Mailbag: Website Priorities Are Wrong

Hello,I have written previously without the courtesy of a reply. I shall try again.

Is colateral form going to be included in this new format? That feature was  Sporting Post’s USP and I find it amazing that you have chosen to exclude it thus far without a reason or explanation.

The question will be, does Computaform now afford a better study of form or not.

Whilst the articles are commendable in their limited appeal, surely the race card, form and issues directly concerning the forthcoming meeting are of prime concern to the average reader/punter.

I have been involved in racing for 30 years and owned a fair number of horses. I know the punter has a very limited interest in bloodlines, history and owner and trainer banter. Even the students of form have a limited interest in breeding and bloodline. I am not suggesting these aspects are done away with but I would think there should be  a structure of priorities.

The new format is an improvement generally but its too busy, complicated and, obviously still experiencing  problems. When these are sorted, I trust the colateral Form will return??

Tony de Villiers – via email

Have Your Say - *Please Use Your Name & Surname

Comments Policy
The Sporting Post encourages readers to comment in the spirit of enlightening the topic being discussed, to add opinions or correct errors. All posts are accepted on the condition that the Sporting Post can at any time alter, correct or remove comments, either partially or entirely.

All posters are required to post under their actual name and surname – no anonymous posts or use of pseudonyms will be accepted. You can adjust your display name on your account page or to send corrections privately to the EditorThe Sporting Post will not publish comments submitted anonymously or under pseudonyms.

Please note that the views that are published are not necessarily those of the Sporting Post.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments



Popular Posts