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
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.
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.
There’s also the kinds of people, who write K, C, MDMA, 2C-B, A, S on their Eppendorfs.
1, a, 3 ?
(I just find it weird people write their 2s as 'a'...)
