Feedback by UserVoice

Kenneth Barber

My feedback

  1. 0 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kenneth Barber commented  · 
  2. 14 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Kenneth Barber supported this idea  · 
  3. 22 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kenneth Barber commented  · 

    I'd argue that you should never work in an area where people can see your screen. Even if they can't see your user name, they can see your work, which is probably confidential, and from the point of view of the company that you are working for, they would rather have strangers know your name than peek at your work.

  4. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kenneth Barber commented  · 

    The screenshot doesn't demonstrate that Excel thinks that 1/1 and 1/20 are the same, 1/2 and 2/20 are the same, etc.

    However, what I can see from the screenshot is that your table is filtered. Do you have multiple instances of 1/1 and multiple instances of 1/20 that we cannot see? When you apply conditional formatting on duplicates, it always looks at the entire range, regardless of any filters that were applied.

  5. 4 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kenneth Barber commented  · 

    The advantage of CHOOSECELL over using a direct reference to a cell would be that columnletter and rownumber can be dynamic, but in what context would this be useful? Can you give an example?

    For comparison, most of my spreadsheets are based on tables, so if I want to sum specific values, I use SUMIFS to filter and then sum a column of values rather than use INDIRECT and ADDRESS to change the range that I am summing. How your data is laid out can make a huge difference in the complexity of your formulas.

  6. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kenneth Barber commented  · 

    Roy, VLOOKUP and HLOOKUP use a default value of TRUE for their 4th argument if none is specified, meaning that the data is assumed to be sorted in ascending order, which may or may not be the case (more likely not the case). XLOOKUP and XMATCH, by default, assume that the data is can be in any order, which will always be true and so the default is always appropriate.

    XLOOKUP(A,B,C) reads as "return a reference to the cell in C that is at the same position as A in B". VLOOKUP(A,B,C,FALSE) reads as "return the value in the Cth column of B that is in the same position as A in the 1st column of B". VLOOKUP is clearly more complex.

    You are right that INDEX and MATCH/XMATCH allow mismatched ranges, and this is a disadvantage compared to XLOOKUP. VLOOKUP, when used naively, avoids mismatch issue, but then it is not robust against the columns moving around, which, in my opinion, is a bigger issue than not failing on mismatched ranges. If you do add this robustness, you also introduce the mismatch issue. So I guess you could say that VLOOKUP is better than INDEX and MATCH/XMATCH in that it lets you pick your poison. As for XLOOKUP, the fact that it fails when the ranges are mismatched is a good thing. You get the error, you fix your formula, and you're good.

    INDIRECT is a function best avoided because of its volatility. It can make life miserable if the cells using INDIRECT have many slow-calculating cells that ultimately depend on them.

    My reasoning for wanting VLOOKUP and HLOOKUP deprecated is so that they don't live longer than they need to. The longer they are used, the more people are missing out on XLOOKUP. As long as VLOOKUP and HLOOKUP are not deprecated, people may not realize that a better function exists, or they'll be stubborn and purposely stick with what they know, and they will continue using it and teaching it to young people entering the workforce, leading them in an outdated direction. The deaths of VLOOKUP and HLOOKUP will occur eventually, but way too slowly.

    Kenneth Barber shared this idea  · 
  7. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Kenneth Barber shared this idea  · 
  8. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » Graphics  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Kenneth Barber shared this idea  · 
  9. 6 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Kenneth Barber shared this idea  · 
  10. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Kenneth Barber supported this idea  · 
  11. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kenneth Barber commented  · 

    That sounds like more of a Power BI issue. There is already a suggestion for Power BI similar to yours:
    https://ideas.powerbi.com/forums/265200-power-bi-ideas/suggestions/32021614-live-hyperlinks-in-excel-exports-not-plain-text

  12. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Kenneth Barber shared this idea  · 
  13. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Kenneth Barber shared this idea  · 
  14. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Excel for Windows (Desktop Application) » Graphics  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Kenneth Barber shared this idea  · 
  15. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Kenneth Barber shared this idea  · 
  16. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Kenneth Barber shared this idea  · 
  17. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Kenneth Barber supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kenneth Barber commented  · 

    Gareth, your approach works, but I still feel like we shouldn't need a function to remove volatility. But I guess you make a good point. It's not just TODAY that shouldn't be volatile; it's basically every volatile function that shouldn't be volatile and cells containing volatile functions shouldn't start a recalculation chain unless they actually change.

    Kenneth Barber shared this idea  · 
  18. 76 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kenneth Barber commented  · 

    Even though my suggestion came first, this suggestion should be merged with the one linked below, since the latter has better wording and more votes.
    https://excel.uservoice.com/forums/304921-excel-for-windows-desktop-application/suggestions/39503848-add-a-split-dynamic-array-function

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kenneth Barber commented  · 

    In response to Fabio, your formula extracts only the last word of a string. It does not split the string, at each occurrence of the delimiter, into an array of words. It is still helpful, but we're going after something more generalized.

    In response to Leif, it sounds like your Join function is like TEXTJOIN and createEyeMatrix is like MUNIT. Reverse can be simulated with CONCAT(MID(<string>,LEN(<string>)-SEQUENCE(LEN(<string>),,0),1)). Sum_Fields2D can be simulated with SUM(INDEX()), using 0 as an index to represent a whole row or whole column. Really, we just need Split and Reverse.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kenneth Barber commented  · 

    There is even less excuse to not have this function now that array formulas are getting even easier thanks to dynamic arrays.

    Kenneth Barber supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kenneth Barber commented  · 

    Charles, we already have the JOIN functionality with TEXTJOIN. All we need is SPLIT.

    An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kenneth Barber commented  · 

    And it's already supported in FormulaDesk...

    Kenneth Barber shared this idea  · 
  19. 649 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kenneth Barber commented  · 

    Regular expressions are essential for the replacement of the -IFS functions (e.g. SUMIFS) with FILTER, since the -IFS functions can handle wildcards but FILTER cannot. With regular expressions in place, we can get even more filtering power from SUM(FILTER()) compared to SUMIFS().

    Kenneth Barber supported this idea  · 
  20. 4 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Kenneth Barber commented  · 

    This is not necessary anymore. You can use FILTER to take care of the conditions and pass the result to SUM, COUNT, or whatever other aggregation function. For example, instead of SUMIFS(), you would have SUM(FILTER()).

Feedback and Knowledge Base