Subject:
|
Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 7 Jul 1999 01:39:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1066 times
|
| |
|
|
A far easier numbering system would be to use segments, ie an ID could be
made up of subparts that could be used for future Lugnet marketing purposes,
give aways and localised promotions.
For instance the segments could include: Country of Origin, Location, Theme
of interest, Secondary Theme of interest, Salary Range (in US Dollars),
number of LEGO pieces in collection, Unique identifier
Assuming that each segment comprises of 7 digits then for say Rich Kidd who
lives in East Dakota, US, is interested in Znap and Paradisa, has a salary
in the $50, 000 to $75,000 range, has 3,405 LEGO pieces and is allocated a
unique id of 6344256 his number would be
5426722-1236543-9386574-6218900-1190876-6344256
This is by far a much more efficient, managable, and easier to understand
numbering system than any other to date.
Sanjay
(TIC of course)
Todd Lehman wrote in message ...
> No, that's right. If people get the number they want, that's really great.
> But if they don't, I don't really care (much). But I *do* care (a lot) • that
> people be given the choice to -avoid- certain numbers that they don't want.
> That is, I would never stick someone with 13 or 1313 or 666 if they didn't
> want it. (And gosh, who knows, someone might even be too embarrassed to
> get 69 or 99.) So that's really the gist and motivation behind making the
> numberings non-100%-system-assigned. Definitely don't need this to turn
> into a big fight for status-hood. Opening up the lowest 10000 numbers at
> first (rather than the lower 100) is probably a good way to combat that --
> because it's going to take a *long* time to fill up 10000 slots, and • there's
> no way that someone with the number 7 can claim they were here before • someone
> with the number 6075.
>
> --Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| (...) Thanks for your MasterCard # Sanjay! :D (...) You mean some sort of unique integer based on the attributes of someone's profile? I could see that, but having considered this idea in my only real job- related database project of music involving (...) (26 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| (...) No, that's right. If people get the number they want, that's really great. But if they don't, I don't really care (much). But I *do* care (a lot) that people be given the choice to -avoid- certain numbers that they don't want. That is, I would (...) (26 years ago, 7-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
112 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
