Feedback by UserVoice

Roy

My feedback

  1. 5 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Roy supported this idea  · 
  2. 18 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Roy supported this idea  · 
  3. 6 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

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

    Something like "last" could be the final parameter, or a final parameter could take negative numbers meaning begin counting instances from the end.

    Or the functions could be wrapped with {} (typed, not Ctrl-Alt-Esc produced so functionality wouldn't change just by being IN an overal array formula) and produce an array that CHOOSE() could work on, modifying it to allow "last" as a choice.

  4. 4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Roy shared this idea  · 
  5. 2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Roy supported this idea  · 
  6. 4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Roy commented  · 

    We have that already: just unselect the checkbox.

    (With it checked, you have to pick from the four options. If you uncheck the box, then the cursor won't move at all, but rather stay put, as you desire.)

    But it does give rise to the thought that being able to specify, for the spreadsheet not the user, things found in the options would be pretty nice. So with this one in particular, a given user might have Excel set up on his computer to move right after pressing ENTER, but the setting in the spreadsheet overrides that and the cursor stays put.

    So when needed, the behavior is changed, but has no effect on his usual settings. Any other file he works in would work as he usually desires and move right.

    Perhaps you have a Mac and create spreadsheets using the 1904 date system. You'd specify that for the spreadsheet and when I open it on my 1900 date system Excel setup, it would function perfectly without me having to change my program setting for it, then remember to change it back. And hardly lesser, I could have several files open at the same time, yours and a few that need the 1900 date system, and everything would work fine even though today I'd have no way to resolve that problem.

    Lots of other settings could be useful that way too. Think of all the tips and problems one sees on the internet that resolve to simple settings mismatches like that.

    But this exact thing is actually available as we "speak" by just deselecting the checkbox altogether.

  7. 4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Roy commented  · 

    @Jimmy:

    No.

    Copy an Excel cell, go to some other application, like a web browser showing someone's login screen, and you can directly paste the cell's text into the login prompts. Excel DOES tyr to include a LF/CR but those are usually ignored by the other application along with all the formatting Excel was applying: Only the text is pasted and without the LF/CR.

    Copy the same cell into any Office application I use and you get as much of the text plus formatting as the other application can stomach which varies by application and just what you're doing in the application. The dead minimum is text + LF/CR (the last being super annoying).

    This is perfectly fine, inside Office, as for quite a time a great selling point of the package was how well things in it worked together unlike pieces brought together. Then, as everything embraced that world, the marketing was how it still worked better inside Office. Which was great, no doubt, and still is, or usually is.

    But they are supposed to be smart enough to realize there are often times when the full transfer when pasting is not appropriate, is harmful, is useless, is... well, just not what should be done. They seem to realize this: that's why different parts of Office, different functions in them, take differing amounts of what's offered for the Paste.

    So why not here? If I want to paste a cell's contents into another cell, there's no mystery about what I want: I want the text, certainly not its formatting (or I would have just pasted the cell, not pasted INSIDE the cell, right?), and for d@*! sure, no stupid LF/CR. No mystery at all.

    So all Alexie Plourde and I are saying is, just like is done in many places throughout Office, give us that. It's such a little thing, doesn't even run afoul of how Excel and Office cheat the Clipboard concept, and is done in a hundred other places throughout Office. But while it's such a little thing, it would be hugely helpful when we need to copy in a whole cell's text. So, let them be helpful, eh?

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Roy commented  · 

    Yep. Somewhat annoying. After all, the obvious default paste for Excel would be exactly what going back, kitting F2, copying, and then pasting would do.

    So there'd be nothing esoteric here, no "gosh, but there's so many possibilities of what to do that Excel could never decide" stuff.

    Roy supported this idea  · 
  8. 4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Roy commented  · 

    Let me set a basis here, that folks might not be thinking of right off:

    I understand that when I filter something, the rest is still there. I really do.

    But:

    1) It is EASY to forget that you are working filtered data. Especially in an office with calls, emails, breaks and lunches, bosses, and so on. Then you've hammered your data with one thought-reduced Paste and File|Save.

    though more importantly,

    2) Folks USING your work usually don't have the least little idea. And telling them is like an elementary teacher telling a student something (studies show they retain about 25% of the disparate facts they are told during those years). THEY destroy on a frequent and constant schedule. Being bosses, often, makes it MY fault, not theirs, you understand...

    So if Excel wants Tables to take off with those filters for every column, more or less like it or not, or for filtering to work in practice, they need to consider excising this difficulty.

    And I suggest potential voters consider the above when deciding whether this is a real thing, or just one guy's whine. It makes NO judgment on YOUR understanding, rather it makes a difference to your work when it is in the real world. There's a reason YOU wrote the spreadsheet and THEY use it, and that reason leads directly into this problem.

