What is Digg?123 Comments
- eleven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30You're also management material when you start to consider excel for page layout and word processor duties.
- HalBSure, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31I can't tell if IHaveIssues is stupid or lazy. Either s/he didn't read the whole article (lazy), or couldn't understand it (stupid).
- MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25"Please read the article. Notice the sarcasm."
Christ, it wasn't even sarcasm, it was a strawman. And the transition from the strawman to the body of the article was actually separated by the word "Wrong." No one who actually took the time to read the article could possibly misunderstand it. - somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24"If you make computers that idiots can use..."
I blame Xerox for creating the GUI. - MrUnderbridge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18"Certainly appears to have been written by someone unfamiliar with real life.
The fact is that the majority of small and medium businesses not have full time IT staff, and consequently wouldn't know a database if it fell on their foot."
Didn't actually read it, huh? From the article:
"On the side facing people that just want to get their job done the relational model needs to go away. And please don't tell me that these people just need to hire a good database engineer to help them normalize their data, we're talking about every small business on the planet." - ArchAngel21x, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20Because creating a database for many things is OVERKILL.
- evizaer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14I don't think there's really much to disagree with. What the article said was fairly obvious to me after about the first paragraph after "Wrong." It's not a difficult concept to understand: Non-tech-savvy people use programs that work in ways with which they are familiar. Databases are nowhere near familiar to the everyday person. Not only is their storage and presentation much different than your regular document format, but they also have their own languages which must be learned in order to at all use the database effectively. That language is just one more layer of work that the person trying to create the system has to do--a layer of work that is completely avoided by using excel, which is much more intuitive in almost every way, besides.
- aleander, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18Please read the article. Notice the sarcasm.
Thank you for your cooperation. - pathfinder2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Make a relational database as easy to use as a spreadsheet and then they'll use it. Its that simple.
- kanemano, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Because it WORKS, and in real life what works will win the day.
- toxicredm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11You didn't read it either, did you?
FTA:"What I am doing is taking people to task that berate users for putting too much data into spreadsheets and not databases. We, as software developers, have let them down and not provided them with tools that work with how they've been trained to work with the data, the failing is on our side, not theirs." - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I think this underlines a huge problem with digg... notice how the comments made here seem to reflect and are inline with the title and summary of the article. however, the article is not inline with the summary and title.
admitedly, I thought the exact same thing. I work for a small company and we are constantly putting data into Excel spreadsheets because it's fast and easy. We don't have the resources to build a relational database everytime a new type of data needs to be recorded. Excel is excellent for this as just about any user can get it in there in a fairly normalized state.
so, digg the user down, but perhaps there needs to be better summaries and titles to digg articles. so far I can count 5 on the main page which are inaccurate to the article. - recursive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@david: Thanks for explaining the joke.
- NightHawk75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9You might notice that the author of the article was quoting when he referred to the "stupid users" or "lazy users" and was defending them from those techie people who DO call non-tech people those names. The point of the article is that frequently the spreadsheet really IS a better model, especially for a non-tech person.
Heck, I am very comfortable with relational databases, and started to build one a few weeks ago for some data that I am analyzing, then I realized that I was going to spend more time designing the tables and forms that I would entering the data! I immediately opened up Excel and started entering the data. - CosmicJustice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Reading comprehension; try it, you'll like it.
- hagrin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The answer to this question is simple - the easy to use front-end interface.
For my company to recreate all the spreadsheets that our employees use and then create relational databases for them and then front end interfaces for them to easily manipulate the data, it would take 10 times the programmers and/or a lot of money to purchase 3rd party applications that still would require customization.
And if you wanted to go the Office Suite route (i.e. Access) - the problem is people are familiar with Word, Excel and PowerPoint but do not know the first thing about Access due to its "complexity". Even still collaboration can be tricky if you aren't using SharePoint to manage versioning. - david76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I always appreciated getting layout comps for websites in PowerPoint from an assistant project manager at Salomon Smith Barney.
- thoand, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Most business people can't do SQL.
Excel is far more easier to use. - Drahknon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I remember this being batted around at Slashdot, and I still disagree that it's a big deal. Many businesses are run by non-tech-savvy folks, who despite the derision of Diggers/Slashdotters don't have the time and acumen to learn this stuff. Again and again, I hear from techy people (a label I humbly claim for myself, too) that people are too "stupid" to realize what they're missing about this or that. But if you're speaking from that standpoint, you're all but admitting that you have an aptitude for it that others obviously lack. Different people have different skills and aptitudes.
