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

An alarming number of scientific papers contain Excel errors

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 74 posts

Re: An alarming number of scientific papers contain Excel errors

#11

Post by ramblenode »

krapht wrote: post #5
ramblenode wrote: post #3

MS Excel is absolutely unfit for most scientific and engineering problems. The spreadsheet GUI, lack of good version tracking/history, and eagerness to coerce data types and "correct" values makes it easy to introduce errors that will go unrecognized and propagated through calculations. Unfortunately this story just keeps repeating itself. But all of this is just a secondary concern to Excel's real trouble: it's hist…

I'll just quote Soustrup here: "There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses." In particular you see the spreadsheet GUI as a downfall, but I think it is a great enabler that has allowed millions of non-programmers to create useful programs.

I would counter with "use the right tool for the job."

Excel is great at churning out fast and dirty estimates for low impact work. The problem is when it's used for large, complex, or important problems because these are just not Excel's domain--something obvious when looking at the kinds of features and bug fixes MS has prioritized over the years.

Re: An alarming number of scientific papers contain Excel errors

#12

Post by dagaci »

First I thought this story was about math and numerical errors. But it's actually about auto- formatting and auto-correction.

"Excel automatically converting gene names to things like calendar dates or random numbers"

In this case, I think what is needed is some kind of rudimentary knowledge of data-types. Or perhaps more simply a scientific template which is actually plain text by default.

But how are people not noticing auto-correction and auto formatting taking place!

The only perfect solution is to hire a developer to build you a data entry system. The developer can build the system which they have no cause to entirely understand the science behind, and thus a human to take the blame for errors instead of excel.

Re: An alarming number of scientific papers contain Excel errors

#13

Post by SNvD7vEJ »

Why is the auto-convert 'features' in Excel not opt-in?

When Excel encounters the first cell in a new sheet that it thinks should be auto-converted, why does it not ask if that is desirable for that sheet?

Like: "Do you want Excel to interpret and auto-convert all strings with format into the type in this sheet?"

At least for conversions where the original data is lost.

Re: An alarming number of scientific papers contain Excel errors

#14

Post by 10198231001 »

krapht wrote: post #5
ramblenode wrote: post #3

MS Excel is absolutely unfit for most scientific and engineering problems. The spreadsheet GUI, lack of good version tracking/history, and eagerness to coerce data types and "correct" values makes it easy to introduce errors that will go unrecognized and propagated through calculations. Unfortunately this story just keeps repeating itself. But all of this is just a secondary concern to Excel's real trouble: it's hist…

I'll just quote Soustrup here: "There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses." In particular you see the spreadsheet GUI as a downfall, but I think it is a great enabler that has allowed millions of non-programmers to create useful programs.

If the programs contain errors, they are not useful. They appear to be useful to someone who just wants to see some activity instead of actual work.

Re: An alarming number of scientific papers contain Excel errors

#17

Post by Noseshine »

Steeeve wrote: post #9

Is everybody a washington post subscriber? Or have I missed the route around the paywall somehow?

I read all my WP articles via right-click "Open link in incognito window".

(OT now:) If anyone thinks that's cheating them out of money - the choices are not "read for free" and "read for the appropriate price", the choices are "read for free" or "don't read". The reason I read is to procrastinate, so the value I get out of it is actually negative (same with HN...). Even their occasionally excellent articles (like their series on asset forfeiture) is stuff I'm at most mildly interested in (as a foreigner) to distract myself. That's my issue with today's media, I don't actually feel "informed" as in "it this is good for my life that I know these things". I can't do anything about 99.99% of the stuff I read about anyway, nor is it a representative sample of reality but consists almost solely on reporting the outliers.

Re: An alarming number of scientific papers contain Excel errors

#18

Post by sccxy »

Steeeve wrote: post #9

Is everybody a washington post subscriber? Or have I missed the route around the paywall somehow?

There is 'web' link under submission.

32 points by pns 6 hours ago | flag | hide | past | --> web https://www.google.com/search?q=An%20alarming%20number%20of%...

Google Search usually gets around paywalls

Re: An alarming number of scientific papers contain Excel errors

#19

Post by 7952 »

ramblenode wrote: post #11
krapht wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll just quote Soustrup here: "There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses." In particular you see the spreadsheet GUI as a downfall, but I think it is a great enabler that has allowed millions of non-programmers to create useful programs.

I would counter with "use the right tool for the job." Excel is great at churning out fast and dirty estimates for low impact work. The problem is when it's used for large, complex, or important problems because these are just not Excel's domain--something obvious when looking at the kinds of features and bug fixes MS has prioritized over the years.

It is damning that you cannot use a basic computer tool for anything that is large, complex, or important. Isn't that exactly what computers are for? Call me idealistic but I want a spreadhseet that can handle milions of rows. Maybe add a "strict" mode to keep people out of trouble.

Re: An alarming number of scientific papers contain Excel errors

#20

Post by cm2187 »

ramblenode wrote: post #11
krapht wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll just quote Soustrup here: "There are only two kinds of languages: the ones people complain about and the ones nobody uses." In particular you see the spreadsheet GUI as a downfall, but I think it is a great enabler that has allowed millions of non-programmers to create useful programs.

I would counter with "use the right tool for the job." Excel is great at churning out fast and dirty estimates for low impact work. The problem is when it's used for large, complex, or important problems because these are just not Excel's domain--something obvious when looking at the kinds of features and bug fixes MS has prioritized over the years.

I think the Excel team disagrees with you. I remember having even seen an Excel demo about big data on channel9 (apparently if it fits in a spreadsheet, it is still big data!).

Based on the evolution of Excel, they clearly see it as a data analysis tool only, with lots of iterations of the pivot tables functionality. And clearly not as a modeling tool.

My guess on Excel usage is that it is 10% of the time used for data analysis (pivot tables, time series analysis), 20% of the time used to create a simple table (planning for the week by non technical people), and 70% of the time used for modelling (business plan, tax calculations, accounting, pricing financial instruments, running an inventory, calculating something scientific/mathematic, etc). Most companies are run on Excel.

For instance one thing where Excel sucks at one of its core functionalities is linking a powerpoint presentation to an Excel model. Any consultant, expert, banker, accountant, salesperson or marketer will do that all day. You can paste a table as a linked image but the formatting will be completely unstable and it is very dodgy. And no way to link a number in a textbox to Excel. Microsoft should focus on these problems rather than yet another pivot table functionality.

Though office seems to be frozen time. I can't think of any major new feature since Office 2007.

Post reply on HN