Matching downloaded transactions in MD 2010
When MD 2010 thinks a downloaded transaction is a match it doesn't give me a way to override. I tried each of the selections it offered and none of them let me include the new downloaded transaction as a new transaction (it finds the earlier dated transaction and doesn't even show the new transaction date). This, of course, throws my balances off tremendously and now my accounts are out of balance as they are missing transactions.
Thanks.
Showing page 2 out of 10. View the first page
Comments are currently closed for this discussion. You can start a new one.
Keyboard shortcuts
Generic
| ? | Show this help |
|---|---|
| ESC | Blurs the current field |
Comment Form
| r | Focus the comment reply box |
|---|---|
| ^ + ↩ | Submit the comment |
You can use Command ⌘ instead of Control ^ on Mac
31 Posted by Brian on 14 Dec, 2009 05:13 AM
Better link to the Trac site so you can just vote:
http://moneydance.com/trac/ticket/2366
32 Posted by LarryCL on 14 Dec, 2009 12:34 PM
@Mike (post 30) wrote: "Frankly, I'm astounded that a problem of this magnitude made it past testing."
Mike, did you read the developer's blog? They wrote: "We started the public beta testing a little more than a month and have been furiously adding last minute features and fixing bugs right up until this weekend."
Folks, I have 20 years experience working in software development. You never furiously add features up to the last minute. Testing & bug fixing, yes. New features, no.
@jwc (post 29) - you have a great point about the voting system. The developers should recognize the magnitude of this problem on their own and fix it. The trac system is too technically sophisticated for the average joe.
To the Moneydance developers: A few months ago I posted a long description of how transaction matching should work. http://help.infinitekind.com/discussions/problems/164-import-matchi...
I hope MD can get to the point where it supports most of this.
33 Posted by Randy on 14 Dec, 2009 05:50 PM
jwc, if you look at the number and type of bugs in Trac, you will see that they have quite a few that are big problems. I don't think they rely on number of votes solely, but I do think if a lot of people vote for a ticket, they have a relative idea of the broadness of the problem. In other words, if the development staff decided that 2 or 3 bugs were about equal in severity, I hope they would choose the one with the most votes, since they frequently ask us to vote for things on this forum.
This is a very small company, and they have to allocate resources some way. I remember the frustrations with Microsoft Money in its growing years, and would have welcomed any way possible to get a little priority on the bugs and performance problems I saw with that product. The best I could tell, Microsoft did whatever the hell it wanted.
Having said that, I have to admit that I was shocked when MD2010 went production so quickly. But it has, and I want this stuff fixed, so I guess the best thing to do now is try to explain and prioritize our problems.
I have never seen Sean comment on the forum, but I have seen him comment quite a bit in the Trac system. So I feel like I am communicating more directly with him when I enter, or vote, or otherwise comment over there.
34 Posted by Noname on 14 Dec, 2009 06:24 PM
I just don't understand why Ben or Angie haven't weighed in on this issue? This thread is still marked as "new" which is defined as "The Moneydance support team hasn’t had a chance to look at this issue yet". I see that they have been in other threads. I'd really like to hear from someone in support that this issue is recognized as a very serious matter.
35 Posted by Randy on 14 Dec, 2009 08:13 PM
well build 726 is out, but the best I can tell, it doesn't address these issues at all.
36 Posted by jwc on 15 Dec, 2009 12:21 AM
[Edit: what follows is some serious self-righteousness that I regret posting. Instead of trying to make myself look good by deleting it or modifying it, I'm leaving it as is and apologizing for it later.]
Trac is a joke. It's a bug base, for crying out loud. It's not a user poll, and it can never be deployed as a user poll, and to pretend otherwise is ridiculous.
A good poll makes it easy for users to express their opinions. Trac is the dead opposite. Trac lets maybe 1% of users express their opinions, and effectively silences everyone else. And I'm sorry, but if you use it, you're part of the problem. Cut it out.
If we ever want them to listen to us, we have to stop letting them use Trac to ignore us.
37 Posted by Randy on 15 Dec, 2009 01:56 AM
Trac is a bug and enhancement database. You can vote or not vote, that is up to you. I never saw it as an opinion poll. Its just a tool.
This forum is another tool where you can learn and express opinions. They have both. I am not pretending anything, these are the two tools in front of us. I didn't pick them, but I will continue to use them and anything else that might get my issues addressed.
