Racing Post new site.

C

Colin Phillips

At the Start
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
13,268
Location
Talbot Green
I thought there was already a thread on this......can't find it!


I wanted to do some research on trainer/jockey/course combinations - it was easily done on the old site but I can't find such stats on the new/improved/upgraded HAH!! site.

Are they hidden away somewhere on there? If so could someone give me some directions, please!
 
Actually if you search for a jockey in the white search box and then click on "Stats", then click the down arrow there's a filter facility including filter by course if you click on the down arrow beside "Display By"
 
Last edited:
Good luck, Colin!


I told them not to renew my membership.

The new site is utterly, utterly awful.

They'll say they thank us for our feedback and will take account of what we're telling them but it looks like nothing more than lip service.
 
Last edited:
Thanks,DG, Ido pay for the basic stuff but it's much more difficult, if not impossible, to do what I want and it was so easy before.

Agree entirely with your thoughts, DO, but I'll keep it going to have the access to the mare information, which isn't for free.

Edit, I've just checked and the dam information is free now.
 
Last edited:
I trialled RI for 6 months (got a deal - £88 for the period) but couldn't work it as easily as i used to with RSB. Also, none of this technical stuff allows me to study the way my old brain likes to do it. I like hard copies. I like making annotations on paper.

The RP site had its uses and I'd have happily kept it going under the old format but as we discussed elsewhere it the new site appears designed by people who know nothing about racing for people only interested in getting a bet on quickly via their mobile phone.
 
I had the Ultimate subscription and cancelled it after Cheltenham. It has gone so far backwards I haven't looked at it since.
 
Who is surprised about these changes? From experience, large companies only value the bottom line...don't actually care for us small fry opinion.
 
If they cared about the bottom line they'd revers the changes treff. Almost everyone I know that subscribes has cancelled.
 
When I visited the site last night a box popped up asking me to rate the new site from 1 (shite, presumably) -10 (o man, this is just awwwsem, like).

I rated it 1 and this prompted the usual follow-up question about how they can improve it. I mentioned the new site had been mentioned on various forums and no-one seemed to have anything positive to say about it. I suggested parceling up the new site and sending it to fvck. (Or polite words to that effect.)
 
Rang up to cancel my Racing Post membership this morning and Amanda wanted a reason - told her that since the update I haven't been able to access the information that I wanted. Amanda was sympathetic and said that they had had a number of subscribers who felt the same way. She advised me that the update was in the process of being updated and that I could have a 50% reduction of the fee for three months by which time the site should be much improved.It seemed rude not to accept her generous offer and in three months time I will be phoning again because I can't see her prediction being accurate........we shall see.
 
Colin Phillips said:
Rang up to cancel my Racing Post membership this morning and Amanda wanted a reason - told her that since the update I haven't been able to access the information that I wanted. Amanda was sympathetic and said that they had had a number of subscribers who felt the same way. She advised me that the update was in the process of being updated and that I could have a 50% reduction of the fee for three months by which time the site should be much improved.It seemed rude not to accept her generous offer and in three months time I will be phoning again because I can't see her prediction being accurate........we shall see.
Click to expand...

Was told much the same 3 months ago, Col - still waiting for the changes.:)
 
Desert Orchid said:
When I visited the site last night a box popped up asking me to rate the new site from 1 (shite, presumably) -10 (o man, this is just awwwsem, like).

I rated it 1 and this prompted the usual follow-up question about how they can improve it. I mentioned the new site had been mentioned on various forums and no-one seemed to have anything positive to say about it. I suggested parceling up the new site and sending it to fvck. (Or polite words to that effect.)
Click to expand...

I got the same pop up except my tolerance wasn't quite so high and I just told them it was ******* horrendous.
 
Of course, the chances of their taking any criticism on board and actually doing anything are pretty slim.

One thing I do detect, maybe, is that one of my initial responses (before the one quoted above) referred to everything being so big. All text and graphics and bookie ads seemed huge [compared with before] and they seem to have reduced them a bit but it's still all a total dog's dinner of a site.
 
They've completely missed the point that what punters need is a site designed to allow them move around the site with ease and take in information quickly.

To get an overview of what's running where on a busy day takes multiple times longer than it should, and forget about trying to scan entries for the next few days, you'd lose far too much time.

The data, analysis and ratings are generally useful but loading the race cards is far too slow and the new layouts make it more difficult to take in and digest information.

I honestly can't imagine anyone involved in designing the site has ever been a follower of racing.
 
Grey said:
I honestly can't imagine anyone involved in designing the site has ever been a follower of racing.
Click to expand...

Yep, I mentioned that to them too.

I happened also to mention in a different communication (to the Weekender) about a year ago that whoever was involved in the editorial content of the paper was limited in their knowledge of what form students want. Their reply? They did a readers' survey before and the content reflected that. So the readers they canvassed - or those who replied to these surveys - are happy to have new OR lists omitted and published in the RP on a Thursday? Within a few weeks they reversed the decision so I presume I wasn't the only one to give the grief about it.
 
Back
Top