I can't post another on the other thread for some reason, max 25 posts maybe.
WOW, that is all I can say.
I have to say that I love your last set up, selecting the threshhold manually works terrifically. I actually use your work on other information, surprisingly I can use it on addresses, we have alot of online purchasing too, millions a month of $ just from one site which is one of the largest retail companies in the US and several others too. But I like the threshhold selection just because I am using it on DL's and FullMicr's too. I set it at .80 for the FM's which already have 9 digits matching due to the ABA (routing #'s) and alot of acct #'s which follow the ABA are similar already so I set it at .80 to .90 otherwise it flaggs too much similar data. A far as the smaller sets digits I use it there and select .50 to .70, generally we find that it varies but usually it is going to be around 4 or less digits being changed.
So basically I really like the last one with the selector.
I am speechless that you have taken brought this idea to life and have perfected it like you have. In this new overhaul, is it possible to put that idea I mentioned before about highlighting the digits that do not match in RED or something? That is one of the concerns when others try it.
Update, the co-worker that ran the macro on 64,000 rows says it is on about 14,000, it is 11am now and he stared it around 2 or 3 i think yesterday, sorry so longggggggggggg.
WOW, that is all I can say.
I have to say that I love your last set up, selecting the threshhold manually works terrifically. I actually use your work on other information, surprisingly I can use it on addresses, we have alot of online purchasing too, millions a month of $ just from one site which is one of the largest retail companies in the US and several others too. But I like the threshhold selection just because I am using it on DL's and FullMicr's too. I set it at .80 for the FM's which already have 9 digits matching due to the ABA (routing #'s) and alot of acct #'s which follow the ABA are similar already so I set it at .80 to .90 otherwise it flaggs too much similar data. A far as the smaller sets digits I use it there and select .50 to .70, generally we find that it varies but usually it is going to be around 4 or less digits being changed.
So basically I really like the last one with the selector.
I am speechless that you have taken brought this idea to life and have perfected it like you have. In this new overhaul, is it possible to put that idea I mentioned before about highlighting the digits that do not match in RED or something? That is one of the concerns when others try it.
Update, the co-worker that ran the macro on 64,000 rows says it is on about 14,000, it is 11am now and he stared it around 2 or 3 i think yesterday, sorry so longggggggggggg.