Anyone that can log into and post to this forum can use Trac. The process is the same. It isn't rocket science. If the other 99% you refer to don't want to take the extra step to look at it, then that is up to them. If they are being "silenced", it is because they choose to be.
All I want is to get my issues with MD2010 fixed. If you know of a better way, you should share that with us. Beating up on a bug tracking system and those that use it didn't help much.
38 Posted by Doug on 15 Dec, 2009 02:02 AM
Since this isn't likely to be fixed any time soon, I think I'm going to revert back to MD2008. One problem: I can't seem to find a place to download it. Can anyone point me in the direction of MD2008 for OSX (above 10.3)?
Thanks
39 Posted by jwc on 15 Dec, 2009 06:05 AM
Hi all,
I have to apologize for being a bit of a jerk. It's too easy, on the internet, to get carried away with one's own rhetoric, and to veer from comment into invective. I'm guilty of it, and I'm sorry.
Randy, I appreciate that you're trying to help. You don't deserve any grief for it. Sorry.
As to Trac, I don't know to what degree the MD team uses it to gauge user opinion. If it's to a large degree, it's a pretty faulty system, because Trac largely prevents user feedback.
No matter how easy it is, doing two registrations and two topic searches is far more than most users are going to do. I would be shocked if the active Trac users are 1% of the installed base of MD.
Be that as it may, I'm with you: all I want is to get the issue fixed.
40 Posted by Randy on 15 Dec, 2009 02:54 PM
I think we are all frustrated with Moneydance's lack of response to this issue.
This morning, one of the developers entered bug 2376 into track. It addresses these problems from a workflow standpoint, and was classified as "minor". While I am encouraged that a developer acknowledged there is a problem in this area, it was disappointing to see the "minor" classification. I added some comments to that bug, feel free to add more.
The message we can't seem to get them to understand is that this is more than a workflow issue. MD2010 goes ahead and "combines" incoming transactions with ones in the register before the user ever sees them, whereas MD2008 didn't.
That is fine if programs matching algorithm guesses correctly. But it is a big problem if it guesses incorrectly, because there is no way to "separate" the two transactions without losing the one that was in the register before the download. We handled this in MD2008 by never combining them in the first place.
Also, because there is no indication whether or not incoming transactions even found a match, these situations are very hard to find.
I agree the program is dangerous as it is.
41 Posted by jwc on 15 Dec, 2009 04:50 PM
Reading this thread was enough to convince me not to even try the new version. But last night, out of curiosity, I decided to download it and see it for myself.
This is horrible. I am very, very sad. I have been very gung-ho about MD, even selling a friend on using it instead of Quicken when she switched to a Mac. Now I can't see myself going any farther with it.
The accuracy of the algorithm is the least of it. I need to see all my downloaded transactions in one place and be able to search through my register separately. Without this ability, I have to manually pore through my register if I need to compare my own transactions to downloaded ones--and it is very very hard to do this, with only that little blue dot differentiating them. This is unusable.
I am sad because I can't see myself going forward with this program. I cannot upgrade without it being fixed, which means eventually I'll be forced back inti Quicken. Or maybe, with luck, one of the other Mac accounting programs will have caught up in features to where I can leave MD behind.
Sad.
42 Posted by sgodfrey2000 on 15 Dec, 2009 07:51 PM
Randy,
I just read 2376. That is not even close to our main issue.
MD developers - are you aware of the MAJOR problem you have with 2010? You CAN NOT match a downloaded transaction to a transaction already reconciled. Do you understand this?
43 Posted by Mike on 15 Dec, 2009 09:33 PM
@ sgodfrey2000: Doesn't look that way: "New Issue The Moneydance support team hasn’t had a chance to look at this issue yet."
Like many of you I'm not trusting 2010 with my data. Happily, I still have 2008 installed alongside it so I didn't lose anything. But if this is how every "upgrade" is going to be, they've lost a customer.
To MD devs: Please test your software next time. Exhaustively. This is not some annoying little fringe bug we're talking about here, but a major function of the software that is badly broken. We are paying customers; you should not rely on paying customers to do your testing for you. When I use open source software, part of the social contract is that in return for free use of the software, I help the dev's make it better. But since I paid for your software, I expect it to be delivered free of major defects that will harm my critical data. That is the reason I paid for MD to begin with.
44 Posted by Randy on 15 Dec, 2009 10:45 PM
I just found this post on another thread from Sean this morning. Please don't shoot the messenger. I don't believe for one minute that it solves all the problems, but it is something to test, and maybe it makes a little progress........Look at post number 8 in this thread.............
http://help.infinitekind.com/discussions/questions/811-2010-ready
45 Posted by Randy on 15 Dec, 2009 11:37 PM
After looking at this further, it (build 727) doesn't help at all.
