Greyhound history

[bac998]

Hi all,

Does anyone know if there is decent Greyhound Results history anywhere. I've founs a few sites where you can get past results by selecting a race but I am looking for a history in one page (or spreadsheet) so I don't have to scrape many web pages for the info.

Thanks,
bac998

[thunderfoot]

The only (and best?!) site I've found is http://www.greyhound-data.com/index.htm.

You will need a bit of EXCEL/VB knowledge to set-up a program to automatically download the data into EXCEL using Data/Get External Data
by incremating the numbers of the site addresses like http://www.greyhound-data.com/d?r=2638218 to 2638219 etc. etc.

Used this method to download 2+ years of data (c. 976,000 ACCESS records!!!)

[2020vision]

Hi

link does not work because of the "." at the end.
This one makes it quicker for you - hope you don't mind the correction?

http://www.greyhound-data.com/

Thanks - Michael

[thunderfoot]

link does not work because of the "." at the end.
This one makes it quicker for you - hope you don't mind the correction?

Just feeling dotty at the time.

[dogform]

Be careful if you are using the Greyhound-Data UK race results for analysis or as the basis for a system model. They are not validated and seem to be taken from the thedogs or GBGB web site and can contain quite a few errors.

If its just basic results you need then you should be OK.

Rgds

[Ian]

Dogform, can you suggest anywhere better ? If the data is coming from the governing body's website (GBGB) surely it should be as accurate as it can be.

[dogform]

Ian,

Personally, I have found the Racing Post results to be more accurate. However, that is from an overall perspective considering every data field presented in the results. Some data fields are more prone to errors than others.

I am not sure what the hierarchy is with the greyhound results. Years ago, they used to be compiled by The Press Association and I think that they then sent them to the old BGRB. However, nowadays, I am not sure if there are different sources for the results, ie, the Racing Post from The Press Association and thedogs/GBGB results from their own in house data.

For my own use, I validate the results before using them, this clears up some of the issues that could cause problems in analysis such as impossible sectional times for the race track and race distance etc, etc. There are a number of data fields associated with times and distances that can have spurious data. The fields containing breeding data are also prone to errors. Also, a common error from Belle Vue is the labelling of some hurdle races as flat races

It just depends on what you are using them for as to what validation should be in place. Dont get me wrong, the results are not riddled with errors, however, there are a good number present. If you think that in one calendar month there may be up to 35,000 lines of form each line with perhaps 24 fields then there is plenty of scope for errors.

I hope the above casts a bit of light on the subject.

Rgds
Dog