And so what? If it works for them (I've been at places where a spreadsheet was actually called "the database"), I've no problem with it. - bradbeattie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It's not always idiots using them. Sometimes it's idiots managing the people that use them. I worked at a company that wouldn't let us put data in anything but excel spreadsheets because the managers "wouldn't be able to see it" otherwise. *rolls eyes*
It isn't always a lack of technical knowledge, but sometimes a fear of those who have it. - RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I think I've gotten emails from your Prime Minister before. He said "Excuse me Kind Sir. I have many thousands of dollars locked away in a bank that is accessible only from a CSV file. Please, dear sir, transfer the file into a relational format and we can share in the riches of the land..."
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Exactly. I think what many people forget is at one point there were no computers, and companies ran just fine. Maybe not better, but they did manage to function. For some companies, Excel would be a step up.
- taylorhayward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Also, don't underestimate the, "I click on something and I can immediately see the result." factor.
Believe me, if someone produced a database that could show the cause and effect to user data while users were making table relationships people would get it and say, "HEY! Rationality rocks!"
Until then, it's flat file data in their two dimensional universe. - tazzy531, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I guess the author never worked in finance. There are traders that have built entire trading systems in Excel. They are doing multi-billion dollar trades with a custom excel interface. These are done in a number of large finance firms.
You'd be surprised what you see. - anon52, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I've designed many commercial databases of various persuations (relational, indexed-seq, networked) using lots of flavors of DB servers. I have also constructed a myriad of Excel apreadsheets using static data, formulae, macros, and DB queries.
There is a major disconnect between the user who sees essentially tabular data and wants a quick and easy way to enter it, and an analyst who sees patterns and relationships in the data and wants to optimize for performance, usage, etc.
I have yet to find a package that can bridge these two groups. In my ideal world, I should be able to enter data as presented, subsequently notice that there are logical relationships, indices, constraints, etc., and be able to develop these while I'm entering data. MS Access goes about 30-40% of the way but it is not something I would suggest an administrative assistant or a company officer should learn.
Anyone suggest packages that could help this along? Maybe dynamically noticing patterns in data and suggesting sub-tables, etc.
- airship, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4One thing that hasn't been touched on is the INCREMENTAL learning curve for spreadsheets. Entering numbers and words into a grid is a very easy concept to grasp. It's a short jump to adding columns of numbers. Then you can add charts and graphs, and move onto more complex formulas.
The point is, you can just start USING an Excel spreadsheet, with little or no training. When you want to add a feature, it's explained in the help menus, or worst case, you can get a slightly more experienced office mate to help you out.
Building a database is a daunting task. You have to pretty much be an expert before you can even start. And if you can do it in a spreadsheet, why bother? - AcePincter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Agreed. I second the mention of financial imperatives to go with Standard, vice Pro. It's software which, if installed on all users' computers would be used by about %2 of the users.
A Database will give you options for correlating data in ways most excel users couldn't even imagine, but I think the problem I see most often is poor database interface.
Here's my story:
I work in IT for an automotive supplier with a huge manufacturing database which tracks raw material throughout the entire process. It calculated thousands of manufactured parts against their component raw materials, plant capacity, known shipping times, costs, scrap, holidays, manpower, and other variables. It would print out orders for exactly the right quantity of raw material, to be ordered at exactly the right time, to be delivered at the right time and location, from the most economic vendor. It made allowances for the occasional failed part and scrap, and tracked waste. These calculations meant the database could pretty much RUN the company - all the end user had to do was make sure the system knew how much was produced in a given day.
Guess what, it didn't happen! The plant manager convinced his lackeys that the database was either too slow, clunky, or cryptic (even though 4 of the 5 plants had no problem with it). A site survey later found that they were using Excel to calculate the material costs for thousands of different parts made with each a unique combination of chemicals and polymers. A dozen calculations per part times a thousand parts turns into several GB worth of excel data. Pencil and paper was used extensively. It was later discovered that the plant manager had accrued some 120,000 dollars worth of excess inventory taking up some 40,000 square feet in a warehouse. Just sitting there, taking up space. Unusable.
We've been trying to rescue this once profitable plant for several years now. The plant manager was of course fired and shamed, and new training policies have been implemented, but it goes to show the strength of that ingrained "document familiarity", and some dangers to look out for! - fantasticjon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think the nuclear aircraft carrier analogy is a bit of a stretch.
That said, it would be difficult for a computer to intrepret what a lay users wants to do with their data and how they want their joins setup.
I am envisioning a visio like interface where tables are preset to common needs and can be dragged into a workspace and the computer could extrapolate what the user wanted from the builtin characteristics of the table and generate the appropriate forms and queries and reports. It might be feasible. Certainly wouldn't meet the needs of the enterprise, but would work for mom and pop shops. - MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If you're writing excel files with macros all over the place, linking to each other and basically acting as a standalone application, then you should definitely go to a database. That does pay off.
But as far as the everyday "get stuff on a sheet to mess around with" tasks, or even storing basic data, it's overkill for the non-techie to use a database. Spreadsheets are much more easily manipulated than databases, they're more intuitive and won't scare off half the people who come across them. They're the closest thing we have to a universal language when it comes to data and documents.
