This site uses different types of cookies, including analytics and functional cookies (its own and from other sites). To change your cookie settings or find out more, click here. If you continue browsing our website, you accept these cookies.
We're actively looking for ideas on how to improve Weekly Challenges and would love to hear what you think!Submit Feedback
A solution to last week's Challenge can be found here!
A big thanks to those of you that joined us last week at Inspire for the Weekly Challenge session! It was so much fun solving with you all!
This week, we're identifying the most popular baby names that were registered between the years of 1880 and 2017. Given the provided dataset, determine the most popular names for Males and Females for each available year. The column "Field_1" contains three concatenated values: the name, the associated gender (Male or Female) and the number of occurrences that the name appeared in birth records. The column "FileName" contains the name of the file in which the record is found; the data was read in from a zip file that contained text files for each year (1880-2017) of records.
Hi @ChristineB! Can you upload an earlier version, by chance, or upload the workflow and YXDB separately? I am unable to download the package since I am not on the same/latest version as you... usually I can do this fine with separate files, but the YXZP package won't let me... :( Need my Monday Weekly Challenge fix to help me combat these post-Inspire blues!! Thanks!
@NicoleJohnson, no problem, and thanks for the heads up! I uploaded the start file (.yxmd) and the input file (names.yxdb) to the original post. That should get the ball rolling!
Had the same issue as Nicole (congrats on the Grand Prix btw!), was able to circumvent by changing the extension to .zip
Looking forward to seeing some more elegant solutions!
I decided to go for the least number of tools that yielded the correct answer.
My solution! Looks about the same as all three already submitted by @kcgreen, @patrick_digan, and @bdaniels... there was probably a more dynamic way to get the names & counts in their respective gender columns, but this seemed far cleaner than whatever that method would be... so I feel like I'm in great company. :)
And thanks for the cheers, @bdaniels! :)
It looks like I used the same approach to many. How unoriginal of me :)