Matching downloaded transactions in MD 2010

Noname's Avatar

Noname

10 Dec, 2009 02:35 PM

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 4 out of 10. View the first page

  1. 91 Posted by sgodfrey2000 on 24 Dec, 2009 10:55 PM

    sgodfrey2000's Avatar

    Folks,

    How does MD decide where in the Register to place the downloaded transactions if I have the preference set to not automatically merge? I can't figure it out. I thought they would go at the end since they are all unconfirmed and should not be considered part of the register until confirmed.

    Placing them somewhere randomly in the register doesn't make sense.

  2. 92 Posted by Randy on 25 Dec, 2009 12:17 AM

    Randy's Avatar

    @sgodfrey2000, if you single click on the account in the sidebar, it changes the register to that account. If you double click on that same account in the sidebar, it will open up another window pointed to that account. The new window is right on top of the other one, so you have to move it around to see that their is two. This is in windows, I don't know how for other platforms.

    The " feature " I was referring is that when you do a "download all", it will open up a new window for every account that has new transactions. That is quite annoying.

    It places the new transactions according to how you have the register sorted. If you have it sorted by date (the most common), they will be in date order. It doesn't necessarily put them at the end, but because of the dates, most of them wind up there.

  3. 93 Posted by sgodfrey2000 on 25 Dec, 2009 03:43 AM

    sgodfrey2000's Avatar

    Randy,

    Thanks - again!!

    Got the second window to work. That does take up a lot of screen space. I would still prefer the 2008 type of view where the downloaded transactions were in a separate view from the register all grouped together versus just scattered throughout the register. Maybe MD could provide a "peel off view" containing all the downloaded transactions in a window which could float. I think the 2010 view is getting better with features allowing what I want but it is still too painful to use versus the 2008 view.

    The 2008 view was very concise in its display of the downloaded transactions. You knew instantly what they were and could see all of them together.

    This is software to manage our personal finances. Just 1 mistake can cause an overdraw of an account. Not real good in today's financial world. That is why I am pushing so hard for manual control.

  4. 94 Posted by Randy on 25 Dec, 2009 02:10 PM

    Randy's Avatar

    sgodfrey2000,

    Yes you do have to do some resizing and moving of windows to get a view similar to the one in MD2008. Microsoft Windows has a "tile" feature that will arrange the windows for you. In Windows 7 you just right click the task bar and pick the one you want (horizontal or vertical), I don't remember the command in the other versions of windows, but I remember doing it in XP before.

    If you hit the filter button "unconfirmed" at the top of the register in one window, that window will contain only your newly downloaded transactions by themselves.

    Then, on the other window hit the "uncleared" filter and that will show a list of all your manually entered transactions (along with the newly downloaded ones ) so you can scroll through that window to see if you have one that might match.

    It isn't exactly the same, but it is a way to see something similar.

    Sean mentioned in his post that he envisioned a single window for this, but it didn't sound like it was coming soon. Maybe you will get that single window eventually.

  5. 95 Posted by cncb on 26 Dec, 2009 12:53 PM

    cncb's Avatar

    sgodfrey2000:

    With your insulting claims that MD2010 is not "production quality" and your demands to know when your "interface requirements" (to make it behave just like MD2008) will be "honored" I have no idea why you are using MD2010. Just keep using MD2008 - it sounds like exactly what you need. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade.

    I think the matching is looking/behaving very nicely especially now that the recent fixes are in.

  6. 96 Posted by Mike on 26 Dec, 2009 01:22 PM

    Mike's Avatar

    @cncb

    I don't think sgodfrey2000 is that far off, at least as far as production quality goes. I like(d) moneydance, especially coming from Quicken a few years ago. But the "finished" MD2010 product rolled out with a very bad implementation of transaction matching as this thread has discussed. It is apparent that a comprehensive testing effort was not undertaken prior to release. The fixes we're being given are still in beta. Like it or not, it's not a finished product yet, though I think that eventually these issues will be worked out.

