Alteryx Designer Desktop Ideas

*This is an idea from @sayuri  from the Portuguese Community*

• Create a button to add any tool to all output anchors of selected tools (similar to “Add All Browses”)

I made a search on LDA - Linear Discriminant Analysis on Alteryx Help and it returned "0" Results.

Idea: LDA - Linear Discriminant Analysis tool

to be added on the predictive tool box.

Rationale: We have PCA and MDS as tools which help a lot on "unsupervised" dimentionality reduction in predictive modelling.

Bu if we need a method that takes target values into considerations we need a "supervised" tool instead...

"LDA is also closely related to principal component analysis (PCA) and factor analysis in that they both look for linear combinations of variables which best explain the data.[4] LDA explicitly attempts to model the difference between the classes of data. PCA on the other hand does not take into account any difference in class, and factor analysis builds the feature combinations based on differences rather than similarities. Discriminant analysis is also different from factor analysis in that it is not an interdependence technique: a distinction between independent variables and dependent variables (also called criterion variables) must be made."

Could we please have the option of selecting the fields, like the join tool, within the Calgary Join tool?  It is especially problematic when I simply want to assign spatial object name to a point; i.e customers within a DMA or sales territory.

This would be agreat addition within the ConsumeView Matching tool as well.

  Thanks!

Would be nice to select a bunch of consecutive fields, and cut them and paste them to a different area.  Currently, the only options are to Move to Top or Move to Bottom.  If you want to move somewhere in between, you have to scroll through the whole list.

With the onset of Workflow Comparisons in V2021.3, it only seems natural to me that the next step would be a method of handling those changes. Maybe have some clickable dropdowns on the changed tools that have a few options as to what you'd like to do about them. I think the options to start off with would be "Apply this change to that workflow" and "Apply the other workflow's change to this one" along with the "Apply all of this workflow's changes to that one" and "Apply all of that workflow's changes to this one" somewhere in the header.

I know that I will occasionally get a request to change a workflow while I'm already in the middle of making a change to it or am waiting on approval for a change I've made and am hoping to implement. The current version control system on Server does not make it easy to implement multiple changes that may need to be implemented in an order other than the one in which they were started. The current process seems to be to merge them later by going through the whole process of selectively copying the changed tools and pasting/replacing them or otherwise manually modifying the tools to make them match.

Likewise, implementing the version merging proposed here will allow versioning strategies more akin to branches in git. One could more-or-less maintain two streams of changes until they were both complete and merge or productionize them as they're complete and ready.

Figuring out who is using custom macros and/or governing the macroverse is not an easy task currently.  

I have started shipping Alteryx logs to Splunk to see what could be learned.  One thing that I would love to be able to do is understand which workflows are using a particular macro, or any custom macros for that matter.  As it stands right now, I do not believe there is a simple way to do this by parsing the log entries.  If, instead of just saying 'Tool Id 420', it said 'Tool Id 420 [Macro Name]' that would be very helpful.  And it would be even *better* if the logging could flag out of the box macros vs custom macros.  You could have a system level setting to include/exclude macro names.  

Thanks for listening.

brian 

It should be made more clear when a container is just closed versus inactive/deactivated. Maybe highlight the container header in pink or light red if it's just closed and not deactivated. I've seen others in my group make the mistake of assuming the container is inactive if they simply close it. The current switch is kind of subtle. 

It would be great to have the option to FILTER on the columns within the TEXT INPUT TOOL.

Example, in the screenshot below I would like to filter this on the FirmCode Alphabetically

I have case where attached is the input excel file where column document name and document number is having hyperlink attached to it.  Wish we get functionality  to retain hyperlinks in those two column in the output excel file

Hello,

the randomforest package implementation in Alteryx works fine for smaller datasets but becomes very slow for large datasets with many features.

There is the opensource Ranger package https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.04409.pdf that could help on this.

Along with XGBoost/LightGMB/Catboost it would be an extremely welcome addition to the predictive package!

it would be helpful to have the ability to search within field names in the Configuration panel 

There are times where I can have very long lists of field names, and although sorting is helpful, a "Search in .. " feature would be even more so

I did not see this specifically requested in the forums

thanks

aoxomoxoa

When choosing "In List" values in a CYDB input, the normal Windows functions do not work (shift+click, ctl+A, ctl+click, etc.).

When having to choose, say, 20 values, it is a big annoyance to have to click each value (20 clicks). 

Have been told this is a bug so I wanted to put it on your radar for a fix.

It would be awesome if we could edit annotations while the workflow is running.

I love annotating all my tools, and I'm often sitting there looking at my canvas right after hitting run and thinking, "I should annotate that!" and then moving on and forgetting after it's run.  I'm not sure if that's feasible or not, but I think it would be neat.  

It would be great if Tool Container margins were adjusted so tools inside could snap to the grid perfectly. Right now they are just a pixel or so off and it creates slight crooks in connectors. (Minor I know, but it would go a long way to make canvases look clean)

Example:

It would be very helpful to do some basic KML formatting, especially changing line/point colors.  To be able to choose colors based on values in the data to make thematic maps easier would save me time.  Maybe within the output tool for KML, or as a spatial tool?

Currently working through an assignment on the Udacity Nano-degree related to A/B testing (thank you for the great course content @PatrickN ) 

Unfortunately - when using the AB testing tools for the first time, I encountered several cryptic error messages.   

This request is not to help diagnose this error message, but rather to wrap these error messages in a way that gives users some useful info so that they can solve this problem themselves.

As you can see from the error message below - the error provided does not give the user any hints on how to go about fixing the problem.

I've attached the workflow with embedded data so this should be replicatable

Given redshift prefers accepting many small files for bulk loading into redshift, it would be good to be able to have a max record limit within the s3 upload tool (similar to functionality for s3 download)

The other functionality that is useful for the s3 upload tool is ability to append file names based on datetimestamp_001, 002, 003 etc similar to current output tool

Olá, não sei se classifiquei a ideia na caixa correta, mas eu gostaria de ver uma ferramenta, provavelmente na aba "Transformar", e que traria o subtotal e total de um conjunto de linhas, sem ter que construir um fluxo somente para isso. Acredito que com uma ferramenta, apenas, o problema possa ser resolvido, como no exemplo anexo, o que é bem fácil de fazer no Excel, por exemplo.