Independence Day Deal! Unlock 25% OFF Today – Limited-Time Offer - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location PL
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Microsoft Exam MB-260 Topic 3 Question 26 Discussion

Actual exam question for Microsoft's MB-260 exam
Question #: 26
Topic #: 3
[All MB-260 Questions]

You are a Customer Data Platform Specialist. You created several customer segments. You want to identify differences between the segments that you created.

Which two statements are correct about using segment differentiations? Each correct answer presents part of the solution.

NOTE: Each correct selection is worth one point.

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Myra at Apr 09, 2024, 10:47 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium MB-260 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Stephane
12 months ago
I agree. Just adjusting one condition may not be enough to add all unmatched eCommerce customers as profiles.
upvoted 0 times
...
Haydee
12 months ago
Maybe we should reevaluate the matching rules and conditions to ensure we capture all eCommerce customers.
upvoted 0 times
...
Janella
12 months ago
I agree with User3. This solution may not meet the goal.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shannan
12 months ago
I believe the solution is not correct. We might have to try a different approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephane
1 years ago
But will that really add unmatched eCommerce customers as profiles?
upvoted 0 times
...
Haydee
1 years ago
I think the solution is to adjust the first condition in the matching rule with the lowest precision.
upvoted 0 times
...
Thurman
1 years ago
That's a good point. It might cause more issues. I would say no.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gilma
1 years ago
But what if adjusting the precision messes up the matching for other profiles?
upvoted 0 times
...
Shasta
1 years ago
I think the solution should work, so I would say yes.
upvoted 0 times
Arlie
1 years ago
Agreed, the solution should work.
upvoted 0 times
...
Desiree
1 years ago
Yes
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Aretha
1 years ago
Hold up, guys. I think we need to take a step back and really think this through. If we're not careful, we could end up with a mess of duplicate profiles and incorrect data. Let's consider all the options before making a move.
upvoted 0 times
...
Melissa
1 years ago
Exactly, and you know what they say - 'garbage in, garbage out'. We don't want to end up with a bunch of messy, inaccurate data just to get those eCommerce profiles in there.
upvoted 0 times
...
Norah
1 years ago
Ugh, I hate these tricky data integration questions. They're always trying to trip you up. I say we just go for it and see what happens. What's the worst that could happen? Oh wait, don't answer that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stefania
1 years ago
You know, I've had some experience with this kind of thing before. Lowering the precision on the matching rule could work, but it's also going to increase the likelihood of false positives. We need to weigh the potential benefits against the risks.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lajuana
1 years ago
Yeah, that sounds like a much better approach. I'm not a fan of just lowering the precision on the main matching rule. That seems like a band-aid solution that could cause more issues down the line.
upvoted 0 times
...
Theresia
1 years ago
Ooh, that's a good idea! We could create a secondary matching rule with lower precision just for the eCommerce data, so we don't compromise the accuracy of the Dynamics 365 matches. That way we can pull in those unmatched profiles without messing up the rest of the data.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leanora
1 years ago
Hmm, adjusting the matching rule with the lowest precision? That seems like a pretty risky move. I'm not sure if that's going to give us the results we're looking for. We need to be really careful with how we handle that data unification.
upvoted 0 times
Herschel
1 years ago
That sounds like a more cautious approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
An
1 years ago
Perhaps we can review the matching rules more thoroughly.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kasandra
1 years ago
What do you suggest we do instead?
upvoted 0 times
...
Leanora
1 years ago
Maybe we should explore other options.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gerald
1 years ago
I agree, it does seem risky.
upvoted 0 times
...
Caitlin
1 years ago
No
upvoted 0 times
...
Margart
1 years ago
Yes
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Carmelina
1 years ago
Hmm, I see what they're going for, but I agree with the others. Lowering the precision could create more problems than it solves. Maybe we should look at adding a new matching rule specifically for the unmatched eCommerce customers instead?
upvoted 0 times
...
Minna
1 years ago
Yeah, I'm not sure about that either. Lowering the precision of the matching rule seems counterintuitive. Wouldn't that just lead to more false positives and potentially merge profiles that shouldn't be merged?
upvoted 0 times
...
Juan
1 years ago
Wait, so we need to ensure that unmatched eCommerce customers are also added as a profile in Dynamics 365 Customer Insights? I'm not sure adjusting the matching rule with the lowest precision is the way to go. Wouldn't that just reduce the accuracy of the matches we do have?
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77