assigning a unique value

[Alan Beban]

As opposed to your characteristic militant ignorance.

Take a peek at the number of OP follow-ups in which they need to provide
additional details. For example,

http://groups-beta.google.com/group...t.functions/msg/6bc2611340d8ae35?dmode=source

(or http://makeashorterlink.com/?C6952670B ).

Did I miss something, or did you cite the existence of one single post
to support your statement "OPs *seldom* provide sample data that's truly
representative of their real data" [Emphasis added]?

Alan Beban

 

[Harlan Grove]

Did I miss something, or did you cite the existence of one single post
to support your statement "OPs *seldom* provide sample data that's truly
representative of their real data" [Emphasis added]?

I thought you'd be too stupid to understand the common meaning of

"i'm afraid i didn't give enough info on my first post."

and too stupid or lazy to compare the info in the first post and the
follow-up. Having a difficult time understanding English? Can't follow the
dots?

 

[Guest]

One problem is that I have to re-sort according to different criteria
constantly. I have many other columns in the spreadsheet that I have to sort
by. So the solution would have to be one that would not be affected by the
names being ungrouped.

 

[Harlan Grove]

Dino wrote...

One problem is that I have to re-sort according to different criteria
constantly. I have many other columns in the spreadsheet that I have to sort
by. So the solution would have to be one that would not be affected by the
names being ungrouped.

....

Another example of specs becoming more complete as the thread
progresses. Is there any chance Alan Beban will ever learn this lesson?
I'm not hopeful.

 

[Harlan Grove]

Dino wrote...

One problem is that I have to re-sort according to different criteria
constantly. I have many other columns in the spreadsheet that I have to sort
by. So the solution would have to be one that would not be affected by the
names being ungrouped.

If you'd be resorting constantly, would you be expecting the numbers
corresponding to the names to vary after each sort? If not, sort by
name and use Alan Beban's original formula, then copy the range of
numbers and paste special as values onto itself to 'freeze' those
numbers. If you need the numbers constantly changing, see the formulas
in my later posts in this thread.

 

[Guest]

Thanks all for your input. The formula from the post by N. Harkawat worked! I
did not try the formulas after that post, although I'm sure all have merit. I
can now sort differently, and it doesn't affect the result.

 

[Alan Beban]

(or http://makeashorterlink.com/?C6952670B ).

Did I miss something, or did you cite the existence of one single post
to support your statement "OPs *seldom* provide sample data that's truly
representative of their real data" [Emphasis added]?

I thought you'd be too stupid to understand the common meaning of

"i'm afraid i didn't give enough info on my first post."

and too stupid or lazy to compare the info in the first post and the
follow-up. Having a difficult time understanding English? Can't follow the
dots?

Ah yes. When the going gets tough, start name-calling and try to divert
the readers from the point.

I'm having trouble even "finding" the dots. Let me ask it more clearly
so you can stop pretending to have missed the point: Are you suggestng
that the existence of a single thread, in which one particular OP failed
to provide representative sample data, proves your hyperbolic assertion
that OPs "seldom" provide respresentative sample data? So by that
"logic", if one wanted to prove that OPs "usually" provide
representative sample data he/she could do that by pointing to a single
thread in which the OP did provide representative sample data?

Alan Beban

 

[Harlan Grove]

Alan Beban wrote...
....

I'm having trouble even "finding" the dots. Let me ask it more clearly
so you can stop pretending to have missed the point: Are you suggestng

that the existence of a single thread, in which one particular OP failed
to provide representative sample data, proves your hyperbolic assertion
that OPs "seldom" provide respresentative sample data? So by that
"logic", if one wanted to prove that OPs "usually" provide
representative sample data he/she could do that by pointing to a single
thread in which the OP did provide representative sample data?

It was incomplete sample data, lacking mention of the 4th field in the
OP. Didn't catch that, did you? There's a lot that seems to get past
you most days.

More threads. You may have to read a few messages in each of them.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group...6e4f5786350/54a600be18c43a47#54a600be18c43a47

http://groups-beta.google.com/group...e18dcb20738/ce2146ccde98b682#ce2146ccde98b682