Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 267 posts

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#11

Post by rectang »

golergka wrote: post #4

I studied bioinformatics in university back in 2005, and the first subject we were trained on was not Python or Java, but using Excel. Our teachers explicitly told us about excel's conversions to dates and other pitfalls. I find it mind-boggling that some researchers still made these mistakes 10 years later. Excel is a wonderful tool. But you need to learn your tools and find out about possible footguns.

Haranguing your users not to make mistakes is utterly worthless. The only way to move the needle is to design systems that are easier to use correctly.

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#12

Post by mobilio »

golergka wrote: post #4

I studied bioinformatics in university back in 2005, and the first subject we were trained on was not Python or Java, but using Excel. Our teachers explicitly told us about excel's conversions to dates and other pitfalls. I find it mind-boggling that some researchers still made these mistakes 10 years later. Excel is a wonderful tool. But you need to learn your tools and find out about possible footguns.

Follow up:

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/6/21355674/human-genes-renam...

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#13

Post by happytoexplain »

HenryBemis wrote: post #6

Let me reword this. "One in five genetics papers contains errors because the authors were careless when using Excel". I dislike Excel for what it does (EUCs, nearly impossible to track changes, etc.) But on the other hand it is an amazing tool.

There are three options:

1. Make the software better (very hard on complex systems with GUIs)

2. Ensure everybody knows all footguns (impossible)

3. Don't care about those people (easy)

If we opt for #3, we might as well not even be in software as a profession/hobby. Having such low standards indicates that we don't really care.

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#14

Post by nitwit005 »

rectang wrote: post #11
golergka wrote: post #4

I studied bioinformatics in university back in 2005, and the first subject we were trained on was not Python or Java, but using Excel. Our teachers explicitly told us about excel's conversions to dates and other pitfalls. I find it mind-boggling that some researchers still made these mistakes 10 years later. Excel is a wonderful tool. But you need to learn your tools and find out about possible footguns.

Haranguing your users not to make mistakes is utterly worthless. The only way to move the needle is to design systems that are easier to use correctly.

This isn't Microsoft lecturing them.

It's entirely valid for the school to tell students to avoid easily avoidable pitfalls.

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#15

Post by prepend »

monocasa wrote: post #7
HenryBemis wrote: post #6

Let me reword this. "One in five genetics papers contains errors because the authors were careless when using Excel". I dislike Excel for what it does (EUCs, nearly impossible to track changes, etc.) But on the other hand it is an amazing tool.

> One in five genetics papers contains errors because the authors were careless when using Excel Or Excel is a remarkably easy tool to mishandle because of generally unexpected transformations it makes 'for you' automatically in an easy to miss way.

You think Excel should make special accommodations because genetics authors misuse it?

Excel has been acting this way since before bioinformatics existed. Authors need to use their tools properly.

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#16

Post by TeMPOraL »

HenryBemis wrote: post #6

Let me reword this. "One in five genetics papers contains errors because the authors were careless when using Excel". I dislike Excel for what it does (EUCs, nearly impossible to track changes, etc.) But on the other hand it is an amazing tool.

> EUCs

Had to search for that one. It seems that EUC here means "end-user computing", and I was shocked to discover it's a pejorative term used by vendors to describe what they consider a problem that needs solving,

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#17

Post by dudus »

rectang wrote: post #8
HenryBemis wrote: post #6

Let me reword this. "One in five genetics papers contains errors because the authors were careless when using Excel". I dislike Excel for what it does (EUCs, nearly impossible to track changes, etc.) But on the other hand it is an amazing tool.

Oh, come on. The Excel user interface encourages mistakes, as surely as a bicycle with handlebars that steer backwards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0 It's not all on the users.

I had a different interpretation of the video you linked. It seems to me even a backwards bicycle is perfectly drivable as long as you adjust you mental model.

In that sense the excel UI doesn't make sense only for those not used to it. Which might be a nice analogy

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#18

Post by prepend »

rectang wrote: post #11
golergka wrote: post #4

I studied bioinformatics in university back in 2005, and the first subject we were trained on was not Python or Java, but using Excel. Our teachers explicitly told us about excel's conversions to dates and other pitfalls. I find it mind-boggling that some researchers still made these mistakes 10 years later. Excel is a wonderful tool. But you need to learn your tools and find out about possible footguns.

Haranguing your users not to make mistakes is utterly worthless. The only way to move the needle is to design systems that are easier to use correctly.

Excel is not a genetics tool. It has millions if use cases, many more important than genetics. Excel didn’t care about this.

It’s like people complaining because sugar gets misused. Or that murderers stab people with knives. The solutions isn’t to “fix” knives.

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#19

Post by TeMPOraL »

rectang wrote: post #11
golergka wrote: post #4

I studied bioinformatics in university back in 2005, and the first subject we were trained on was not Python or Java, but using Excel. Our teachers explicitly told us about excel's conversions to dates and other pitfalls. I find it mind-boggling that some researchers still made these mistakes 10 years later. Excel is a wonderful tool. But you need to learn your tools and find out about possible footguns.

Haranguing your users not to make mistakes is utterly worthless. The only way to move the needle is to design systems that are easier to use correctly.

> The only way to move the needle is to design systems that are easier to use correctly.

If you do it like most software vendors do, by simplifying and removing functionality, you're moving the needle in the wrong direction.

Re: One in five genetics papers contains errors thanks to Excel (2016)

#20

Post by rectang »

nitwit005 wrote: post #14
rectang wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haranguing your users not to make mistakes is utterly worthless. The only way to move the needle is to design systems that are easier to use correctly.

This isn't Microsoft lecturing them. It's entirely valid for the school to tell students to avoid easily avoidable pitfalls.

Of course they can lecture them — it just isn't going to work. The error rates will barely budge.

There is one effect: it allows smug gloating about how stupid, lazy, and irresponsible these users are.

Blaming the user is the last refuge of the incompetent.

Post reply on HN