]

They called it AOC and OC both between entries, charts and PPs.
Did Burger King buy BRIS...have it your way? :rolleyes:

Sad that this is the level of quality the game has in this information age.
I guess it doesn't matter if it is good info , just as long you have something.
Make you really wonder how much else if wrong in their products.

Rocket science.

Is this a BRIS error or an Equibase error?

[Tom]

Is this a BRIS error or an Equibase error?
I'm guessing BRIS - they use the AOC and OC designations for the same race in different reports. I will look at how others called the race, but been busy getting all these danged stakes races 'capped for today ;)

In any event, BRIS sold the product. That is where I draw the line.
Perhaps their employees should spend more time on quality control of their business instead of appearing on radio show playing handicappers. :D

[Cholly]

As it turns out, it was Equibase that initiated a change this week that resulted in data headings for allowance/optional claiming races to be designated “optional claiming”. So when that info gets transmitted from Equibase to Brisnet the designation just flows through causing a similar change in Brisnet’s output.

I also sent an email to Equibase and got a quick response that they are looking into it. Meanwhile, Friday's 6th race at BEL has the same "optional claiming" label.

[cj]

As it turns out, it was Equibase that initiated a change this week that resulted in data headings for allowance/optional claiming races to be designated “optional claiming”. So when that info gets transmitted from Equibase to Brisnet the designation just flows through causing a similar change in Brisnet’s output.

I also sent an email to Equibase and got a quick response that they are looking into it. Meanwhile, Friday's 6th race at BEL has the same "optional claiming" label.

Saw the same thing with our charts. Equibase does a lot of things that just make you shake your head.

[Tom]

I'm some terrible part of the game was fixed by this change.
We should all be thankful someone's nephew is on the job.

Thank God HDW scrubs the EB data for me before I get it into my database.

[Cholly]

Just got an email from a person at Equibase, acknowledging the mistake and promising it would be corrected.

Prompt response and no bullshit--Cholly chalks this one up as a positive customer experience !