In fact the lack of a solid and simple example that could be used to get the concept across to readers had troubled me for some time. Even examples that I had prepared for interactive presentations to conferences were lacking in completeness of the message or might seem to be rather explicit to a single obscure problem. Seeing such examples tends to suggest to the viewers that the method will only work for that problem or something similar whereas in fact the approach has some very broad uses.

I did consider picking about 4 variations on the theme, based on ‘live’ problems over the years. But there is an issue about the use of existing ‘real’ data offered in other places and it seems to me that a recreation of reports not only takes quite a lot of effort but is also quite likely to fail to connect with the reader’s own problem as they see it.

Going back a few years the term ‘Voodoo Monarch’ was coined to refer to less obvious approaches to the more difficult (and sometimes truly obscure) reports that systems could produce. There were some fascinating exercises that solved specific problems and showed the power of Monarch (many version past)but that would be unlikely to have everyday use for most users. Or indeed for any users!

However the concepts suggested potential for discoveries by experimentation which is where the idea of overlapping template traps and vertically floating fields (using the preceding string functionality) came from. Working out what they offered to help Monarch modellers and how far they could be applied came later.

Much of that discovery was driven by making use of the Voodoo ideas to try to solve other Monarch user’s practical problems – as presented on the Datawatch forums where a body of reference examples can still be found.

As I understand it the concepts were subsequently included in the Advanced level of the Monarch Training course.

Interestingly it seems that there are many report formats that benefit from the ‘Guru Trap’ approach, to the extent that this somewhat unusual need can become a requirement for a successful first Monarch project for a number of new Monarch users. This worries me a little because to dive in to the less self-evident functionality without a solid grounding on the basics may mean that people see their subsequent work in a more complicated light than is really necessary. It would be a shame if they were put off wider Monarch use by what they thought of as a complex and difficult to understand application when in reality the majority of tasks are likely to be much easier.

Maybe the time is right, now the method seems to have a proven track record, for a more complete documentation of the concept with several diverse examples to help with understanding.

But in the meantime I would still encourage people when faced with a specially challenging report to look at all the tools that Monarch offers and then try different ones in different ways to see what they can give. Even if they don’t work as you hoped that information is still usefully added to your personal knowledge base and skill set and will provide guidance for future Monarch based work.

Thanks for the prompt to revisit this subject.

Grant

I’m sorry to hear that you didn’t get what you’d hope out of this post.

That said, if you found it to be rather abstract, I believe that was the intention, in that it’s not a click-here-click-there type of lesson. Instead, it is my impression that Mr. Perkins is encouraging experimentation and that users pursue their own techniques with the software.

Monarch is somewhat different from many other software packages. While its usage can be very straightforward, there are techniques that can be of use that are anything but straightforward and we suspect that there are many such techniques that have yet to be “discovered”.

If Monarch were always simple, there most certainly would not be a need for this site. Perhaps a reader could be kind enough to provide a comment to direct you to a post that he or she believes to be informative or helpful. That might be better than if such direction came from yours truly.

I’d like to think that if you take a few moments to read some of the other content available here, you’ll find a good selection of how-to type content, along with a mix of somewhat (hopefully) entertaining yet relevant pieces, and some that are perhaps more conceptual in nature.

It would be boring to write about the same things, in the same style, continuously, and I’m certain that it would be even worse to read.

As to the writing style, we all write differently, and I’ve been proud to feature content from a number of guest contributors, each from different backgrounds and geographies, so far. In fact, I hope to have even more third-party input here on ExcelWithMonarch.com very soon. I’ve never claimed to have all of the answers, and will gladly facilitate the publishing of good ideas from whoever is willing to share with us all.

I will keep your comments in mind, of course, and will endeavor to include concrete examples where applicable, so as to improve both individual posts, and the site overall.

In attempting to make the site the definitive resource for Monarch users, it will be the ideas shared by the entire Monarch community that will be the site’s greatest success, and I invite you to continue to be a part of this continuously growing group.

Have you ever heard of using an example to teach a point?

Also, there is way too much fluff in this article. Who the heck is interested in how whoever stumbled upon this guru trap – and in this eloquence? Leave that for a bedtime story for your grandchildren, would you?

Disgruntled in Florida – still hoping to get an example out of this

Great job!