    Now, as for testing build 732 I found the following problems:
    - I entered a transaction manually that had a split, and then downloaded a transaction that matched. It would not retain the split I set up, even when I made the proper selection in the Accept menu (that would have retained the split). I was able to reproduce this several times (close MD without saving and try again). This did not happen with ALL split transactions, just some. - Repeat transaction with a split: it offered me a choice to categorize the newly downloaded transaction that was split in the past (ATM, $2 to bank fee, $20 to cash) with the same split, which I selected. However, when pressing accept it didn't honor my choice (just picked something else). - Dropdown box next to accept has blank lines, don't know what that's supposed to mean. They don't seem to do anything.

    It's better but I'm still not comfortable with using this yet for real data.

  7. 97 Posted by Randy on 26 Dec, 2009 01:42 PM

    Randy's Avatar

    Mike, if you write that one up let us know the bug number, and we will vote for it (at least some of us).

    Even the developer has agreed that he released this too early. But 732 is a lot better on the manual matching side.

  8. 98 Posted by sgodfrey2000 on 26 Dec, 2009 03:00 PM

    sgodfrey2000's Avatar

    Mike,

    Thank you for your remark. MD 2010 has come a long way since it was first introduced.

    cncb,

    Suggest you work with us all here and MD development. Also suggest you read all posts until you post back. As you might see, I have been trying 2010 as Randy or MD development shares, in my view, significant improvements. This type of software is always subjective. Also MD may not honor my request. I don't believe they would come right out and state that. But this is their product. It is also my choice whether I use it or not. For now as I have already stated, I'm using 2008 to process my financial data. I will also continue to participate in the testing of 2010.

    Have a nice day!!!!

  9. 99 Posted by cncb on 26 Dec, 2009 03:40 PM

    cncb's Avatar

    I have indeed read this whole thread and have been following it for the transaction matching fixes. There is a way to "work with" the developers and make requests without being rude and condescending (which is the way several posts have come across).

    In any case, coming from MS Money I like the way the transaction matching is working now (with the recent fixes). I would like to note that I prefer the way it works now and do not want the MD2008 UI back (just my preference, not a "demand").

  10. 100 Posted by Stanley Godfrey on 26 Dec, 2009 04:00 PM

    Stanley Godfrey's Avatar

    cncb,

    Like I said before, have a nice day.

  11. 101 Posted by Randy on 26 Dec, 2009 05:01 PM

    Randy's Avatar

    Mike, I have tried a couple of times to recreate in my test database the issue identified in your post 97 above, with no success.

    I take a newly downloaded transaction (blue circle and blue i) and memorized it, then from the reminders calendar, changed the memorized transaction to have splits, even modify the description a little, then record it, so I now have a manual transaction that is very similarl (except for the splits) to the downloaded one in the register.

    Then when I go back to the transaction with the blue circle and blue i, in each case, the default option showing next to the Accept button changes to "Merge" with the new manual transaction (with the splits). When I choose that, the merge is completed. The splits in the newly merged transaction (I have tried as many as 5 splits) are preserved.

    If instead of picking a "merge" option you picked a "similar payee" or a "repeat payee" option, you might get different results.

    Also, I think the blank lines in the accept drop-down is just to provide some separation between the "groups" of choices you now have (such as "similar payee", "Merge", and "repeat payee"), so that it is easier to read.

  12. 102 Posted by Alex on 26 Dec, 2009 06:27 PM

    Alex's Avatar

    I think I've run into a new issue somewhere in between the issues 2401 and 2407. I just applied build 732 to fix the hang on revert problem. Now when I revert to original description and accept it creates a duplicate transaction. I'm running on a Mac with 10.6.2

  13. 103 Posted by byron5353 on 27 Dec, 2009 01:17 AM

    byron5353's Avatar

    I guess I have to play with it, but I also find the 2010 version of MoneyDance to be a problem. With 2008 version I import a qif file from my bank and a screen comes up with a list of transactions that I go through. Most often I go through and change from a match to a repeat payer. I set my preferences to match to 0 days but I still get matches to already reconciled entries.

