November 20, 2010 at 11:14 am
Hi all,
I've a question about the terminology I use in my customer ordering recency hierarchy. If it has to be explained to users then as far as I'm concerned it should as simple as possible to understand.
The current structure is a 6 month banding (e.g. 06-12), with a more detailed 3 monthly banding (e.g. 06-09). What I'm proposing is a hierarchy of:
12 Month Banding
6 Month Banding
3 Month Banding
1 Month Banding
1 Week Banding
Admittedly, I could do something similar (but less instant) with my date dimension, but I want these bandings immediately available to my customers (e.g. Marketing) via - if not directly through - my account dimension. I originally used "Detailed" for 3 month banding, and "Simple" for 12 month banding, but I'm struggling for words that can describe the other levels in the hierarchy clearly. Off the top of my head, I've come up with:
Loose (12 Month)
Simple (6 Month)
Detailed (3 Month)
Fine (1 Month)
Atomic (1 Week)
I really like the "fine" and "atomic" as they sound a bit funky, but I'd like the terms for the levels in my hierarchy to sound good and understandable at "Director" level. If there were only four levels, then without question, they'd have been called John, Paul, George, and Ringo, and although some of you might think I could name them after The Rolling Stones, as far as I'm concerned the ivory-skills of Ian Stewart even on "Exile..." made them a six-piece and until they recognise that they will never be a five-piece in my eyes... 😎
Any suggestions on good descriptive names for these levels in the hierarchy? Feel free to have a bit of fun at my expense with your own "Rules of Fives"... 😉
Cheers,
RF
p.s. To be honest, the weekly banding is overkill, but I'd rather my customers reject something I propose than suggest something I've missed...
_____________________________________________________________
MAXIM 106:
"To know things well, we must know the details; and as they are almost infinite, our knowledge is always superficial and imperfect."
Francois De La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680)
November 29, 2010 at 1:19 pm
RainbowFfolly (11/20/2010)
I've a question about the terminology I use in my customer ordering recency hierarchy. If it has to be explained to users then as far as I'm concerned it should as simple as possible to understand.The current structure is a 6 month banding (e.g. 06-12), with a more detailed 3 monthly banding (e.g. 06-09). What I'm proposing is a hierarchy of:
12 Month Banding
6 Month Banding
3 Month Banding
1 Month Banding
1 Week Banding
Admittedly, I could do something similar (but less instant) with my date dimension, but I want these bandings immediately available to my customers (e.g. Marketing) via - if not directly through - my account dimension. I originally used "Detailed" for 3 month banding, and "Simple" for 12 month banding, but I'm struggling for words that can describe the other levels in the hierarchy clearly. Off the top of my head, I've come up with:
Loose (12 Month)
Simple (6 Month)
Detailed (3 Month)
Fine (1 Month)
Atomic (1 Week)
I really like the "fine" and "atomic" as they sound a bit funky, but I'd like the terms for the levels in my hierarchy to sound good and understandable at "Director" level. If there were only four levels, then without question, they'd have been called John, Paul, George, and Ringo, and although some of you might think I could name them after The Rolling Stones, as far as I'm concerned the ivory-skills of Ian Stewart even on "Exile..." made them a six-piece and until they recognise that they will never be a five-piece in my eyes... 😎
Any suggestions on good descriptive names for these levels in the hierarchy? Feel free to have a bit of fun at my expense with your own "Rules of Fives"... 😉
I really don't think naming those levels: John, Paul, George and Ringo is self explanatory and easy to understand.
How about...
12M for 12-Month level,
6M for 6-Month level,)
3M for 3-Month level,
1M for 1-Month level, and
1W for 1-Week level?
😀
_____________________________________
Pablo (Paul) Berzukov
Author of Understanding Database Administration available at Amazon and other bookstores.
Disclaimer: Advice is provided to the best of my knowledge but no implicit or explicit warranties are provided. Since the advisor explicitly encourages testing any and all suggestions on a test non-production environment advisor should not held liable or responsible for any actions taken based on the given advice.November 30, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Hi RF,
Have fun with this ..
Gone with the Wind (12 Month)
Beyond the Horizon (6 Month)
Hit the Road (3 Month)
In Car Park (1 Month)
Still Here (1 Week)
Cheers,
Osama
December 1, 2010 at 12:35 pm
As much as I like Osama's choice, Pablo's recommendation is definitely the most sensible (and pretty clear for the end-users too), so after hours spent considering the pros and cons of both sets of advice, I'll most likely go for that instead. 😉
I really don't think naming those levels: John, Paul, George and Ringo is self explanatory and easy to understand.
Come on Pablo, nothing could be easier to understand - members of The Beatles in descending order of popularity! Admittedly, it might confuse and upset those end-users wearing "I heart Ringo" badges, but there's so few of those people around to even bother worrying about their opinion... 😀
_____________________________________________________________
MAXIM 106:
"To know things well, we must know the details; and as they are almost infinite, our knowledge is always superficial and imperfect."
Francois De La Rochefoucauld (1613-1680)
December 3, 2010 at 8:49 am
RainbowFfolly (12/1/2010)
Come on Pablo, nothing could be easier to understand - members of The Beatles in descending order of popularity! Admittedly, it might confuse and upset those end-users wearing "I heart Ringo" badges, but there's so few of those people around to even bother worrying about their opinion... 😀
😀 I've to agree about how under-appreciated and under-estimated Ringo's role has been as a member of The Beatles but allow me a couple of factual comments.
When Ringo joined The Beatles he was playing for a more successfull (at the time) band - you have to give him he was good at detecting opportunities.
As a drummer, Ringo is a classic British drummer, he's not flashy but he keeps the band together, as he used to say "I always play for the singer".
You do not trust me? ask Paul 🙂
_____________________________________
Pablo (Paul) Berzukov
Author of Understanding Database Administration available at Amazon and other bookstores.
Disclaimer: Advice is provided to the best of my knowledge but no implicit or explicit warranties are provided. Since the advisor explicitly encourages testing any and all suggestions on a test non-production environment advisor should not held liable or responsible for any actions taken based on the given advice.Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply