Hi, I know youve gotten bombarded here - but the single greatest low-effort high-reward change y'all could make would be allowing data labels to be outside the data (immediately above or below). Currently you can only do base, mid, or top. In finance (my field) pretty much all charts have a second ghost bar with the same numeric value put above any bar chart, for the sole purpose of removing the filled color and putting the data label in the base (i.e. immediately above the real bar).
You would be a hero to thousands and thousands of junior bankers if you made this change lol.
I don't think this is really a reflection of any sort of quality of new music vs. old music, but rather the structure of how people listen to music. If you listen from a main playlist on Spotify and add 100 songs a year and you listen to it generally on shuffle, you'll progressively listen to less and less new music as a proportion of your total listening. This is despite you being interested in the same amount of new music each year. This seems like a likely culprit particularly considering the 18-month limit this infograph seems to consider as new music.
In ye olden times one had to actively choose music to listen to, lending itself to the newer albums, and a relatively weakened aggregate power of one's back catalogue. Spotify and similar services lend themselves to a very passive means of listening however (shuffle and go) that will naturally give more listening to the music which has greater quantity (old music of course).
It doesn't feel right, but if it's any consolation there isn't anything super juicy there, plus he pretty much admitted it was him without making a big fanfare about it.
Agreed. I'm kinda shook at a lot of the comments here, IMO missing the point (or lack of point) of the article. It's a slice of life view into a poignantly tragic story of a kid "lucking" into a terrible pair of golden handcuffs - a view into the apex of parasocial relationships. Someone who so clearly lacks any semblance of a social life, in the same hand creating a social environment for thousands of people - chiefly centered around making fun of him. There's no moral "good" or "bad" here.
As readers we can draw our own conclusions here, but to call the author biased into making the life/platform/phenomenon of twitch streamers bad? That's just a really narrow view of a fairly compelling article.
>Can you point me to the 'best practice' guide you are referring to? What authority on excel standards said this?
Well investment bankers tend to be pretty darn good at excel, and the banks I've been at would scorn you for doing it, as well as all the standardized training given out to fresh recruits to the industry. We had a buy-side deal recently fall through partially because the (fairly sophisticated) model the company selling itself used was absolutely unreadable and unaccountable. They did exactly what you said (naming), including with their assumptions. It was 20 sheets of unpenetrable mass, and we were all turned off by the fact that you couldn't follow it whatsoever, and was basically unaccountable.
>If you really want to use that example, you would click in the formula bar and it will highlight the ranges, and colour code them automatically.
If it's on a different sheet, you just hit ctrl + g and type in the name, and it will take you directly to the cell it's linked to (which usually in my case, is linked to a sheet that contains all my model's assumptions in one place, each one with a named range describing what it is). It's much easier and quicker than going to =Assumptions!G52.
This how I can tell you've never seriously worked with excel, because that's MUCH slower than using the native/macabacus auditing tools. Adds up over thousands of times. And what if Sales isn't just a simple cell in another sheet, but is actually tied to a named formula itself, tied to a named formula itself, tied to another worksheet (with named formulas in them!). That's a deep rabbit hole and you to be going down with little transparency, where you're having to look up the formula manager to find whatever the fuck the named variables are actually referring to (what if someone follows your advice and names the tax rate as "Tax" and now ctrl-g doesn't work!)
>Seems like a silly thing to teach people IMO. In my experience it makes formulas much more readable (both writer and reader), makes it much faster to build models, and cuts down errors substantially.
It makes formulas much easier to read, but with zero accountability, and considering someone will very likely be looking at the excel at some point, with no idea what you did, they have to check each and every one out to make sure it's not bullshit. Plus, it doesn't really make modeling faster assuming you've built out your source numbers/assumptions well and use best practices (like A24+A25+A26 instead of A25+A26+A24).
>I personally find that formulas are much easier to review, because the named ranges provide some intent. If someone writes =(A2Assumptions!92)/Assumptions!91 I've got to really unpick it to work out if it's right, but if someone labels it =(A2Miles_Per_Hour)/Average_Miles_Per_Vehicle then I can see that the formula is wrong almost instantly.
Use tracing, and if the assumption tab is well built out it really isn't faster, at all. +alt w,n
>Additionally if I want to write another formula using those values, I can just type it straight into the formula bar without having to go and click on the right cell reference in another sheet.
That's terrible practice, ironically, as it's extremely unreadable. How could someone looking at it know what Sales and Tax actually are? You have to go into the formula name box and dig in to find sales = "yada yada" etc. That doesn't seem too bad until you have a decently sized file and you have to dig into 40 formulas to find the one you want, and go check that it's actually referencing what you want.
I work as a banker, and what you do is one of the very first things new employees are taught not to do in excel. It's an amazing solution for the person that built it, but a terrible one for anyone looking to check the work.