    In 2010 version there is no way that I can find to screen these - they just pop into the ledger. Not only that, the transaction matching is much worse. Fortunately I did not delete the 2008 version and I can go back and forth, but I have to stay with the 2008 version until this is fixed.

    Still, I am reassured that the program is being updated and hope future builds will allow me to use the most recent version.

  14. 104 Posted by John Selden on 27 Dec, 2009 04:15 AM

    John Selden's Avatar

    I've waded back into MD2010 with all the new improvements, and it is really starting to look good. I'll probably switch over from MD2008 now.

    Some aspects of transaction matching are tremendously improved. In particular, we can finally choose an alternative match for mis-matched downloaded transactions. I also really like that downloaded transactions now appear in the same layout/format as manually entered transactions.

    I still feel that downloaded transactions need to appear in a separate window as they did in MD2008, rather than be entered into the register. You can simulate this in MD 2010 by turning off auto-merging, and then using the "Unconfirmed" view, but it is still not the same.

    I'm also not crazy about how, when you download transactions for all accounts, a new window opens up for each account that has downloaded transactions. That seems unnecessary.

    Although I'd strongly prefer the separate window for downloaded transactions, I can live with it the way it is. And because of the many other improvements in 2010, I'm happier with this product than ever.

  15. 105 Posted by Mike on 27 Dec, 2009 01:57 PM

    Mike's Avatar

    Randy,
    Thanks for doing the test. I'm going to chalk my problem up to a fluke and keep testing. If it happens again, I'll try to more specifically isolate the problem and file a bug.

    BTW I saw an excellent implementation of transaction matching in KMyMoney (Linux, open source).
    - When downloading, transactions get matched. The indication of a possible match is that the whole line in the register turns green, and it puts the description and details for the manually added transaction right above the description and details for the downloaded transaction. These are up in the register, not a separate window, the way MD2010 does it. So you can easily see both transactions at once, and can easily tell which transactions were matched. It's not hidden in a drop-down. - You can accept the match, which will merge them (one button click) - You can reject the match, which will break it apart into the two transactions. (one button click) - And (here's the gem) you can select two transactions (click, CTRL-click) and force a match (you get a "match" button), as long as one of them was downloaded and the other was manual.

    On the whole, the KMyMoney implementation seems simpler and more reliable to me, and it's really obvious what it's doing.

    Perhaps Sean could take a look at this, since it seems that it is in line with his goals for MD and since it works oh so nice. Maybe Sean could even donate to the KMYMONEY dev team if he uses their idea!

    KMyMoney gets a lot of other stuff right, too. I'm tempted to switch but since MD's QIF export is broken (tried it, but that's another discussion) I would have to leave behind years of data.

  16. 106 Posted by avp2 on 28 Dec, 2009 01:48 AM

    avp2's Avatar

    Transaction matching in build 734 is much better than in previous builds. It took me a bit to realize the "greyed" register entry just below the transaction the matcher thought was right was not a duplicate of some type. Now that I get that, it works for me.

  17. 107 Posted by dskreger on 28 Dec, 2009 06:31 PM

    dskreger's Avatar

    I'm using 735 on my Mac w/10.6 and I'm still having all the same problems. My bank appears to be downloading the same transactions over and over again and MD adds the transactions, which have already been cleared, into my ledger. I have to hunt all over to find the transactions, even in a single account download, that are very old and recently cleared and I have to delete all the ones that I've already cleared.

    I only used MD 2008 for a few days, before I purchased it and got 2010, so this new way of downloading and clearing transactions is a real pain. I'm about to give up. I don't have the time to deal with all this.

  18. 108 Posted by John Selden on 28 Dec, 2009 06:42 PM

    John Selden's Avatar

    dskreger--

    The issue of repeated downloading of previously downloaded transactions is entirely unrelated to the transaction matching issues that have been raised in this thread. But when it happens, it is an annoying problem. It has come up before with Discover Card and others, and the developers have tried to address it. I'd search around the forums to see if you can find any help, or start a separate thread so you can get help with it.

