Forums

Help › Forums

Any spreadsheet experts?

rated by 0 users
Wed, Nov 5 2014 4:49 PM (54 replies)
  • alosso
    21,091 Posts
    Wed, Apr 9 2014 11:17 PM

    I appreciate this discussion because my manual method, while good for Master and TM, will be exhausting with 500+ Legend scores. Unfortunately to me, I can't join in because Excel function designations change with the language, your "average" is "Mittelwert" here etc.

    I'm gonna interject only one question:

    How will you take care or the Par3 scores? Par5s will eliminate themselves, but the former?

    It looks like more handwork than desired. When I'll be arriving there, I'll take a stab at some database action (Access).

  • Chinajohn
    1,190 Posts
    Wed, Apr 9 2014 11:34 PM

    alosso:

    I appreciate this discussion because my manual method, while good for Master and TM, will be exhausting with 500+ Legend scores. Unfortunately to me, I can't join in because Excel function designations change with the language, your "average" is "Mittelwert" here etc.

    I'm gonna interject only one question:

    How will you take care or the Par3 scores? Par5s will eliminate themselves, but the former?

    It looks like more handwork than desired. When I'll be arriving there, I'll take a stab at some database action (Access).

    For me quite simple, I don't enter BoP3/5 in the column for averaging, i.e. the 18 hole score, instead I just enter an extra number in the 9 hole score.

  • ScottHope
    10,623 Posts
    Thu, Apr 10 2014 2:00 AM

    Hello, it's me again. Having taken Kats advice, I have modified my formula to incorporate her IF function to determine the presence of the number of scores.

    {=IF(COUNT(ScoresTable)>=500,AVERAGE(SMALL(ScoresTable,ROW(INDIRECT
    ("1:500")))),AVERAGE(ScoresTable))}

    Kat, as shown in the above formula I have used a table instead of a named range. The reason I have done this is because when I add more data to the bottom of the table it automatically increases the table size to incorporate the new data, when I used a named range that didn't happen.

    I know that I could have made the named range with lots of empty rows to put in new data as and when it arrives but it seemed a better idea to have a table grow as the new data was added rather than a fixed range. What do you think, good idea or not?

  • Chinajohn
    1,190 Posts
    Thu, Apr 10 2014 4:35 AM

    ScottHope:

    Hello, it's me again. Having taken Kats advice, I have modified my formula to incorporate her IF function to determine the presence of the number of scores.

    {=IF(COUNT(ScoresTable)>=500,AVERAGE(SMALL(ScoresTable,ROW(INDIRECT
    ("1:500")))),AVERAGE(ScoresTable))}

    Kat, as shown in the above formula I have used a table instead of a named range. The reason I have done this is because when I add more data to the bottom of the table it automatically increases the table size to incorporate the new data, when I used a named range that didn't happen.

    I know that I could have made the named range with lots of empty rows to put in new data as and when it arrives but it seemed a better idea to have a table grow as the new data was added rather than a fixed range. What do you think, good idea or not?

    Again wonderful and thank you. 

    Another question, your "(ScoresTable)" I assume must refer to something, probably the complete set of data perhaps the whole spreadsheet, how do you define it? 

  • ScottHope
    10,623 Posts
    Thu, Apr 10 2014 4:49 AM

    Might be best to ignore my previous post for the time being John, as I'm having a few problems implementing it at the moment, sorry.

    EDIT : Going to make a video John to try to explain it better.

  • cappy11
    1,173 Posts
    Thu, Apr 10 2014 7:17 AM

    + bump

  • oilyrag
    875 Posts
    Thu, Apr 10 2014 7:55 AM

    you don't need to use complicated formula

    wgtscores.xlsx

  • ScottHope
    10,623 Posts
    Thu, Apr 10 2014 8:11 AM

    Nice one oily, but I have a hunch that Kat is going to come up with one of her wonderful creations which with make all of our efforts look pretty pale by comparison.  : )

  • DaddysKat
    3,554 Posts
    Thu, Apr 10 2014 8:28 AM

    ScottHope:
    Kat, as shown in the above formula I have used a table instead of a named range. The reason I have done this is because when I add more data to the bottom of the table it automatically increases the table size to incorporate the new data, when I used a named range that didn't happen.

    Seems like with anything electronic, there has to be a "work-around".  It seems like if you were to add one additional row to the named range (at the bottom), then inserted an entire row, the named range would grow.  

    For example, say you start off with 1 score, on row 3.  You define your range E3:E4.  In cell location A4, you enter the text "Insert new row here" (or leave it blank and remember to do an insert row).  The "Count" function will only count cells with numbers, so it's going to return 1.  Now, when you insert the row, the range should change from E3:E4 to E3:E5.

    Since I'm not really well versed in Excel (I'd rather write a macro to handle complex calculations than write a complex formula), I'm not sure how the table function works ... if it automatically resizes, I'd define a table as you suggest.

     

  • DaddysKat
    3,554 Posts
    Thu, Apr 10 2014 8:34 AM

    oilyrag:

    you don't need to use complicated formula

    wgtscores.xlsx

    Nice SS Oily ... How do you handle the average once you get beyond 500 rounds played (top 500 scores only)?  The spreadsheet covers an average well ... I just didn't see how you were going to handle the "top 500 scores" average once you get beyond the saturation point.  

RSS