The row coding works wonderfully. I've used it for several years now.
No matter what rows are deleted in a worksheet, the rows numbered with
this coding adapt and you don't have any numbering get out of order.

But I ran into a problem with one spreadsheet coded with this that I
had to create yesterday; the numbering jumps over the hidden rows that
aren't shown when the spreadsheet was filtered..

What I mean is that if I choose to filter the worksheet by a certain
criteria, the rows that don't follow this criteria are hidden, but the
rows that show up don't adapt to show the numbering true to the number
of rows now appearing. This is usu. a good thing, but not in this
particular speadsheet where the row numbering was to reflect how many
records fell under the criteria - either not filtered or filtered by
various criteria.

So what does this mean?

Let's say rows 1, 3, 7, and 10 show up in a filter out of rows 1, 2,
3, 4 ... 10. The rows that appear then are numbered 1, 3, 7 and 10
and not 1, 2, 3 and 4, which would be what is needed here. So row 3
would then become 2, 7 would become 3, and 10 would become 4. Then
when unfiltered, they'd go back to the numbering they fall under.

Again, most of the time this is good, but not in this one sheet.

Is there coding for row numbering that takes into account filtering
and adapts accordingly? It's a long shot, I know, but it would be
good. I don't know what I'll do if there isn't something like this.

p.s., I'm a real VB newbie, just to let everyone know ahead of time.
<g

Thanks!

StargateFan,

Let's say that you have labels in row 1, and want your row numbering in
column A.

In Cell A2, use the formula

=SUBTOTAL(2,$B$2:B2)

and copy down to match your data. Then, when you filter, the row numbering
will update as you desire.

HTH,
Bernie
MS Excel MVP

"StargateFan" wrote in message
...
The row coding works wonderfully. I've used it for several years now.
No matter what rows are deleted in a worksheet, the rows numbered with
this coding adapt and you don't have any numbering get out of order.

But I ran into a problem with one spreadsheet coded with this that I
had to create yesterday; the numbering jumps over the hidden rows that
aren't shown when the spreadsheet was filtered..

What I mean is that if I choose to filter the worksheet by a certain
criteria, the rows that don't follow this criteria are hidden, but the
rows that show up don't adapt to show the numbering true to the number
of rows now appearing. This is usu. a good thing, but not in this
particular speadsheet where the row numbering was to reflect how many
records fell under the criteria - either not filtered or filtered by
various criteria.

So what does this mean?

Let's say rows 1, 3, 7, and 10 show up in a filter out of rows 1, 2,
3, 4 ... 10. The rows that appear then are numbered 1, 3, 7 and 10
and not 1, 2, 3 and 4, which would be what is needed here. So row 3
would then become 2, 7 would become 3, and 10 would become 4. Then
when unfiltered, they'd go back to the numbering they fall under.

Again, most of the time this is good, but not in this one sheet.

Is there coding for row numbering that takes into account filtering
and adapts accordingly? It's a long shot, I know, but it would be
good. I don't know what I'll do if there isn't something like this.

p.s., I'm a real VB newbie, just to let everyone know ahead of time.
<g

Thanks!

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:14:55 -0400, "Bernie Deitrick" <deitbe @
consumer dot org wrote:

StargateFan,

Let's say that you have labels in row 1, and want your row numbering in
column A.

In Cell A2, use the formula

=SUBTOTAL(2,$B$2:B2)

and copy down to match your data. Then, when you filter, the row numbering
will update as you desire.

Kewl, will give this a try right now!

Thanks!

HTH,
Bernie
MS Excel MVP

"StargateFan" wrote in message
.. .
The row coding works wonderfully. I've used it for several years now.
No matter what rows are deleted in a worksheet, the rows numbered with
this coding adapt and you don't have any numbering get out of order.

But I ran into a problem with one spreadsheet coded with this that I
had to create yesterday; the numbering jumps over the hidden rows that
aren't shown when the spreadsheet was filtered..

What I mean is that if I choose to filter the worksheet by a certain
criteria, the rows that don't follow this criteria are hidden, but the
rows that show up don't adapt to show the numbering true to the number
of rows now appearing. This is usu. a good thing, but not in this
particular speadsheet where the row numbering was to reflect how many
records fell under the criteria - either not filtered or filtered by
various criteria.

So what does this mean?

Let's say rows 1, 3, 7, and 10 show up in a filter out of rows 1, 2,
3, 4 ... 10. The rows that appear then are numbered 1, 3, 7 and 10
and not 1, 2, 3 and 4, which would be what is needed here. So row 3
would then become 2, 7 would become 3, and 10 would become 4. Then
when unfiltered, they'd go back to the numbering they fall under.

Again, most of the time this is good, but not in this one sheet.

Is there coding for row numbering that takes into account filtering
and adapts accordingly? It's a long shot, I know, but it would be
good. I don't know what I'll do if there isn't something like this.

p.s., I'm a real VB newbie, just to let everyone know ahead of time.
<g

Thanks!

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 12:04:29 -0400, StargateFan
wrote:

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:14:55 -0400, "Bernie Deitrick" <deitbe @
consumer dot org wrote:

StargateFan,

Let's say that you have labels in row 1, and want your row numbering in
column A.

In Cell A2, use the formula

=SUBTOTAL(2,$B$2:B2)

and copy down to match your data. Then, when you filter, the row numbering
will update as you desire.

Kewl, will give this a try right now!

Well, I took the coding to the office. It seemed to work just great.
I tested it out and whenever I did a filter, the rows that showed up
numbered true; as well as when all filters were off. That seemed
great.

But then I kept adding rows at the bottom after the few blank ones
that were there so I could see how it acted. Past row #60, something
very weird took place. All rows after that were labelled 61! Though
the coding that worked before didn't change, whether the rest of the
row had data or not other than the row label, and even though Excel
modified each row coding correctly to reflect new cell address, just
as it did in the numbers early, I got all #61s!!

So I came home to try it out on a brand new sheet and set up a sheet
here quickly; yet something ever weirder happened here!! ALL rows
here at home got named "0"! Is that weird, or what?

Anyone know what in heaven's name is going on? <g (Before I think I
have to be taken away to a funny farm <lol!)

Thanks!

Thanks!

HTH,
Bernie
MS Excel MVP

"StargateFan" wrote in message
. ..
The row coding works wonderfully. I've used it for several years now.
No matter what rows are deleted in a worksheet, the rows numbered with
this coding adapt and you don't have any numbering get out of order.

But I ran into a problem with one spreadsheet coded with this that I
had to create yesterday; the numbering jumps over the hidden rows that
aren't shown when the spreadsheet was filtered..

What I mean is that if I choose to filter the worksheet by a certain
criteria, the rows that don't follow this criteria are hidden, but the
rows that show up don't adapt to show the numbering true to the number
of rows now appearing. This is usu. a good thing, but not in this
particular speadsheet where the row numbering was to reflect how many
records fell under the criteria - either not filtered or filtered by
various criteria.

So what does this mean?

Let's say rows 1, 3, 7, and 10 show up in a filter out of rows 1, 2,
3, 4 ... 10. The rows that appear then are numbered 1, 3, 7 and 10
and not 1, 2, 3 and 4, which would be what is needed here. So row 3
would then become 2, 7 would become 3, and 10 would become 4. Then
when unfiltered, they'd go back to the numbering they fall under.

Again, most of the time this is good, but not in this one sheet.

Is there coding for row numbering that takes into account filtering
and adapts accordingly? It's a long shot, I know, but it would be
good. I don't know what I'll do if there isn't something like this.

p.s., I'm a real VB newbie, just to let everyone know ahead of time.
<g

Thanks!

Stargate,

The technique worked for me for thousands of rows. Try forcing a full
recalc (Ctrl-Alt-F9) - beyond that: perhaps your computer was unstable, or
the Excel workbook was corrupt, or you accidentally pasted values rather
than formulas.

