Revolutionizing the Microchip industry!

[msvette2u]

FreePetChipRegistry.com Mission Statement

This is great.
I will be registering our pets but also give new owners instructions on registering here.
We use 24petwatch chips, and got an email last year telling us that there will now be a yearly charge (something new for them) because of all the updates to info people make.

And we are charged for registering non-24petwatch chips already. That irks me something awful - because who's going to call 24petwatch for an AVID chip??

I know many vet clinics who've gone to other companies due to AVID's high cost but also the slowness with which they send back information and get chips actually registered.

If everyone uses this database, it could force companies into lowering or eliminating registration fees altogether!

[Gwenhwyfair]

*sigh* one of my 'pet' peeves for sure this incompatibility/d-base cross referencing snafu with the chips.

I like Petlink's registry, one time fee only of $16.99, it automatically cross references as many d-bases as it can in the U.S. (and Globally) but still, I don't know what the answer is. At least the new chips, for the most part are standardized and readable by more scanners.

Now getting all the d-bases in line is going to be the next battle.

Originally Posted by msvette2u

FreePetChipRegistry.com Mission Statement

This is great.
I will be registering our pets but also give new owners instructions on registering here.
We use 24petwatch chips, and got an email last year telling us that there will now be a yearly charge (something new for them) because of all the updates to info people make.

And we are charged for registering non-24petwatch chips already. That irks me something awful - because who's going to call 24petwatch for an AVID chip??

I know many vet clinics who've gone to other companies due to AVID's high cost but also the slowness with which they send back information and get chips actually registered.

If everyone uses this database, it could force companies into lowering or eliminating registration fees altogether!

[msvette2u]

Originally Posted by Gwenhwyfair

*sigh* one of my 'pet' peeves for sure this incompatibility/d-base cross referencing snafu with the chips.

...what?
Have you used or tried this database?? How do you know it's "incompatible"? They register any chip from any company! It is not a microchip company, that is, one that sells chips themselves so how can it be incompatible??
If someone can read a number (get a scanner, scan the dog and read the number) they can search for the owner here.

[Twyla]

Originally Posted by msvette2u

FreePetChipRegistry.com Mission Statement

This is great.
I will be registering our pets but also give new owners instructions on registering here.
We use 24petwatch chips, and got an email last year telling us that there will now be a yearly charge (something new for them) because of all the updates to info people make.

And we are charged for registering non-24petwatch chips already. That irks me something awful - because who's going to call 24petwatch for an AVID chip??

I know many vet clinics who've gone to other companies due to AVID's high cost but also the slowness with which they send back information and get chips actually registered.

If everyone uses this database, it could force companies into lowering or eliminating registration fees altogether!

Thank you for posting this. I am also going to be sharing it with friends and family.

[Gwenhwyfair]

....it's about how databases work.

I was talking more about the incompatibility of the scanners v microchips.

However, the way you word it below highlights another potential misunderstanding.

Yes, you can register your chip with MANY different databases now-a-days.

There's AAHA Universal Pet Microchip Look Up, PetLink, AKCCAR and many others like the one you linked to below.

What's missing in the translation here is these databases are not interlinked and their structure (tables/fieldnames that house the data on a server) are NOT standardized.

So let's say you scan a dog, get the number, which database are you going to use to look the number up?

Given that the databases are not on the same server, not in the same building, not part of the same company they don't necessarily 'talk' to each other. You have to search each one until you find the database that cross references the number to the owner's information.

They don't link automatically.

It's kind of like if you want to order a certain kind of shirt online. You first search for the company that has the shirt you want, you go to their site on the internet and place your order on their system. You can't place the order for a shirt sold by JCPenny on the Sears site.

Same thing here, you have to search for which company/organization is 'holding' that chip number and when you find them you get the owner information from THEIR site.



I used to be a data admin/data mining/report writer so I have more of an understanding on how databases work (or in this case do not).

Originally Posted by msvette2u

...what?
Have you used or tried this database?? How do you know it's "incompatible"? They register any chip from any company! It is not a microchip company, that is, one that sells chips themselves so how can it be incompatible??
If someone can read a number (get a scanner, scan the dog and read the number) they can search for the owner here.

[stealthq]

Or, someone gets a bright idea and writes an aggregator interface. Bit of a pain in the neck keeping it updated for each of the individual database's interfaces, and figuring a way to make enough money to make development worthwhile might be problematical.

[Gwenhwyfair]

One more thought in general....

I researched them from a technology perspective but from reading on this site I've learned there are many other problems with them.

So....

-We have scanners that don't read all chips
-Databases that are not interlinked for searching the chip numbers
-Chips that migrate and become hard or impossible to scan
-Shelters that don't use the scanners properly
-Shelters that don't even bother to try to scan the dogs

So I'm beginning to wonder why even bother? I used to think well, it's extra insurance but in application in the real world is it even that?

Each to his own, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do or not to do wrt microchipping.

The technology could have been implemented in such a way that it is more reliable but alas, it was not and with the concommitant 'human error' factor built in......it's just worth keeping in mind when plunking down the money for a microchip.

[Gwenhwyfair]

Yeah...not to muck about with free market....

Originally Posted by stealthq

Or, someone gets a bright idea and writes an aggregator interface. Bit of a pain in the neck keeping it updated for each of the individual database's interfaces, and figuring a way to make enough money to make development worthwhile might be problematical.

[msvette2u]

So let's say you scan a dog, get the number, which database are you going to use to look the number up?

Well, as a rescuer and ACO I will call the database associated with that particular chip. So AVID - you call AVID's toll free number, 24petwatch, call their toll free number, etc.
I would not expect that to change.

However...as mentioned, most the time we get the information that the chip was never registered.
And this - I'm hoping - will catch on and people will - or may - at least register it there.

So if I get a dog and it is not registered to the chip co. it's supposed to be (AVID for AVID's database, 24petwatch, etc.) then I'll try this database - you don't even have to call in - just to double check.

I never expected this database to make chips compatible with all scanners and vise-versa.

[Chicagocanine]

Tattoos are even worse as far as databases/registration goes.