    As far as having to hunt around for the downloaded transactions, that's not necessary at all. Just click on the "Unconfirmed" button above the register and all the downloaded transactions will be displayed by themselves.

  19. 109 Posted by avp2 on 29 Dec, 2009 12:51 AM

    avp2's Avatar

    If you post the name of your bank, and maybe use the debugger extension to catch a download for the support crew, they may be able to get a fix for your bank like they seem to have done for Discover credit.

    Speaking of Discover, I opened a Discover Bank account only to find it does not do "direct access" like their credit card operation does.

  20. 110 Posted by Angie Rauscher on 29 Dec, 2009 02:00 AM

    Angie Rauscher's Avatar

    Hi all, just wanted to chime in with another update. During our staff
    meeting today the transaction downloading and matching issues were one of
    our main topics of discussion. Sean will be posting a more detailed
    response in the next few days detailing why we changed things the way we
    did, and what you can expect to see happening in future builds.

    I also ditto what others have said about duplicated downloaded
    transactions. Please start a separate thread, and let us know the name of
    the bank(s) or cards this is happening with. This is non-typical behavior,
    and is a separate issue.

    Thank you all for your continued input,

    Angie Rauscher
    Moneydance Support

    On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 7:51 PM, avp2 <
    [email blocked]<tender%[email blocked]>
    > wrote:

  21. 111 Posted by Gray Maddry on 29 Dec, 2009 02:20 AM

    Gray Maddry's Avatar

    I am having more problems with the new download and matching than I have had in my previous 5 years of using MD. Matches try to add a transaction instead of merging with an existing one. I have to use the button to select the match. Also for a new transaction I can't seem to change the category from the default until after I accept.

    Also somehow all my credit card balances have gotten out of balance. It seems to have happen during the switch from 2008 to 2010.

    I have done several upgrades and never had problems like this. Please revert back to the old format.

  22. 112 Posted by Angie Rauscher on 29 Dec, 2009 02:21 AM

    Angie Rauscher's Avatar

    Hi all, just wanted to chime in with another update. During our staff meeting today the transaction downloading and matching issues were one of our main topics of discussion. Sean will be posting a more detailed response in the next few days detailing why we changed things the way we did, and what you can expect to see happening in future builds.

    I also ditto what others have said about duplicated downloaded transactions. Please start a separate thread, and let us know the name of the bank(s) or cards this is happening with. This is non-typical behavior, and is a separate issue.

    Thank you all for your continued input,

    Angie Rauscher
    Moneydance Support

  23. 113 Posted by Gray Maddry on 29 Dec, 2009 04:46 AM

    Gray Maddry's Avatar

    It not that I am tied to the old matching, but it worked and 2010 doesn't.
    Sean may have the best reasons in the world for changing, but if I can't
    match transactions to ones in the register or add new entries correctly, the
    new method will not work for me and I will have to go back to 2008.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Angie Rauscher
    [mailto:[email blocked]]
    Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 9:22 PM
    To: [email blocked]
    Subject: Re: Matching downloaded transactions in MD 2010 [Problems]

  24. 114 Posted by Pete Linley on 29 Dec, 2009 06:36 AM

    Pete Linley's Avatar

    I agree. I decided to give 2010 a second chance with the latest build
    and am running parallel 2008 and 2010 on different computers.
    Reconciling with 2010 remains very tricky. Reconciling the same
    download took me substantially longer in 2010 amidst much confusion.
    2008 was easy and simple although not perfect. 2010 method could work
    well if it correctly identified previously downloaded and reconciled
    transactions and gave me all options to undo completely what MD
    decided it should be. Right now it just adds loads of confusion with
    all the bugs and shortcomings already reported. I think the rest of
    2010 is great.

    Sent from my iPhone

  25. 115 Posted by Randy on 29 Dec, 2009 01:58 PM

    Randy's Avatar

    @Gray, some of the issues you described were very big issues in earlier builds, but as of 735, the transaction matching is at least as good as in MD2008 (better IMHO).

