What's another word for "meaningless"?
January 12, 2016 12:55 PM Subscribe
I need a word (appropriate in a legal/business discussion) to define the following system: let's say a grocer's point of sale system produces a report, with one row per transaction, with a descriptor field showing "apple", "orange" etc. But now the grocer has introduced baskets so people can buy apples and oranges at the same time. The report doesn't know what to do so it just prints either "apple" or "orange".
Now the apple farmer is asking why I claim to have sold 100 apples even though only 50 apples show up on the report. I have to explain the situation and then summarize by saying, "Thus, the field is _______." What word can I use that's more dispassionate than "misleading", "meaningless", "useless" etc? "Incorrect" and "random" don't feel quite right, either.
Now the apple farmer is asking why I claim to have sold 100 apples even though only 50 apples show up on the report. I have to explain the situation and then summarize by saying, "Thus, the field is _______." What word can I use that's more dispassionate than "misleading", "meaningless", "useless" etc? "Incorrect" and "random" don't feel quite right, either.
Irrelevant? Immaterial?
The way you've described it to me, the field is misleading, more than anything else, or obsolete; it attempts to measure something it doesn't measure any longer.
posted by Polycarp at 12:58 PM on January 12, 2016
The way you've described it to me, the field is misleading, more than anything else, or obsolete; it attempts to measure something it doesn't measure any longer.
posted by Polycarp at 12:58 PM on January 12, 2016
Spurious?
posted by wemayfreeze at 12:58 PM on January 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by wemayfreeze at 12:58 PM on January 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Irrelevant, erroneous, extraneous or deprecated.
posted by pazazygeek at 12:59 PM on January 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by pazazygeek at 12:59 PM on January 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
"a placeholder"? "arbitrary"?
posted by Shmuel510 at 1:00 PM on January 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Shmuel510 at 1:00 PM on January 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
Non-deterministic.
posted by HannoverFist at 1:00 PM on January 12, 2016
posted by HannoverFist at 1:00 PM on January 12, 2016
Inflexible and thus misleading.
posted by Bella Donna at 1:01 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Bella Donna at 1:01 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
no longer valid
posted by triggerfinger at 1:04 PM on January 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by triggerfinger at 1:04 PM on January 12, 2016 [6 favorites]
Underspecified? Incomplete?
Unaggregated?
If one row is one apple is one transaction, then how did you previously know it if one person bought more than one apple at a time? Presumably they must have. How did you differentiate it when Alice bought an apple and an orange at the same time, and then Bob bought two apples at the same time? How did you tell Alice's purchase apart from Bob's if each item in a purchase is a transaction all its own?
Because if you have any record specifying that it's Alice who bought these things at a given time, and Bob who bought these other things at another time; or a timestamp that Alice's apple and orange have in common versus a timestamp that Bob's two apples have in common, you could group the apple and the orange into Alice's basket, group (and count) Bob's two apples in his basket, combine the values from the descriptor field into respective sets for Alice and Bob, and display them like that.
posted by tel3path at 1:09 PM on January 12, 2016
Unaggregated?
If one row is one apple is one transaction, then how did you previously know it if one person bought more than one apple at a time? Presumably they must have. How did you differentiate it when Alice bought an apple and an orange at the same time, and then Bob bought two apples at the same time? How did you tell Alice's purchase apart from Bob's if each item in a purchase is a transaction all its own?
Because if you have any record specifying that it's Alice who bought these things at a given time, and Bob who bought these other things at another time; or a timestamp that Alice's apple and orange have in common versus a timestamp that Bob's two apples have in common, you could group the apple and the orange into Alice's basket, group (and count) Bob's two apples in his basket, combine the values from the descriptor field into respective sets for Alice and Bob, and display them like that.
posted by tel3path at 1:09 PM on January 12, 2016
Indiscriminate?
posted by thetortoise at 1:09 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by thetortoise at 1:09 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
it is not meaningless; it is incorrect
posted by thelonius at 1:10 PM on January 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by thelonius at 1:10 PM on January 12, 2016 [5 favorites]
imprecise
an inexact descriptor
over-generalized (in your example)
a placeholder field (i.e. a field that exists but should be ignored)
a legacy field (i.e. field used to mean something but now no longer does) (also "a hold-over", "out-dated" etc)
If you wanted to do more specific jargon, the consumer-side language doesn't apply to supply-side quantities.
posted by aimedwander at 1:11 PM on January 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
an inexact descriptor
over-generalized (in your example)
a placeholder field (i.e. a field that exists but should be ignored)
a legacy field (i.e. field used to mean something but now no longer does) (also "a hold-over", "out-dated" etc)
If you wanted to do more specific jargon, the consumer-side language doesn't apply to supply-side quantities.
posted by aimedwander at 1:11 PM on January 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
not sure if a phrase will work but: "a holdover that doesn't apply in this case"?
posted by LobsterMitten at 1:17 PM on January 12, 2016
posted by LobsterMitten at 1:17 PM on January 12, 2016
assigned (or determined) arbitrarily
posted by Rock Steady at 1:20 PM on January 12, 2016
posted by Rock Steady at 1:20 PM on January 12, 2016
I like to use Undefined at this point - with a flag warning of a lack of precision.
posted by ptm at 1:22 PM on January 12, 2016
posted by ptm at 1:22 PM on January 12, 2016
Also, the field is mislabeled - should be "fruit", not "apples".
posted by aimedwander at 1:24 PM on January 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by aimedwander at 1:24 PM on January 12, 2016 [4 favorites]
I'd call it what it is: Basket fruit [where 'basket' is the bucket in question, and 'fruit' is the category of items that go in that basket]
posted by Mchelly at 1:24 PM on January 12, 2016
posted by Mchelly at 1:24 PM on January 12, 2016
Not applicable?
