Equibase, Equineline and jockey records (take #45).

[FenceBored]

Let's say you want look at Mike Smith's performance over his career. You first visit Equibase where (putting in Smith for jockey's name) you see a Mike E. Smith and a Mike X. Smith. Okay, fine. You want Mike E., no sweat. Next, you decide you want more detail than this, so it's off to Equineline for one or more 'Jockey Summarys with all years.'

Last Name: Smith
First Initial: M

Resulting choices?

1. SMITH L M
2. SMITH M
3. SMITH M C
4. SMITH M.
5. SMITH M.
6. SMITH M.
7. SMITH M.
8. SMITH M.
9. SMITH M. D.
10. SMITH M. J. J.
11. SMITH MADELEINE
12. SMITH MARK
13. SMITH MARTIN
14. SMITH MARTIN
15. SMITH MATTHEW
16. SMITH MIKE E.
17. SMITH MIKE E.
18. SMITH MIKE X.
19. SMITH-LESTER MARK
20. SMITH-LESTER MARK

Okay, you can exclude (1), (3), (9)-(15), and (18)-(20). And the (2) "Smith M " only has 1979 as an active year (before our Mike Smith started riding), therefore it can be thrown out. But, which (if any) of those five "Smith M." entries do you need to include to be sure of getting everything for Hall of Famer Mike Smith, and only him (and match the totals Equibase gives)?

And at $7 a report, how much would you feel like mucking around and trying to figure it out?

Clearly the folks at Equibase have made their decisions to provide the stats on the jockey's page there. And yes, I'm aware of the multiple records on Equibase, especially for female jockeys who've gotten married and/or divorced, but Equibase is still a lot better than the Equineline setup, in this regard.

[Tom]

These are supposed to be the data experts, huh?




Sincerely,

Tom
Tommy
Thomas
Tommy-Boy
Tommy Malice
Tom Thumb
Thom
Tom Tom
Tomez

[Jeff P]

First time a license is issued - persist the following info to a centralized database recognized by ALL jurisdictions:

Info disclosed to the public:

1. License number

2. Name


Info that stays private:

3. Address, date of birth, etc.


From that point forward - THIS is what appears on all Past Performances, Track Programs, and industry websites:

License Number-Name

Examples:
112447-Smith Mike E
013342-Pletcher Todd


The license number stays the same throughout the life of the licensee. Upon name change through marriage, divorce, court decree etc. THIS is what appears on all Past Performances, Track Programs, and industry websites:

License Number-Name

Examples:
112447-Smith Michael E
013342-Pletcher Toddmeister


This is probably #47 on the list of things the industry should have done decades ago. But it's not rocket science. And it absolutely SHOULD have been done decades ago.

How many times can the industry expect its customers to communicate simple basic things that are no brainers? Things that should have been enacted decades ago?

And yet the industry's brain trust keeps turning a deaf ear while insisting on the status quo? And watching handle circle the drain? (While blaming the economy for the downturn?)

Is there anybody out there who has decision making capacity in this industry who is happy with handle trends over the past decade?


-jp

.

[takeout]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

This is probably #47 on the list of things the industry should have done decades ago. But it's not rocket science. And it absolutely SHOULD have been done decades ago.

AMEN!

[rastajenk]

What license number?

[5k-claim]

Jeff,

The jockeys already do have a field for unique I.D. number in the database that is supposed to be the same across all variations in name spellings, and could already start showing it.

Perhaps in the OP they could simply show the I.D. number field along with the text spellings so you could see where the matches are. Or else just give an option to "include all with this I.D. number" when creating the report. To me, this just looks like a little bit too raw/sloppy of a pull from their database, before record merging. They are pulling from the text "jockey name" field instead of by unique I.D. number.

It could just be a simple display issue.

Originally Posted by Jeff P

First time a license is issued - persist the following info to a centralized database recognized by ALL jurisdictions:

Info disclosed to the public:

1. License number

2. Name

And yet the industry's brain trust keeps turning a deaf ear while insisting on the status quo? And watching handle circle the drain? (While blaming the economy for the downturn?)

,