you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 30 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Nothing compares to the foolish audacity of excel to switch numbers to scientific notation by default. This can't possibly be the most commonly desired outcome. Its the most annoying "feature" they have that has existed forever.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Hey. Look at that column of dates you got. Would be a shame if they got converted to random numbers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Hey that's a cool sequence of genes. Would be a shame if we converted a few into date format when you try to save as .csv

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Sure but at the same time they shouldn't be using Excel as a database.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    In the example you're talking about the scientists were using it as a database. A Microsoft executive even came out and told them that you shouldn't use it as a database.

    Occasionally there's even articles in scientific journals explaining why you shouldn't use Excel as a database and suggesting alternatives. But for some reason people still turn to their favourite not database database software.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    This isn't a live or massive dataset. It's a table of data from the samples that were sequenced.

    CSV is a perfectly adequate format for the work being done. Actually, Excel's bug-as-a-feature is the only reason you wouldn't want to use it.

  • source
  • parent