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:31 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:31 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thus, the field
--has been reassigned.
--is mislabeled in its present state.
--specifies the number of transactions, not the number of items sold.
posted by Namlit at 1:33 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
--has been reassigned.
--is mislabeled in its present state.
--specifies the number of transactions, not the number of items sold.
posted by Namlit at 1:33 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'd have gone with "inadequate (to convey the whole sales picture)."
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 1:36 PM on January 12, 2016
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 1:36 PM on January 12, 2016
I would maybe go for some version of "not representative". E.g.:
- "non-representative"
- "not representative"
- "not fully representative"
- "not completely representative"
posted by mhum at 1:44 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
- "non-representative"
- "not representative"
- "not fully representative"
- "not completely representative"
posted by mhum at 1:44 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Hey, I'm a grocer and I'd specify by the lb, not by the each.
But if that's not possible how about:
Unit unspecified
Mixed unit sizes
Singles and/or Multipacks
posted by a humble nudibranch at 1:46 PM on January 12, 2016
But if that's not possible how about:
Unit unspecified
Mixed unit sizes
Singles and/or Multipacks
posted by a humble nudibranch at 1:46 PM on January 12, 2016
Or, some synonyms of invalid, illogical or irrational
posted by slipthought at 1:49 PM on January 12, 2016
posted by slipthought at 1:49 PM on January 12, 2016
In my field, we'd call this an unreported exception - something that a system has not been designed to consider, which is not flagged as an issue unless someone goes looking for it.
posted by Happy Dave at 2:14 PM on January 12, 2016
posted by Happy Dave at 2:14 PM on January 12, 2016
Wrong.
posted by yohko at 2:36 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by yohko at 2:36 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
What word can I use that's more dispassionate than "misleading", "meaningless", "useless" etc?
It seems like you are looking for a word or phrase that indicates it's wrong and no one cares about it enough to fix it?
"We've always done it this way"
Thus, the field has always been like this.
posted by yohko at 2:44 PM on January 12, 2016
It seems like you are looking for a word or phrase that indicates it's wrong and no one cares about it enough to fix it?
"We've always done it this way"
Thus, the field has always been like this.
posted by yohko at 2:44 PM on January 12, 2016
I like the word Obsolete. And then I would add an explanation that it was implemented way back in XXXX year (or version) but recent updates changed the meaning of the field to the point that it is no longer relevant. It was a missed requirement to repurpose the field or remove it, and thus it remains.
(and we don't have budget to change it in the future and it's not really bothering anyone so we're going to leave it there for the next 20 years and have to explain it every time. sigh.)
posted by CathyG at 3:04 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
(and we don't have budget to change it in the future and it's not really bothering anyone so we're going to leave it there for the next 20 years and have to explain it every time. sigh.)
posted by CathyG at 3:04 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]
Instead of thinking of it as incorrect, it seems like it should be more like one of these:
Various
Multiple
Composite
posted by bitslayer at 4:54 PM on January 12, 2016
Various
Multiple
Composite
posted by bitslayer at 4:54 PM on January 12, 2016
I was also going with "not applicable". Seems like something you’d write N/A next to.
In that specific case "non specific" might work.
posted by bongo_x at 5:23 PM on January 12, 2016
In that specific case "non specific" might work.
posted by bongo_x at 5:23 PM on January 12, 2016
I like spurious, not applicable, misleading or obsolete.
Or borked.
posted by quinndexter at 9:22 PM on January 12, 2016
Or borked.
posted by quinndexter at 9:22 PM on January 12, 2016
Superfluous?
As in "a superfluous field has been added which [borks] the results"?
posted by Mister Moofoo at 2:31 AM on January 13, 2016
As in "a superfluous field has been added which [borks] the results"?
posted by Mister Moofoo at 2:31 AM on January 13, 2016
Illusory
"That is an illusory field. Yeah, it doesn't present what it looks like it should, but it serves other functions, just not the ones you might expect."
posted by yesster at 3:19 AM on January 13, 2016
"That is an illusory field. Yeah, it doesn't present what it looks like it should, but it serves other functions, just not the ones you might expect."
posted by yesster at 3:19 AM on January 13, 2016
Just realized that "illusory" has some specific meanings in the legal world.
I'm a fan of the word "perfunctory."
"It is a perfunctory field. It has it's uses, but it doesn't present the kind of information that this situation requires."
posted by yesster at 4:22 AM on January 13, 2016
I'm a fan of the word "perfunctory."
"It is a perfunctory field. It has it's uses, but it doesn't present the kind of information that this situation requires."
posted by yesster at 4:22 AM on January 13, 2016
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by briank at 12:57 PM on January 12, 2016 [1 favorite]