Top is correct. The number matches to a document that has all the relevant info.
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
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.
Don't let propaganda fool you!!!
This is a real seven:
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.
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
Yea but 2 keeps people from throwing it away during clean outs.
If you're not there for the clean out then it's time for them to go anyway.
Haha, I wish.
damn i wish. some samples will have to be archived for years after i'm gone
Could you use masking tape and label the tray?
Allegedly
And people say pointers are hard.
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.
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.
Sample batch two is the correct way to do it with one exception the date mechanism. YYYY.MM.DD is the correct format that should always be used in any naming convention.
The best setup I've ever seen was: YYYY.MM.DD - LTxx example 2014.07.15 - 1804 LT was the lab tech # and xx was the sample # associated with the lab tech and date.
YYMMDD-SITE-SAMPLE_ID
As someone who lived through Y2K not using 4 digits for year just makes me itchy. The rest would be fantastic for a large multi building setup like Mayo.
Until you have more than 100 lab techs
But you can represent up to 999 lab techs with only 1 more digit. Or 946 lab techs with just 2 alpha numeric characters. Heck just 2 letters gets you 676 combinations. About 17,000 combos with 3 letters and more than 40,000 if you use 3 alphanumeric characters.
This is disturbing. I have had this debate so many times at my work.
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.
I'm sure there is a secret, third kind, a labeless unruly dark force to rule them none.
1, a, 3 ?
(I just find it weird people write their 2s as 'a'...)
No, it's 7, 2, 3
I can't unsee it now :(
It's cause they're lazy and don't stop the pen when they get to the part where they're supposed to double back. They draw a circle so they can keep the pen moving and save energy.
It's simply a cursive 2.
Yeah, cursive is another name for lazy writing
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
