|
10 worst mistakes
I thought someone might learn something from my post:
http://michiel.wordpress.com/2009/04...cel-practices/ Michiel |
10 worst mistakes
I disagree with #2.
I only use names for long complex formulas. It's much easier to look at a formula that uses cell references and tell where the referenced data can be found. Also, you can tell what the formula does because there are already descriptive headers near the formula that explain what the formula is for. -- Biff Microsoft Excel MVP "Michiel van der Blonk" wrote in message ... I thought someone might learn something from my post: http://michiel.wordpress.com/2009/04...cel-practices/ Michiel |
10 worst mistakes
Biff, I tend to rather agree with Michiel and with you. Some formulae really
do not need range names, but many do. especially when they refer to info on another sheet. -- HTH Kassie Replace xxx with hotmail "T. Valko" wrote: I disagree with #2. I only use names for long complex formulas. It's much easier to look at a formula that uses cell references and tell where the referenced data can be found. Also, you can tell what the formula does because there are already descriptive headers near the formula that explain what the formula is for. -- Biff Microsoft Excel MVP "Michiel van der Blonk" wrote in message ... I thought someone might learn something from my post: http://michiel.wordpress.com/2009/04...cel-practices/ Michiel |
10 worst mistakes
It all comes down to personal preference. My preference is to use names
sparingly. One thing that does "bug" me is long sheet names, long file names and long paths to the file! -- Biff Microsoft Excel MVP "Kassie" wrote in message ... Biff, I tend to rather agree with Michiel and with you. Some formulae really do not need range names, but many do. especially when they refer to info on another sheet. -- HTH Kassie Replace xxx with hotmail "T. Valko" wrote: I disagree with #2. I only use names for long complex formulas. It's much easier to look at a formula that uses cell references and tell where the referenced data can be found. Also, you can tell what the formula does because there are already descriptive headers near the formula that explain what the formula is for. -- Biff Microsoft Excel MVP "Michiel van der Blonk" wrote in message ... I thought someone might learn something from my post: http://michiel.wordpress.com/2009/04...cel-practices/ Michiel |
10 worst mistakes
And I say Amen to that one Biff!!!!! Highly frustrating and senseless.
-- HTH Kassie Replace xxx with hotmail "T. Valko" wrote: It all comes down to personal preference. My preference is to use names sparingly. One thing that does "bug" me is long sheet names, long file names and long paths to the file! -- Biff Microsoft Excel MVP "Kassie" wrote in message ... Biff, I tend to rather agree with Michiel and with you. Some formulae really do not need range names, but many do. especially when they refer to info on another sheet. -- HTH Kassie Replace xxx with hotmail "T. Valko" wrote: I disagree with #2. I only use names for long complex formulas. It's much easier to look at a formula that uses cell references and tell where the referenced data can be found. Also, you can tell what the formula does because there are already descriptive headers near the formula that explain what the formula is for. -- Biff Microsoft Excel MVP "Michiel van der Blonk" wrote in message ... I thought someone might learn something from my post: http://michiel.wordpress.com/2009/04...cel-practices/ Michiel |
10 worst mistakes
But easily overcome with Names <vbg
-- Regards Roger Govier "Kassie" wrote in message ... And I say Amen to that one Biff!!!!! Highly frustrating and senseless. -- HTH Kassie Replace xxx with hotmail "T. Valko" wrote: It all comes down to personal preference. My preference is to use names sparingly. One thing that does "bug" me is long sheet names, long file names and long paths to the file! -- Biff Microsoft Excel MVP "Kassie" wrote in message ... Biff, I tend to rather agree with Michiel and with you. Some formulae really do not need range names, but many do. especially when they refer to info on another sheet. -- HTH Kassie Replace xxx with hotmail "T. Valko" wrote: I disagree with #2. I only use names for long complex formulas. It's much easier to look at a formula that uses cell references and tell where the referenced data can be found. Also, you can tell what the formula does because there are already descriptive headers near the formula that explain what the formula is for. -- Biff Microsoft Excel MVP "Michiel van der Blonk" wrote in message ... I thought someone might learn something from my post: http://michiel.wordpress.com/2009/04...cel-practices/ Michiel |
10 worst mistakes
You're so right! lol
-- HTH Kassie Replace xxx with hotmail "Roger Govier" wrote: But easily overcome with Names <vbg -- Regards Roger Govier "Kassie" wrote in message ... And I say Amen to that one Biff!!!!! Highly frustrating and senseless. -- HTH Kassie Replace xxx with hotmail "T. Valko" wrote: It all comes down to personal preference. My preference is to use names sparingly. One thing that does "bug" me is long sheet names, long file names and long paths to the file! -- Biff Microsoft Excel MVP "Kassie" wrote in message ... Biff, I tend to rather agree with Michiel and with you. Some formulae really do not need range names, but many do. especially when they refer to info on another sheet. -- HTH Kassie Replace xxx with hotmail "T. Valko" wrote: I disagree with #2. I only use names for long complex formulas. It's much easier to look at a formula that uses cell references and tell where the referenced data can be found. Also, you can tell what the formula does because there are already descriptive headers near the formula that explain what the formula is for. -- Biff Microsoft Excel MVP "Michiel van der Blonk" wrote in message ... I thought someone might learn something from my post: http://michiel.wordpress.com/2009/04...cel-practices/ Michiel |
10 worst mistakes
But easily overcome with Names <vbg
I knew that was coming! -- Biff Microsoft Excel MVP "Roger Govier" <roger@technology4unospamdotcodotuk wrote in message ... But easily overcome with Names <vbg -- Regards Roger Govier "Kassie" wrote in message ... And I say Amen to that one Biff!!!!! Highly frustrating and senseless. -- HTH Kassie Replace xxx with hotmail "T. Valko" wrote: It all comes down to personal preference. My preference is to use names sparingly. One thing that does "bug" me is long sheet names, long file names and long paths to the file! -- Biff Microsoft Excel MVP "Kassie" wrote in message ... Biff, I tend to rather agree with Michiel and with you. Some formulae really do not need range names, but many do. especially when they refer to info on another sheet. -- HTH Kassie Replace xxx with hotmail "T. Valko" wrote: I disagree with #2. I only use names for long complex formulas. It's much easier to look at a formula that uses cell references and tell where the referenced data can be found. Also, you can tell what the formula does because there are already descriptive headers near the formula that explain what the formula is for. -- Biff Microsoft Excel MVP "Michiel van der Blonk" wrote in message ... I thought someone might learn something from my post: http://michiel.wordpress.com/2009/04...cel-practices/ Michiel |
10 worst mistakes
Unless of course they are very long names.................. :-)
Regards Ken.................. <snip |
10 worst mistakes: How gene names were changed in Genome database
Very nice article.
here is something I came across a while earlier. http://discover.nci.nih.gov/symbolmutation/ This describes how people formatted the gene names wrongly and ended up with Oct11 and so on. See screenshot http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/5/80/figure/F1 -GH "Michiel van der Blonk" wrote: I thought someone might learn something from my post: http://michiel.wordpress.com/2009/04...cel-practices/ Michiel |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:32 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ExcelBanter.com