Besides, it would be even worse to have people who don't know how to properly create a database start using them for their everyday purposes. Most people, even if they knew how to use Access's GUI to create queries and stuff like that, would never know how to normalize their tables and maintain any sort of integrity on their data. Then when they misspell words typing things manually into their tables and their queries don't work, they're going to go into a panic and revert right back to excel, which never lost their data. - duality, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This article raises some thought-provoking ideas. I'm still unsure of exacly how much of it I agree with, though. Perhaps after thinking about it for a while....
- honkyman5000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yet they were your manager and supervisor. Weird, huh?
- rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Umm I think that was the point of the article.
- cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3...and then try to slap Google with an insane lawsuit because all of their 'secure' charts got picked up by the googlebot. (Is that how the story you were talking about ends?)
- cjpro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3They do not understand how to make items private on a webserver. And they don't want to learn. Meanwhile, we push them and they just don't want to move. Forget it, if my first comment didn't get it through your minds, why would this one? All IT workers need to learn to work with the user, not against!
- CorpT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I found the article embiggening.
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12@somerandomnerd
Yeah, we'd all be better off if we didn't have a GUI.
/sarcasm - dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What I want to know is why people put import data in spreadsheets, then upload and leave them in publicly accessable folders on web-servers..
- Ben - anagramarama, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5sigh... just read tfa - please...
hint - the post is misleading - cmiz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Haha, I love how this article is seperating the 'readers' from the 'non-readers'. We've had a bunch of 'but not everyone knows how to USE databases!!" replies.
Good article, and true. Would it be nice if everyone could learn how to use a database? Yeah. Would it be nice if everyone ran linux? Yeah, that'd be good too. When will these things happen? Not for a long long time. I prefer spreadsheets over databases frequently, not because they're better for organizing data (they're not), but merely because setting up a database can take awhile whereas a spreadsheet is ready to go from the start. - MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No it doesn't work just like Excel. One of the reasons people like excel is that it lets you reformat things, type simple equations in, etc etc. If you think Excel is just data in a grid then you're really not using all the features in that app. Access is of course much more powerful in the long run, but it doesn't put those tools right at your fingertips as you add data to a table like Excel does, which is why people choose excel over access most of the time
- TargetDigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The author makes some very cromunlent points.
- CosmicJustice, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Make a relational database as easy to use as a spreadsheet and then they'll use it. Its that simple."
Make a nuclear aircraft carrier as easy to operate as a compact car and then anybody can use it. It's that simple. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Have you then taught them how to make graphs and write queries and color things differently and export the data so they can package it in an email to be sent as a summary to a manager in Access? Databases are great for database things. Excel is great for excel things.
- CorpT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's fun to be able to easily spot the people who work and those who don't.
- Veretax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Having worked for people that use a lot of this in spreadsheets, the time and development cost for a relational database does not always out weigh the benefits of using it over a spreadsheet. The funny thing though is MS Excel hasn't really had much change in it since the 97 version. Also bear in mind that while Access is a great "starter" database, that it lacks a slew of functionatliy most databases provide. Why should someone learn how to code in VBA if there is an excel function that will do it for them?
- garbelini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is gonna sound funny.
I'm part of a big team developing the budget system for an African country's federal government. It's already on-line. 2 years ago, before us, they used to do everything with spreadsheets, and I mean everything.. The whole freaking budget for the whole country. And there are still lots of countries in the world still doing it the Excel way. - tagawa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2-34 diggs? I'd better steer clear of sarcasm next time...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why not just make the spreadsheet a "front end" to the database, type of whatever on your spread sheet, and save, but it actually puts in it a "database" , but the entry part is spreadsheet style
- armbar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why was an assistant project manager making website comps? He obviously didn't need to be in PM.
- gsmithEIDW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here's a point - look up Database Normalisation on wikipedi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
I quote from the top of this page:
"This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." and "This article or section may be confusing or unclear for some readers, and should be edited to rectify this." That this is in wikipedia in such a way still at this stage, doesn't that say something about the lack of clarity about good database design? Perhaps this issue represents the problems with the presentation of databases to end users.
The way I see it, a computer is supposed to be the clever and organised thing here. Really the user should be able to plug in the data into whatever office suite they like such that the suite itself manages how that data is organised. Surely even the task of deciding which portion of an office suite is right for the job should be assisted by the computer rather than entirely left to the users.
For example maybe if you're plugging some data into a spreadsheet and then decide you want to make a presentation out of that, that should be a seamless process. It also should be the case that the application should realise if the data having gathered size and complexity as the document grows that it should automatically export the data components to somethnig more suitable such as an object driven relational database, but keep all that crap transparent to the users. -
Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is