HTH,
Bernie
MS Excel MVP

"StargateFan" wrote in message
...

Well, I took the coding to the office. It seemed to work just great.
I tested it out and whenever I did a filter, the rows that showed up
numbered true; as well as when all filters were off. That seemed
great.

But then I kept adding rows at the bottom after the few blank ones
that were there so I could see how it acted. Past row #60, something
very weird took place. All rows after that were labelled 61! Though
the coding that worked before didn't change, whether the rest of the
row had data or not other than the row label, and even though Excel
modified each row coding correctly to reflect new cell address, just
as it did in the numbers early, I got all #61s!!

So I came home to try it out on a brand new sheet and set up a sheet
here quickly; yet something ever weirder happened here!! ALL rows
here at home got named "0"! Is that weird, or what?

Anyone know what in heaven's name is going on? <g (Before I think I
have to be taken away to a funny farm <lol!)

Thanks!

"Bernie Deitrick" <deitbe @ consumer dot org wrote in message ...
Stargate,

The technique worked for me for thousands of rows. Try forcing a full
recalc (Ctrl-Alt-F9) - beyond that: perhaps your computer was unstable, or
the Excel workbook was corrupt, or you accidentally pasted values rather
than formulas.

HTH,
Bernie
MS Excel MVP

<ROFL Oh, this is tooooo funny!! This time it was #69 that kept
repeating. But since the error result changed, I could easily figure
out what was wrong! <g

Guess where the entries stopped????

Yes! Row 69 is the last row to have data in the cells other than in
the number column!

Phew! I was wondering what was happening. Naturally, the
force-recalc didn't work here as it's not really a glitch. This
formula, then, doesn't work properly until data has been entered. The
instant I put something in the second column in the next row, the
preceding number column changes to the right number in sequence. I
tested this for the few remaining rows on that page and the formula
adjusted properly each time.

So ...

Here's what needs fixing - how to keep the cells in the number
column, with this special formula in it, blank until such a time as
one enters info in the rest of the row anywhere? Then I can protect
the sheet and lock the row number column.

Anyway, I use a basic formula when I need to make cells "invisible"
until there is input. I use this as a basic starting point:
=IF(C7<"",E7/7,"")
Naturally, I change cell references and formula.

I tried to use this type of thing in this situation but must admit
that I don't have a clue on integrating the formula
=SUBTOTAL(2,$B$2:B2) with an if statement of this kind. If you know
how, can you pls advise?

With that done, then this will be a breeze and should work perfectly.
<fingers crossed

Thanks so much!

"StargateFan" wrote in message
...

Well, I took the coding to the office. It seemed to work just great.
I tested it out and whenever I did a filter, the rows that showed up
numbered true; as well as when all filters were off. That seemed
great.

But then I kept adding rows at the bottom after the few blank ones
that were there so I could see how it acted. Past row #60, something
very weird took place. All rows after that were labelled 61! Though
the coding that worked before didn't change, whether the rest of the
row had data or not other than the row label, and even though Excel
modified each row coding correctly to reflect new cell address, just
as it did in the numbers early, I got all #61s!!

So I came home to try it out on a brand new sheet and set up a sheet
here quickly; yet something ever weirder happened here!! ALL rows
here at home got named "0"! Is that weird, or what?

Anyone know what in heaven's name is going on? <g (Before I think I
have to be taken away to a funny farm <lol!)

Thanks!

Stargate,

=IF(B2<"",SUBTOTAL(2,$B$2:B2),"")

HTH,
Bernie
MS Excel MVP


"Jones" wrote in message
om...
"Bernie Deitrick" <deitbe @ consumer dot org wrote in message
...
Stargate,

The technique worked for me for thousands of rows. Try forcing a full
recalc (Ctrl-Alt-F9) - beyond that: perhaps your computer was unstable,
or
the Excel workbook was corrupt, or you accidentally pasted values rather
than formulas.

HTH,
Bernie
MS Excel MVP

<ROFL Oh, this is tooooo funny!! This time it was #69 that kept
repeating. But since the error result changed, I could easily figure
out what was wrong! <g

Guess where the entries stopped????

Yes! Row 69 is the last row to have data in the cells other than in
the number column!

Phew! I was wondering what was happening. Naturally, the
force-recalc didn't work here as it's not really a glitch. This
formula, then, doesn't work properly until data has been entered. The
instant I put something in the second column in the next row, the
preceding number column changes to the right number in sequence. I
tested this for the few remaining rows on that page and the formula
adjusted properly each time.

So ...

Here's what needs fixing - how to keep the cells in the number
column, with this special formula in it, blank until such a time as
one enters info in the rest of the row anywhere? Then I can protect
the sheet and lock the row number column.

Anyway, I use a basic formula when I need to make cells "invisible"
until there is input. I use this as a basic starting point:
=IF(C7<"",E7/7,"")
Naturally, I change cell references and formula.

I tried to use this type of thing in this situation but must admit
that I don't have a clue on integrating the formula
=SUBTOTAL(2,$B$2:B2) with an if statement of this kind. If you know
how, can you pls advise?

With that done, then this will be a breeze and should work perfectly.
<fingers crossed

Thanks so much!

"StargateFan" wrote in message
...

Well, I took the coding to the office. It seemed to work just great.
I tested it out and whenever I did a filter, the rows that showed up
numbered true; as well as when all filters were off. That seemed
great.

But then I kept adding rows at the bottom after the few blank ones
that were there so I could see how it acted. Past row #60, something
very weird took place. All rows after that were labelled 61! Though
the coding that worked before didn't change, whether the rest of the
row had data or not other than the row label, and even though Excel
modified each row coding correctly to reflect new cell address, just
as it did in the numbers early, I got all #61s!!

So I came home to try it out on a brand new sheet and set up a sheet
here quickly; yet something ever weirder happened here!! ALL rows
here at home got named "0"! Is that weird, or what?

Anyone know what in heaven's name is going on? <g (Before I think I
have to be taken away to a funny farm <lol!)

Thanks!

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:19:53 -0400, "Bernie Deitrick" <deitbe @
consumer dot org wrote:

Stargate,

=IF(B2<"",SUBTOTAL(2,$B$2:B2),"")

I was stumped on the equal sign. I had a hunch it might be as easy as
taking that out but wasn't sure. I'll give this a try.

Thanks!

(p.s., posting at home again! Hope it's not too confusing. I posted
earlier at work through Google.)

HTH,
Bernie
MS Excel MVP


"Jones" wrote in message
. com...
"Bernie Deitrick" <deitbe @ consumer dot org wrote in message
...
Stargate,

The technique worked for me for thousands of rows. Try forcing a full
recalc (Ctrl-Alt-F9) - beyond that: perhaps your computer was unstable,
or
the Excel workbook was corrupt, or you accidentally pasted values rather
than formulas.

HTH,
Bernie
MS Excel MVP

<ROFL Oh, this is tooooo funny!! This time it was #69 that kept
repeating. But since the error result changed, I could easily figure
out what was wrong! <g

Guess where the entries stopped????

Yes! Row 69 is the last row to have data in the cells other than in
the number column!

Phew! I was wondering what was happening. Naturally, the
force-recalc didn't work here as it's not really a glitch. This
formula, then, doesn't work properly until data has been entered. The
instant I put something in the second column in the next row, the
preceding number column changes to the right number in sequence. I
tested this for the few remaining rows on that page and the formula
adjusted properly each time.

So ...

Here's what needs fixing - how to keep the cells in the number
column, with this special formula in it, blank until such a time as
one enters info in the rest of the row anywhere? Then I can protect
the sheet and lock the row number column.

