Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Random Charts & Nonsense


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:
RE: Random 2017 Review snippets


jb288 wrote:

Also, when can I sign up to Excel lessons with you???



I am self taught, in the worst possible interpretation of that phrase.
My methods most certainly do not constitute 'best practice'; more often than not, they seem to crash Excel, even when it has the required functions available.

A piece of paper and an abacus are recommended in preference to my the 'wisdom' of my teachings.



__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.



Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 34280
Date:

blob wrote:

So, the latest Windows/Office updates remove access to some of the functions used. notably MAXIFS, MINIFS, AVERAGEIFS.
You now have to pay extra to get them to work in the base version of Excel (the one I use). You have to move to the £79.99 yearly plan as opposed to my stand alone, purchased, one-time payment product.
Or, having purchased the full complete product on a one time, all-time, all in, basis, I now have to move to the additional recurring annual plan in order to preserve the functionallity I have already paid for.

So none of my workbooks will now calculate correctly.
The workarounds take weeks to implement given how frequently I use the inaccessible functions.
So, that's it.

No prior warning, no alternative given.
**** Microsoft.

Happy New Year.


That's shocking (though many from an IT company, not so shocking because it seems that anything goes in IT even if it would cause a complete scandal in any other industry) - perhaps they've been taking lessons from the WTA website in how to progressively downgrade themselves ...

Your stats, however, are sensational (that's coming from another self-taught Excel user LOL) - I'll try to remember to tweet a link to this page tomorrow at a time Brits are likely to be awake!



__________________

GB on a shirt, Davis Cup still gleaming, 79 years of hurt, never stopped us dreaming ... 29/11/2015 that dream came true!

GB top 25s (ranks, whereabouts) & stats - http://www.britishtennis.net/stats.html



All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 7056
Date:

Yes, I was shocked and appalled too, as I also didn't think that once you'd purchased a Microsoft Office product that they could subsequently change its functionality. It sounds like Apple slowing down 'older' versions of their iphone too... But my thanks too blob, your stats are fascinating and add both to the enjoyment and understanding of following Brit women's tennis.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 19776
Date:

I must confess I haven't seen those particular functions in Excel. I have a number of full versions on different computers, and the oldest version to hand (2007) doesn't have them, but then I guess that has also been downgraded recently.

Hope you get it sorted out blob, the stats and graphs in particular are (as Michael D says) fascinating, and leave me in awe.

__________________


Social player

Status: Offline
Posts: 27
Date:

blob wrote:

So, the latest Windows/Office updates remove access to some of the functions used. notably MAXIFS, MINIFS, AVERAGEIFS.
You now have to pay extra to get them to work in the base version of Excel (the one I use). You have to move to the £79.99 yearly plan as opposed to my stand alone, purchased, one-time payment product.
Or, having purchased the full complete product on a one time, all-time, all in, basis, I now have to move to the additional recurring annual plan in order to preserve the functionallity I have already paid for.

So none of my workbooks will now calculate correctly.
The workarounds take weeks to implement given how frequently I use the inaccessible functions.
So, that's it.

No prior warning, no alternative given.
**** Microsoft.

Happy New Year.

I am not sure whether this will help you but LibreOffice Calc tries to replicate all functions from Excel. In fact it was criticised for replicating some well known errors in Excel. I do not use Excel so i have no idea whether it does what you want but it is free (unless you have to pay for the download). I join the others in thanking you for your analyses (obviously, as otherwise why would I have bothered writing this).

 

 



__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:

Thank you for the suggestions, I've looked at OpenOffice, may try LibreOffice.
I needed to get everything ready for 2018 theses last few days, but had imagined just re-using the 2017 format - which took dozens of hours to Dr. Frankenstein/Heath Robinson into life.
Once the season starts, catching up is a Sisyphean task.

There is a frankly astounding postscript here:
If you sign up for a free outlook.com account (the old hotmail, now Microsoft owned, and rebranded to match their email offering) then you get access to Excel online.
In the free version of Excel Online, you get access to all of the required formulas.
Quite a lot of the other non-formula based functions aren't there though.

So, you get more formula power - the primary basis for using Excel - in the free version than you do in a version that is sold for offices and small businesses, and costs hundreds of pounds!