I don't have a test case that will test to see if an incoming transaction can still match a reconciled transactions, but he didn't close bug 2351. (Brian, do you still have a test case?)
In my testing, I was unable to find any way to separate a mismatched transaction, nor to match it manually to another transaction in the register. I still don't see any way to correct mismatched transactions without losing one of them.
There is no way to tell if a transaction matched one in the register for sure.
sorry for the false alarm. Maybe there is something there I don't see, and the Moneydance staff can elaborate for us.
46 Posted by Randy on 16 Dec, 2009 01:58 AM
After I posted the above, I spent another hour doing some testing with build 727. I have found one item in the above post now needs revising. It is the one about being able to "correct" a mismatched transaction.
The "revert" option on accepting transactions now will work without causing the program to freeze. Not only that, it does "split" out the incoming downloaded transaction from the transaction in the register, and restores the transaction in the register to its unmatched state, complete with categories and splits. The new downloaded transaction is listed elsewhere in the register (depending on the dates and the sort of the register they could be several transactions apart).
The blue circle for the newly downloaded transaction is gone, but the blue i remains (meaning it has been accepted). But, in my testing, if it was deleted, it would come back on the next download, which would allow it to match a newly corrected transaction.
So the pieces are there to be able to correct mismatched transactions, without losing a transaction.
There are still plenty of issues, but in this one area, there is some progress.
47 Posted by sgodfrey2000 on 16 Dec, 2009 03:09 AM
Randy,,
Randy,
Progress. But still how do I know whether the transaction with the blue dot is a new transaction or a match to an existing transaction? Under 2008 that identification was there and needs to be there under 2010 in my opinion.
I personally want to see the return of the download list at the bottom of the screen. If I didn't do anything with an entry in the download list, it didn't get entered into the register. The 2010 method puts everything in the register no matter what. I do not agree with that approach. The user should be able to control all register entries versus automatic. I am speculating that MD development believes the users (us) want automatic. I personal want control. So give the user the choice.
48 Posted by Brian on 16 Dec, 2009 03:50 AM
my test case is really my live MD2010 register. i'm maintaining it side by side with quicken 2007 for the mac till i'm sure it will be stable. so far there is this matching issue and it's actually lost an OLB transaction it lists but quicken doesn't. it's my house payment, and i'm deathly afraid of not paying it or paying it twice. i have no idea how to deal with it.
49 Posted by Angie Rauscher on 16 Dec, 2009 07:56 PM
Hi all,
We recognize that this is a widespread issue and a serious problem for many of our users.
I apologize for not posting an update to this issue sooner, we had hoped to have a solution by now and be able to offer a more comprehensive answer. That said, it's unacceptable that we didn't at least post to let you know we are working on the issue. We dropped the ball, and we're sorry.
We are working with our developer on this problem, and will post more information about the status and time line for a solution tomorrow at the latest.
Angie Rauscher
Moneydance Support
50 Posted by sgodfrey2000 on 16 Dec, 2009 09:13 PM
Angie,
Thank you
51 Posted by mcbeth2346 on 16 Dec, 2009 09:32 PM
Classy reply, Angie. Thanks for taking responsibility.
52 Posted by Noname on 17 Dec, 2009 02:23 AM
Thanks Angie. Good to hear you're working on this.
53 Posted by Angie Rauscher on 17 Dec, 2009 03:14 AM
There are several issues here, I'll try to address them all.
If a transaction is "merged" with an existing transaction there is a "revert" option available. This option should work in build 727, available here. Just
select the transaction, then click the pop up at the bottom of the
window and select the "Revert to" option.
Our developer will be releasing a new build (hopefully on Thursday) which will include following alterations:
-If a transaction has been marked as cleared, it will not suggest the cleared transaction as the default merge (with a downloaded transaction). -Adding a "Don't merge any transactions upon download" setting, but will likely keep the current function as the default setting. -Creating a better indicator showing that a transaction has been merged. -The ability to merge a downloaded transaction with a non-downloaded transaction in the register.
Thank you all for your patience. I will be away from the office tomorrow, but Ben and Jess are tracking this case closely and will post again when the new build has been released.
Angie Rauscher
Moneydance Support
54 Posted by Stan on 17 Dec, 2009 05:07 AM
Angie,
Thank you for the nice communication.