Anyway, I use a basic formula when I need to make cells "invisible"
until there is input. I use this as a basic starting point:
=IF(C7<"",E7/7,"")
Naturally, I change cell references and formula.

I tried to use this type of thing in this situation but must admit
that I don't have a clue on integrating the formula
=SUBTOTAL(2,$B$2:B2) with an if statement of this kind. If you know
how, can you pls advise?

With that done, then this will be a breeze and should work perfectly.
<fingers crossed

Thanks so much!

[snip]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 19:46:56 -0400, StargateFan
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:19:53 -0400, "Bernie Deitrick" <deitbe @
consumer dot org wrote:

Stargate,

=IF(B2<"",SUBTOTAL(2,$B$2:B2),"")

[snip]

I tried to use this type of thing in this situation but must admit
that I don't have a clue on integrating the formula
=SUBTOTAL(2,$B$2:B2) with an if statement of this kind. If you know
how, can you pls advise?

[snip]

This formula has always worked befo

=IF(B2<"",SUBTOTAL(2,$B$2:B2),"")

But lately since I've been using it, I get all "0" in the column and
no numbers. The new spreadsheets where I've been trying to
incorporate this are no different from the original spreadsheets where
I used this formula.

What the above does, btw, is number the rows 1, 2, 3, etc. But the
trick is that even when filtered, the numbering is reflected correctly
because of this formula.

Column A holds the above formula and the IF statement means that the
cell in column A is blank until a value is put in the cell to the
right of it.

Hopefully someone knows why this is no longer working. Thanks! :oD

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:24:32 -0400, StargateFan
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 19:46:56 -0400, StargateFan
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:19:53 -0400, "Bernie Deitrick" <deitbe @
consumer dot org wrote:

Stargate,

=IF(B2<"",SUBTOTAL(2,$B$2:B2),"")

[snip]

I tried to use this type of thing in this situation but must admit
that I don't have a clue on integrating the formula
=SUBTOTAL(2,$B$2:B2) with an if statement of this kind. If you know
how, can you pls advise?

[snip]

This formula has always worked befo

=IF(B2<"",SUBTOTAL(2,$B$2:B2),"")

But lately since I've been using it, I get all "0" in the column and
no numbers. The new spreadsheets where I've been trying to
incorporate this are no different from the original spreadsheets where
I used this formula.

What the above does, btw, is number the rows 1, 2, 3, etc. But the
trick is that even when filtered, the numbering is reflected correctly
because of this formula.

Column A holds the above formula and the IF statement means that the
cell in column A is blank until a value is put in the cell to the
right of it.

Hopefully someone knows why this is no longer working. Thanks! :oD

It works for me if I enter numbers in Column B. However, if I enter letters
or letters or numbers, then I need to use a 3 as the first argument to
Subtotal.

IF(B2<"",SUBTOTAL(3,$B$2:B2),"")

--
Regards,
Tom Ogilvy

"StargateFan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:24:32 -0400, StargateFan
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 19:46:56 -0400, StargateFan
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:19:53 -0400, "Bernie Deitrick" <deitbe @
consumer dot org wrote:

Stargate,

=IF(B2<"",SUBTOTAL(2,$B$2:B2),"")

[snip]

I tried to use this type of thing in this situation but must admit
that I don't have a clue on integrating the formula
=SUBTOTAL(2,$B$2:B2) with an if statement of this kind. If you
know
how, can you pls advise?

[snip]

This formula has always worked befo

=IF(B2<"",SUBTOTAL(2,$B$2:B2),"")

But lately since I've been using it, I get all "0" in the column and
no numbers. The new spreadsheets where I've been trying to
incorporate this are no different from the original spreadsheets where
I used this formula.

What the above does, btw, is number the rows 1, 2, 3, etc. But the
trick is that even when filtered, the numbering is reflected correctly
because of this formula.

Column A holds the above formula and the IF statement means that the
cell in column A is blank until a value is put in the cell to the
right of it.

Hopefully someone knows why this is no longer working. Thanks! :oD