If I load my workooks in to Excel Online, they do calculate correctly still, I just can't work with the raw data I have. I just have a very large series of tables, static, sterile, lemon-like. I can't export it as is to another program, as the formulas need to generate their results in order to have useful data to export, otherwise I'm just exporting "#NAME?", or "#VALUE!"

Oh! and Microsoft told me to do a 'thing' so they could process my complaint. That 'thing' (they called it a repair) removed even more non-formula functions, and I can't get them back now, either, at least unitl they've processed their review.


There are about 6 columns of data I can still employ usefully, so expect a very detailed 'Bakery' report, perhaps.

__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.



All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:

*sigh* now, in addition, imgur won't accept the image uploads of the charts hmm
2018 is going to be a joy, isn't it?



__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.



All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 7056
Date:

I do hope microsoft are cooperative and you get your excel functionality back blob.... without having to do all the work to reset everything up.

__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:

Welcome to... the Great British (Women's Tennis) Bake-Off!

64 GB Women displayed some sort of baking proficiency in 2017

2mevbk9.jpg

Our top bakers from the raw ingredients were:

5v7tk8.jpg

But, if we attempt to judge the quality of the baking, by introducing a weighting systems, and awarding a bagel 3 points, and a breadstick 1 point, we get a different picture:

29qo6ef.jpg

However, this raw scoring obviously favours the more frequent chefs, those that take to the kitchen with the greatest frequency, they have more chances to deliver their goods.
So, what happens if we look at the bakery delivery ratio on a per match and per set played basis?
Well, a whole new group of bakery enthusiasts emerges.

14uw8ea.jpg

But, sadly, even here there is a flaw, as this latter approach obviously favours players that tend to play in matches against very lowly ranked, even part-time, players.
It is reasonable to expect that serving up bakery in those instances would be easier than against, say, Johanna's typical weekly opposition - themselves skilled bakers.
It is telling that despite Johanna's great bakery skills, her tennis bakery is somewhat lacking - the quality of adversary making the task all the harder.
Johanna managed 3 bagels and 9 breadsticks (the exact same totals as Naomi) which would have her =20th amongst Brit Bakers.
No doubt, she could easily lead the pack playing the opponents of almost every other player.

To counter that, you need to look at the differential between player rankings and weight bakery quality according to who exactly it was recorded against.
No. I'm not doing that. It's really, really hard.

I also haven't done the GB players forced to chow down others bakery, because the results are actually quite unflattering to some rather surprising names.

If you're viewing on mobile devices, sorry. The pictures were hard enough to do without imgur as it was, without optimising.



__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.



All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:

Thus far in 2018, we already have 4 wins after having lost the opening set.
In 2017 we only had one through the end of the Australian Open.

Whether that means we're starting slower in matches, and having to work hard to get results as a consequence, or just showing admirable fighting qualities I'm not sure.

(After about 100 hours work, about 60% of the way through the process of salvaging last years data, and preparing that for 2018)

__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.



All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 6281
Date:

Brilliant biggrin



__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 7056
Date:

blob wrote:

Thus far in 2018, we already have 4 wins after having lost the opening set.
In 2017 we only had one through the end of the Australian Open.

Whether that means we're starting slower in matches, and having to work hard to get results as a consequence, or just showing admirable fighting qualities I'm not sure.

(After about 100 hours work, about 60% of the way through the process of salvaging last years data, and preparing that for 2018)


Wow, that's impressive blob and a great deal of arduous effort. Thankful that the backs seems to be broken with the work, but the time its taken u... can only shake my head in amazement and admiration  



__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:

e6wVMka.png



__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.



All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 7056
Date:

I'm struggling with the vertical axis blob. How can we have had nearly 100 tournament entries in just 4 weeks, with about 195 matches played in that time too? There have been very few tournaments so far, and not many players either... Somehow that scale doesn't represent what it says it does.

__________________


All-time great

Status: Offline
Posts: 5110
Date:

Thanks. Good spot.
Trying to automate the charts so that they expand each week by themselves to new data - i.e. don't need any updating.
Problem With my $ signs in formulas. $B$1:B1
Went number blind.
Fixing - ignore the above - sorry.

__________________

Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.

«First  <  1 2 3 425  >  Last»  | Page of 25  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard