The user's frustration is completely understandable, and their instinct to make COUNTIFS conditional on a blank cell is a smart one. The problem is that COUNTIFS doesn't work that way natively. It evaluates every condition as a hard filter, not a toggle. When you try to add logic like `+ISBLANK(S2)`, you're adding a number to a text string, which breaks the comparison. And when you use a wildcard like `"*"` in an IF statement, COUNTIFS still sees it as a literal condition, meaning it will try to match every cell in column B against that wildcard, which can return unexpected results when combined with the other condition. The user's approaches are logical, but they're fighting the function's design.
The practical fix is to stop trying to make COUNTIFS handle the conditional logic internally. Instead, separate the logic into two different COUNTIFS formulas and wrap them in an IF. If S2 is blank, run `=COUNTIFS(A:A,S1)`. If S2 is not blank, run `=COUNTIFS(A:A,S1,B:B,"<>"&S2)`. That's a clean, readable solution that works every time. It also makes the intent obvious to anyone who reads the formula later. The user was close, they just needed to step back and let the spreadsheet's structure do the branching for them.
This is a common pain point when moving from simple to intermediate spreadsheet work. People naturally try to cram every condition into a single function because it feels efficient. But efficiency isn't just about fewer cells; it's about clarity and reliability. A formula that works under all conditions is better than a clever one that fails in edge cases. The user's willingness to experiment with different approaches shows the right mindset, they just needed to recognize that sometimes the simplest solution is the most powerful.
Our take is straightforward: don't force COUNTIFS to be something it's not. Use IF to handle the blank condition externally, then let COUNTIFS do what it does best, count rows that match all given criteria. This approach scales well, is easy to debug, and avoids the silent errors that come from trying to trick the function. The user's original problem wasn't a lack of understanding; it was a mismatch between their intent and the tool's design. Now they know how to bridge that gap.