Question on this statement, "Adding a "Don't merge any transactions upon download" setting, but will likely keep the current function as the default setting"
Does this mean the downloaded transaction list with the "possible match" for matched transaction, and "repeat payee" for no match but suggested match is returning? In my view this is required
55 Posted by Randy on 17 Dec, 2009 12:57 PM
Moneydance:
First of all, thanks for responding on these issues. That alone is a big relief:
I have looked at 728 this morning, based on my testing, it doesn't merge a downloaded transaction with one that has been cleared. That is a good thing.
However, I can't find any setting for "Don't merge any transactions upon download" , but I am glad that it will be an option. A lot of people in this thread want to do it all themselves. But if I can get to the point of trusting the automated one, I will probably use it.
The functionality described by the phrase in the above post "The ability to merge a downloaded transaction with a non-downloaded transaction in the register" doesn't seem to be there either.
Finally, I didn't see any visual difference for merged transactions versus ones that didn't merge with anything, maybe you could enlighten us on that.
Looks like we made a little more progress today............
56 Posted by Jessica Little on 17 Dec, 2009 04:42 PM
Hi all,
As some of you have noticed, we released build 728 of MD2010. As of this build, transactions that have been marked as cleared will no longer be auto-merged with newly downloaded transactions. Please let us know if you still have problems with this feature.
From what I understand, Sean isn't yet certain if it's a good idea to add an option to turn off all auto-merging. On the Trac ticket for this bug (http://moneydance.com/trac/ticket/2366), he asks if folks think it would be a helpful option. I would encourage users who are interested in this option to comment on the Trac ticket or post here to express their support.
I believe the last two features didn't quite make it into build 728, but Sean is still working on them. Ben or I will check in with him later today to get a status update for you all.
We're sorry for the trouble this has caused folks. Thank you again for your patience!
Jessica Little
Moneydance Support
57 Posted by R. Mark Biech on 17 Dec, 2009 07:51 PM
We have a lot of transactions daily. Some we enter long before the download and others we just wait for the download. I REALLY need to have the downloaded transactions COMPLETELY SEPARATE with the option to merge (possible Match) or to create a new entry. Pretty much the way it was. This has caused our office a great deal of stress and has opened the door for errors we simply can't afford. Please let us know when this issue has been resolved and we will immediately download the update.
Mark Biech
President, HFTN - Romania
58 Posted by John Selden on 17 Dec, 2009 08:07 PM
I would very much like to see the option to turn off auto-merging. It is far too easy to accidentally accept an erroneous match. Having to affirmatively approve a proposed match before the two transactions are merged (as it worked in MD2008) greatly improves the accuracy of the process, at least for me.
59 Posted by jwc on 17 Dec, 2009 08:13 PM
I think we need to cut to the chase here. There are lots of different complaints going on, about different aspects of the new system. I think we need to join voices into one request:
Please bring the old interface back.
The old interface worked. The old interface didn't have any of these issues. In one fell swoop, they can make all these problems disappear.
Please, please, please bring the old interface back.
60 Posted by sgodfrey2000 on 17 Dec, 2009 10:54 PM
I just looked at MD 2010 again. This new interface is not acceptable. Please bring back the 2008 UI.
When I download the transactions, they are integrated into the register and change the balance _ WRONG!!!!! New downloaded transactions should never enter the register and modify the balance unless I accept it.
The downloaded transactions are scattered throughout the register. If I pick the option to just see them, then I can't see my other transactions.
Under 2008 UI, I could at least scan through my transactions to find the same Payer. Maybe I typed in the wrong amount. That can't be down under this 2010 UI.
I plan to use 2008 until the an interface which at least shows all downloaded transactions together, without being added to the register, and allows scrolling through existing transaction is brought back. If others want MD to automatically download and do the update, that find with me. I just will not use it.
Jessica,
Why was MD 2010 introduced without any documentation? Seems it was left to the user to figure out what changed. The only help we have had is this forum (thank you to all the members!!!) Maybe there is something we are all missing that would be nice to have in the new UI. But without documentation including a comparison from 2008 to 2010 it is lost.
Also, I'm currently using MD 2008 because of the very bad experience I had with Quicken for MAC. It messed up my personal finances. Unfortunately MD 2010 seems to be headed in the same direction. Please listen to your users. Take a breath. Don't push out a major product upgrade without adequate support, documentation, and end user testing.
Just my thoughts here.