On Nov 20, 9:58*am, Curt J wrote:
My preferred answer is 51%,49%,0%.
My decision making criteria is that .903 & .585 are closer to 1 than .512

You are not responding to JE's question. You are referring to
__your__ example, not his. In JE's example, the last item was about
0.9%. If this were a report of the contributions of 3 different sales
forces, I suspect that Sales Force C would be very angry if you
represented them by 0%. As you say, 0.9 is close to 1 (obviously).

The real take-away from this discussion is that there is __no__
general solution that will result in exactly 100% in all cases.

In specific cases, sometimes you can fudge the numbers to make them
work out. But generally, reports that include percentages (or any
other rounded numbers) have a footnote that says, in effect, the sum
of numbers might be more or less than 100% (in this case) due to
rounding. Simple as that.



so
therefore I will round up on 50.585 and 48.903. *Since .512 is smallest it
will not get rounded up.

Consequently, if I had the values:

50.440%,
40.460%
9.100%
------
100%

By formatting how I currently have it, my results would be
50%
40%
9%
-----
99%

With the same decision making, .46% is closest to 1 so I would round up. *
The results would therefore be 50%,41%,9% =100%

Thanks for your help,

Curt J



"JE McGimpsey" wrote:
There isn't a universally right way to do this. For instance what about:

* *49.512%
* *49.512%
* * 0.978%
* *-------
* 100.00%

will round/display (to the nearest percent) as

* *50%
* *50%
* * 1%
* *----
* 101%

or perhaps

* * 49%
* * 49%
* * *1%
* *----
* * 99%

What would *your* preferred answer be in that case? Can you describe, in
words, an algorithm that XL should use to make the choice?

In article ,
*Curt J wrote:

Hi Mike, thanks for responding to my post.

I actually am using formatting to show the percentage to show zero decimal
places. *I also tried the round function and that didn't work either.