Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

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

Salesforce Exam Marketing Cloud Intelligence Topic 4 Question 23 Discussion

Actual exam question for Salesforce's Marketing Cloud Intelligence exam
Question #: 23
Topic #: 4
[All Marketing Cloud Intelligence Questions]

An implementation engineer has been asked by a client for assistance with the following problem:

The below dataset was ingested:

However, when performing QA and querying a pivot table with Campaign Category and Clicks, the value for Type' is 4.

What could be the reason for this discrepancy?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Virgilio at Oct 18, 2024, 09:27 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium Marketing Cloud Intelligence Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Millie
1 months ago
This is a classic case of 'What's the matter with you, data?' I think option B is the way to go. Mapping formulas can be sneaky like that.
upvoted 0 times
Arlette
3 days ago
Let's investigate further to see if the mapping formula is the reason for the discrepancy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Veronica
5 days ago
I think we should check if there was a mapping formula applied to exclude Type! values.
upvoted 0 times
...
Margery
12 days ago
I agree, mapping formulas can definitely cause discrepancies in the data.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Melodie
2 months ago
Haha, I bet the client is scratching their head on this one! I'm going with option D. The aggregation function being set to LIFETIME is the most likely culprit.
upvoted 0 times
Jackie
13 days ago
Maybe it's option A. Clicks being set as a percentage could cause the discrepancy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Val
30 days ago
I agree with you, I also think it's option D. The aggregation function seems off.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nan
1 months ago
I think it could be option B. The mapping formula might be the issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Gianna
2 months ago
Woah, this is a tricky one! I'm leaning towards option C. The aggregation function being set to AVG could definitely cause the '4' value to appear in the pivot table.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mari
2 months ago
Hmm, I think option B is the correct answer. A mapping formula that excludes the 'Type!' values would explain the discrepancy in the pivot table.
upvoted 0 times
Franchesca
22 days ago
You might be right, a mapping formula excluding 'Type!' values does make sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gennie
24 days ago
I don't think so, I still believe option B is the correct answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dorinda
1 months ago
But could it also be because the aggregation function is set as AVG?
upvoted 0 times
...
Minna
1 months ago
I agree, option B seems like the most likely reason for the discrepancy.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lavonda
2 months ago
Hmm, that's a good point. Maybe we should consider both options B and C.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elke
2 months ago
I disagree, I believe it's because of option C.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lavonda
2 months ago
I think the reason could be option B.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel