Subject:
|
Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 7 Jul 1999 02:05:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1045 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Sanjay D'Souza writes:
> 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
Thanks for your MasterCard # Sanjay! :D
> This is by far a much more efficient, managable, and easier to understand
> numbering system than any other to date.
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 info about 23,000+ songs I canned
this idea. The sole reason being that things change where I work, so integers
would have to be routinely reassigned. Todd has already said a number is
permanent once assigned so he won't want that either because we know Rich
Kidd's dad will someday come to his senses and move to NZ, Rich himself
accumulates more pieces, and will wisely decide that space is his new favorite
theme - thus any relevant integer based on those attributes will have to
change.
But suppose that number is based on that and doesn't change once established?
One drawback is that of privacy. What sort of info do I provide to establish
such a number?
Just a thought..
> > 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.)
I personally have a fear of the number 290832420987087268751 ;-)
> > 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.
Is it too early to start staking claims on numbers on an official list either
privately or publicly?
-Tom McD.
when replying, note that the lowest grades of "burger" will contains upwards
of 10% spamcake.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| 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, (...) (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
|
|
|
|