    Roy supported this idea  · 
  9. 31 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Thanks for your suggestion! Unfortunately we will not be able to address this in the near future. We’ll keep tracking the voting.

    The reason you can’t have 2 workbooks open with the same name is due to the way that linked workbooks are managed. If you have multiple workbooks open and you create a link between them, Excel shows the filename of the linked file. If there are 2 workbooks with the same name, then the formula would be ambiguous. You can read more about how Excel manages external links here – https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/328440/description-of-link-management-and-storage-in-excel.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Roy commented  · 

    Yeah. This is criminal.

    Fix whatever compromise you made 30 years ago.

    Like... open the file but keep track of it by a unique name you assign right then, analogous to database folks assinging every record a unique identifier, then letting you think you are assigning a unique identifier when it's really second level, but now you can change it freely instead of it being permanent. Well, once upon a time. Advance to at least that years old idea!

    Roy supported this idea  · 
  10. 5 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Roy supported this idea  · 
  11. 68 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Roy commented  · 

    Yes. If Excel can realize there are links, it can report WHATEVER it is basing the assertion upon.

    Then offer options, like a permanent breakage of the links, or a temporary one. And an option to edit directly the offending bit of material: with the object of editing away something it is misinterpreting as well as the object of being able to edit real links. The list should be presented in the "side panel" motif, each one selectable as one wishes and not dropped until Excel is told to remove it from the list.

    If Excel can see something as a link (whether it be real or corruption) and act in any way on that thought, it can add this to the list of acts it can perform.

    Roy supported this idea  · 
  12. 56 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Roy commented  · 

    AND make it evaluate each portion of a formula: no evaluating a VLOOKUP() as a monolith, for instance.

    Or at least add a checkbox to enable the more granular approach.

    And to preempt the F9 comments, that helps, but has its own problems, not least of which is that for many bits in a formula, once you evaluate the piece with F9, it is unusable. So one must ESC, then begin again and not evaluate that bit or to Undo, and select a larger grain to proceed with... not always easy in practice if earlier evaluations have presented huge arrays. The Evaluate feature should be able to present that in a toaster-like usability. And the F9 approach is defeated when an array that would be presented is big.

    Roy supported this idea  · 
  13. 1,109 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Huge progress update toward historical data! We have released our preview of the StockHistory function! https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/stockhistory-function-1ac8b5b3-5f62-4d94-8ab8-7504ec7239a8

    However, this is only available to our Beta Channel at the moment, so when it is rolled out to General Availability, I will be sure to update the status to completed.

    If you are able to use the feature in preview and have feedback, please send-a-frown for us to review.

    —Kaycee Reineke
    Excel PM

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Roy commented  · 

    "First iteration" is hopefully right. One cannot specify the data source, according to insider accounts, but must rely upon whatever good ol' Bing wants to present.

    Clearly unacceptable for even average stock needs.

    (But gosh, Bing will sure look like humans now want to use it for searches, won't it?)

    Second iteration? Let US decide the data source the Data Type functionality looks to.

  14. 3 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Roy supported this idea  · 
  15. 2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Roy supported this idea  · 
  16. 6 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Roy commented  · 

    I'm totally in sympathy with any effort to give perfect x-digit numbers. 15, say, like now, but with internal precision of at least 34 digits to handle just about any variation so the 15, say, digits are perfect.

    But... this isn't that. The "numbers" you refer to are not really numbers to ANYONE using them. They are strings of numerical text. So sadly, instead of voting for this, I just want to suggest you format them as text and never have a problem.

    Exactly this happens with our 16 digit credit card numbers. But they are not "numbers." We are never going to do math on them anymore than you will with a bank account number.

  17. 3 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Roy supported this idea  · 
  18. 3 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Roy supported this idea  · 
  19. 7 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Roy supported this idea  · 
  20. 3 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Roy commented  · 

    Perhaps it could allow a Named Range to contain the desired formatting string, or allow it to be created dynamically (in the Named Range so the spreadsheet formulas are "cleaner" and easier to understand).

    And that could allow for conditionality in the formatting string/s and then MS could "let the best man win": see which way people prefer, or wonder why, when they make a mix of choices. All without dropping the current scheme.

    However, I did think of it originally in the vein of overriding local formatting in whatever way one regarded as important, without affecting the underlying formatting or using conditonal formatting: both of the "withouts" CARRY the special formatting with them without any indication of it being there. That lead to surprises, and complicate the spreadsheet for MS to save, display, and use (leading to huge files and... failed files, unsalvageable files).

    It also means that one can no longer click column L, say, and apply a format up and down it in a couple clicks. One must format only those cells that do not have special formatting. And has to identify those first. 13 cells out of 8,000 rows, say... But this way, one can easily format the column but the specially formatted cells carry their specialness in unaffected formulas.

    Roy shared this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base