Scrutable

Looks like local places had so many cases their file sizes were too big and the file transfer to the central adding up place were rejected.

There were literally so many cases that the system couldn't handle it?

It was viral case overload and the system didn't have a defence mechanism.

According to the Mail it's to do with data exceeding Excel's sheet size limits:

https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/13 ... 06880?s=20

Which, if true, is incredible. There's no way that Excel should be anywhere near this kind of operation.

RobS wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:52 am According to the Mail it's to do with data exceeding Excel's sheet size limits:

https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/13 ... 06880?s=20

Which, if true, is incredible. There's no way that Excel should be anywhere near this kind of operation.

You seem to be under the illusion that someone trained in data handling has been near this.

Surely they ran out of Rows, not Columns ?

Grumble wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:03 am You seem to be under the illusion that someone trained in data handling has been near this.

or even trained in anything vaguely related to science or technology. At least then they might recognise their lack of expertise.

noggins wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:10 am Surely they ran out of Rows, not Columns ?

Excel 2016 has 1,047,576 rows. I think they probably ran out of file size rather than sheet size.

Grumble wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:03 am

RobS wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:52 am According to the Mail it's to do with data exceeding Excel's sheet size limits:

https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/13 ... 06880?s=20

Which, if true, is incredible. There's no way that Excel should be anywhere near this kind of operation.

You seem to be under the illusion that someone trained in data handling has been near this.

Guilty as charged

RobS wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:52 am According to the Mail it's to do with data exceeding Excel's sheet size limits:

https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/13 ... 06880?s=20

Which, if true, is incredible. There's no way that Excel should be anywhere near this kind of operation.

Ahhhh, after I heard about the missing data I was joking with my retired IT manager MrHuntingDog that somewhere there was an IT manager saying "I told you not to use Excel"

apparently I'm psychic

Grumble wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:23 am

noggins wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:10 am Surely they ran out of Rows, not Columns ?

Excel 2016 has 1,047,576 rows. I think they probably ran out of file size rather than sheet size.

You're under the illusion that you're using such a modern version of Excel!

Hunting Dog wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:46 am

RobS wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:52 am According to the Mail it's to do with data exceeding Excel's sheet size limits:

https://twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/13 ... 06880?s=20

Which, if true, is incredible. There's no way that Excel should be anywhere near this kind of operation.

Ahhhh, after I heard about the missing data I was joking with my retired IT manager MrHuntingDog that somewhere there was an IT manager saying "I told you not to use Excel"

apparently I'm psychic

My signature is apt for so much of this government

My work Windows 7 ecosystem is on Excel 2010.

Which I consider to be newfangled, even if you consider it oldfangled.

Lotus 1-2-3, now there was a spreadsheet.

If they're using Excel, then it's probably also changed approximately 10% of the cell contents into a date and dropped all the leading zeros from the test ids and phone numbers.

bagpuss wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:33 am If they're using Excel, then it's probably also changed approximately 10% of the cell contents into a date and dropped all the leading zeros from the test ids and phone numbers.

It is like you've stared directly into my soul ...

Im baffled by Excel having 16k+ columns.

I mean, what dataset is detailed enough to require thousands of columns yet unimportant enough to be shoved in Excel ?

Everyone knows you should use open office for critical data not excel

And to think I remember being alarmed when I found out that one local authority relied entirely on Excel for its individual property repair records...

jimbob wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:56 am Everyone knows you should use open office for critical data not excel

ISWYDT
I use Libre Office

I use LibreOffice where possible but our university has a deal with Microsoft.

I rely on excel for all sorts of stuff that a database would be better for, but I can’t get training in databases and we keep going “how much” when we get quotes. So it never gets sorted. I’ve tried to teach myself Access but I can’t get my head round it. It’s like the instructions are written in a foreign language.

lpm wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:20 am Lotus 1-2-3, now there was a spreadsheet.

I really loved Lotus Improv for dense multi-dimensional data. Never have come across anyone else who used it.

Also loved dbase (remember that) with an add-on that allowed not just simple values to be added - but instead, values with a range. Forecast graphs gave a line with a growing spread above and below.

/been retired for 25 years, so there's prob better around these days/

It was excel, it was Excel 2003, it was 65,536 rows, and it was a bunch of dickheads.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... t-12090904

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 3:14 pm It was excel, it was Excel 2003, it was 65,536 rows, and it was a bunch of dickheads.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... t-12090904

Wow. That’s a well written piece but the story itself is shocking.