• @Godort@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    843 months ago

    Top is correct. The number matches to a document that has all the relevant info.

    • @skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      483 months ago

      one small integer is not enough, two small integers are better (lab journal initials/number and sample number, like AC7-295. something like AC7-295A, then AC7-295B and so on if needed. that’s how i do it anyway) this way there’s no possibility of mixup with other people’s samples and samples described in old lab journals

      • @The_v@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        133 months ago

        Some way to identify the person who wrote it is also helpful. Different cultures write numbers differently.

        The French person reads the top one as 1 , 2, 3.

        The American reads it as 7, 2, 3.

          • @The_v@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            123 months ago

            After much debate over copious drinks at the bar, we finally decided to settle the argument with darts.

            0 are all crossed.

            1’s are written as l

            7’s are all crossed.

            And 9’s… Well we got kicked out and it was never settled. How was I supposed to know the nickname Nicky sounds like the French word “Niquer” and somebody (Nicolas) got all bent out of shape over it. “Hey Nicky it’s your turn!” apparently was not well received by a drunk frenchman.

        • @skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          43 months ago

          speaking of, at least it’s using latin alphabet. Good luck making sense of Thai handwriting smudged by acetone especially if you’re not a speaker

    • @Wrufieotnak@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      133 months ago

      Nearly, some identifier who it’s from is also good. Without one? You can’t complain if I throw it away at the end of the week cleaning.

    • @oo1
      link
      English
      53 months ago

      But if they do get jumbled, sorting them back out into different experiments, batches or subjects or time periods might make you prefer some extra info accesible by eye.

      If you’ve got a robot sorter maybe a qr code - but you’d have to be pretty large scale for that to be cheaper than a human.

  • JoYo
    link
    fedilink
    English
    63 months ago

    I was dumb and thought I could outsmart my numbering system so I started doing FIFO for expired specimens.

    dont do this, I am wrong.