More Fake Horses in Database

[Shergar]

Noticed today Windsharp had a couple of fake foals listed in her progeny.

Windsharp had a 1999 Colt named Altered and a 2000 Filly named Changed. Must have been some great scientific advances in breeding as Alter and Change had different sires than Dessert and Johar!!

Last night I was quite surprised to find out Giants Causeway had a twin sister by the same name. To further compound my astonishment, Roar of the Tiger had a twin brother named Roar of the Tger!

In the first case, is this non-suscribers doing hypomatings, then neglecting to delete it?

Regards, Shergar

[Sam]

In the first case, is this non-suscribers doing hypomatings, then neglecting to delete it?

Most likely.

[Kristie]

My mare Some Kind of Soul had a 2005 foal listed by Turkancer. Funny, she's been in my pasture all year and I haven't seen this phantom foal. Go Figure! LOL Anyways, I deleted it last night.

[austique]

A lot of those I have a feeling given the relative fame of the parents may be virtual horse game participants.

[Kristie]

And I can't for the LIFE of me figure out why or how they picked my girl out of the hat! She's a really nice mare and has given me 2 nice babies, one that's steady picking up checks, but the other's a 2 year old and still not broke let alone racing so she has no stats to speak of.

[Stedfast Farm]

Non subscribers can NOT do a hypo mating. But anyone CAN add a horse. So instead of subscribing they just add the fake or hypo mating.

Solutions: 2 come to mine
1. Only subscribers can add horses or
2. Take the hypo-matings off the subscriptions

Just a theory


Steve

[Sam]

Solutions: 2 come to mine
1. Only subscribers can add horses or
2. Take the hypo-matings off the subscriptions

Both have been suggested.

Solution one would bring the site almost to stagnation as I'm more than willing to bet that most of the horses and statistical information is added by non-subscribers.

Making the hypo-matings free again would make it impossible to make money off the site, IMO because as far as I'm concerned, it's the only thing worth the 'price of admission'. Anything else is so flawed (either because the info is out of date, incorrect or missing all together) that they aren't even worth the time to run them.

I still haven't subbed and don't see myself doing it anytime soon.

[Heidilady]

Any way to set it up so that, if someone tries to add a horse when a horse with the same parents born the same year already exists, it sends up a red flag to moderators? Or does that constitute a mess?

[Sam]

Any way to set it up so that, if someone tries to add a horse when a horse with the same parents born the same year already exists, it sends up a red flag to moderators? Or does that constitute a mess?

Also been suggested and (at least when I bring it up) ignored.

I've also suggested putting in a trap that a horse with the same parents/birth year as something else be blocked from being entered at all.

Ignored, though Lucy did mention that it would make it difficult to put in twins if you did that.

Personally, for the number of twins that DO exist, I'd rather it be blocked and then have to have someone ping Brad or Miles to get an override and add a twin then let people add horses will-nilly without taking the time to check if the horse is already there (which, DUH, the friggin system SHOWS YOU THE HORSE AND ASKS IF IT'S THE ONE YOU ARE TRYING TO ADD and these idiots STILL screw that up. LEARN TO READ, DAMNIT!)

I've also suggested that birth years that haven't even happened yet (IOW, 2007 or farther) be blocked from being entered to curtail some of the phantoms as well. Ignored.

But then, we can't get an answer as to whether or not we can get a 15 character limit on the earnings cell to keep the idiots from putting "as of xx/xx/xxxx" in there so why would I hope to get some of the serious errors fixed.

It's all this little BS that COULD be fixed with a simple code and isn't that keeps me from subbing.

[Shergar]

As Sam said, the hypo mating, along with linebreeding reports, are the reason why I suscribed.

Not so sure if restricting a lot of activities is the answer. Before I was a suscriber I did add a lot of horses, and earnings information on earnings. Ok Sam get out the club and beat me over the head cuz I am guilty in the past of putting in the "as of" earnings. I'm now reformed from that habit.

Permission to add twins sounds pretty good to me, as the occurance of actual twins being named isn't an everyday thing. Seeing the in the future birthdates gets my goat, along with the Hip number babies. Same with the same horse being entered several times with different variations of spelling. I delete those whenever I see them.

