This user's problem is a perfect example of why traditional spreadsheets are no longer fit for purpose. You should not have to color-code cells, track down matching job codes by sight, and then manually cut and paste rows across hundreds of columns. That is not data management; that is data labor. The request for a "shortcut" reveals the deeper truth: the tool itself is the bottleneck.
The manual process this user describes, scanning a heavy databook, identifying similar codes, cutting rows from scattered locations, and stacking them one below another, is exactly the kind of repetitive, error-prone work that AI-native spreadsheets eliminate. When your schedule stretches to column TP, the risk of misplacing a row or breaking a formula grows with every manual action. The user is not asking for a faster way to do the same work. They are asking for a way to stop doing that work entirely. And that is the right question.
What this person needs is a system that understands the relationship between their data. Instead of color-coding cells as a visual crutch, a modern spreadsheet should let them group, sort, or stack records based on the content of the cells themselves. If job codes in A1, A10, A15, and A19 are similar, the tool should be able to identify that pattern, aggregate those rows, and present them in a clean stack, no cutting, no pasting, no manual oversight. This is not a futuristic wish. It is a basic capability that AI-powered tools already deliver.
Our opinion is straightforward: the manual cut-and-paste grind is a sign that your spreadsheet is working against you, not for you. The user's request for a shortcut is actually a request for a better system. And the solution is not a more clever macro or a hidden keyboard shortcut. It is a tool that treats your data as something to understand, not something to rearrange by hand. If you find yourself color-coding cells just to keep track of what belongs together, it is time to explore a spreadsheet that does that thinking for you.