I take it as a privilege to be allowed to enter information in this database, and do my level best to make sure information is correct. I'm quite sure all the suscribers feel the same, and as with any good thing, usually a couple of idiots that screw things up.

Someone that knows more than me, and has an interest should look at the GC and FuPeg foals. There is quite a few duplicates. I'm not a big enough follower of either horse to know which one is the fake.

Enough ranting on this subject. Reckon as always, just have to deal with the errors when we see them. (Like the Lynn Brown hostile takeover of all the grey Stallions)

Regards, Shergar




[/b][/i]

[Sam]

Ok Sam get out the club and beat me over the head cuz I am guilty in the past of putting in the "as of" earnings. I'm now reformed from that habit.

It's like top posting and not spellchecking in emails/mailing list/newsgroup posts. So long as you eventually break those bad habits, you're fine

[Stedfast Farm]

Sam wrote:

Solution one would bring the site almost to stagnation as I'm more than willing to bet that most of the horses and statistical information is added by non-subscribers.

Stagnation or reliable data. A subscriber is penalized for trying to use the site for the way in which it was intended. Why would anyone subscribe? If you can get "reliable data" from non-subscribers and add fake horses to do your hypo-matings.

I really find the site valuable and enjoy this forum and don't mind paying for it.

Steve

[Sam]

Stagnation or reliable data. A subscriber is penalized for trying to use the site for the way in which it was intended. Why would anyone subscribe? If you can get "reliable data" from non-subscribers and add fake horses to do your hypo-matings.

I really find the site valuable and enjoy this forum and don't mind paying for it.

I didn't say anything about reliable data, from what I can tell there are some subscribers putting in phantoms as well (which I really don't understand). Only that by limiting data input to subscribers, the amount of data entered would drastically slow down.

As stated, I know how much I dump into the system in any one month. If I have to be a subscriber to do it, that would cease. I pay brisnet $18-$54/month for full stallion progeny reports that I do eventually drop in here. I get the reports for my own use and put them in here because it's easier then having a spreadsheet open for sorting when I'm looking for something and then having this open for the full pedigree -- which means I also find the site valuable -- just not worth paying for in its current incarnation. If it's a choice between $20/month here or $20/month to Brisnet, I'm going to give the money to Brisnet

[JimbleBrimble]

Hi,

I am not an owner/breeder or someone who could/would use this website and its database for professional reasons. I did just yesterday look up pedigrees of many of the candidates for next year's Kentucky Derby (more than 100).

Side note to that - I didn't mind at all the listed earnings "as of 10/18/2005" etc. (in fact they were possibly more helpful than not, as they provide an implication date-of-last-race info for those who aren't privy to better databases)

I like the features of the database, and as a non-subscriber I just don't need any more than what I can get there.

Another side note: I can recall last year directing a nine-year-old girl whom I'd not yet met at the time, to this database, and SHE LOVED IT!!!

The girl was full of excitement when able to tell her father that such-and-such a horse she saw this week was related to Man O'War, etc.

On a number of occasions I have indeed added names to the big database here and I have done so correctly and effectively. I can see that it may help to have some obvious 'traps' in place to catch the erroneous info, but I suspect that most who manipulate progeny data professionally have at least one or two ways to cross-reference and double-check what they might find here on a free website.

If I were a breeder, or a paid professional in that line of work then I could see that it would be cost effective to subscribe to this website.

All in all, though, I have to state my opinion of this being a terrific resource that fits both paid subscribers and the nine-year-old girls whose interests are piqued by the inspiration she can draw from what is free and available to her here.

In my own special way I am trying to give as much to some of those who may use this website as I at times am able to draw from it. That is the best I can do.

[madelyn]

I can't say how many times I have added/updated information here. To lock down the system would be to Punish the Many for the Actions of the Few.

I chose to pay the subscription and am very glad I did because of the additional features and the enhanced pedigree.. but people shouldn't HAVE to. I like being able to update my mares families, as I also used to do before I subscribed.