    It is a lot different, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work. There is still an issue getting it to match with and merge to a transaction with a different amount, but that issue existed in MD2008. The only way to resolve that is to change the amount of the manual transaction to the amount of the downloaded transaction (before you hit the accept button), then it will suggest that they are the same and offer to merge them. If they aren't the same, you can tell it that and it will do something else.

    The process needs to be better documented (and hopefully will be soon), but as of 735, it is in much better shape than the program that caused all the angry posts earlier n this thread.

  26. 116 Posted by mike on 29 Dec, 2009 02:08 PM

    mike's Avatar

    The matching system has gone from bad to unusable. Even when I take the time (which I should not have to do) to make sure the transaction is coded correctly, MD creates new transactions or overwrites the category (including splits). This thing is totally broken. I am being forced back to MD 2008 to get the functionality we used to have.

    If the old method is not reinstated soon, I'll be abandoning this platform and heading to iBank. At least I know up front it's limitations and are not confronted by an ever changing interface with decreasing functionality. This product should have been held back a few more months, as it is evidently not ready for general release.

    Mike

  27. 117 Posted by Randy on 29 Dec, 2009 02:44 PM

    Randy's Avatar

    Mike, I do agree with part of what you are saying:

    build 735 should have been the first public release, and documentation for 735 should have been released at the same time it was.

  28. 118 Posted by gmaddry on 29 Dec, 2009 05:07 PM

    gmaddry's Avatar

    I don't agree that the matching is as good when I have to select for a merge each time. I have just reinstalled 2008 and will be running in parallel so I will be able to verify my feeling. Also it is not just the match, but how well you can verify the match.
    ---- Randy <[email blocked]> wrote:
    > // Add your reply above here
    > ==================================================
    > From: Randy
    > Subject: Matching downloaded transactions in MD 2010
    >
    > @Gray, some of the issues you described were very big issues in earlier builds, but as of 735, the transaction matching is at least as good as in MD2008 (better IMHO).
    >
    > It is a lot different, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work. There is still an issue getting it to match with and merge to a transaction with a different amount, but that issue existed in MD2008. The only way to resolve that is to change the amount of the manual transaction to the amount of the downloaded transaction (before you hit the accept button), then it will suggest that they are the same and offer to merge them. If they aren't the same, you can tell it that and it will do something else.
    >
    > The process needs to be better documented (and hopefully will be soon), but as of 735, it is in much better shape than the program that caused all the angry posts earlier n this thread.
    >
    > View this Discussion online: http://help.infinitekind.com/discussions/problems/497-matching-downloaded-transactions-in-md-2010
    > --
    > Reply with #ignore to stop receiving notifications for this discussion.

  29. 119 Posted by Shawn Willden on 29 Dec, 2009 06:20 PM

    Shawn Willden's Avatar

    I've been waiting for the updates, but transaction matching in build 735 is still badly broken for me. I just did a download this morning, and it failed to match EVERY ONE of the eight transactions it downloaded, creating new transactions in every case, even though the dates and amounts were identical.

    It's not clear to me how I'm supposed to deal with those non-matched transactions. What I'm doing now is to delete the original (hand-entered) transaction, fix the downloaded transaction to have the right payee and category, and then accept it. I do that rather than deleting the downloaded transaction so that I can keep the downloaded "transaction details".

    With that much manual futzing, I'm sure I some of the transactions whose hand-entered version I miss end up duplicated. It's not TOO bad as long as I download daily, but it's going to get really messed up if I end up going a week between downloads. I guess I can always fix it up in reconciliation.

    The 2008 matching approach really did work much better. I'll stick with 2010 for a while, because I really like a lot of the other features, especially the budget bars, but if this matching system doesn't improve, I'm going to have to go back to 2008, and ask for a refund of my upgrade fee.

  30. 120 Posted by eddieb on 29 Dec, 2009 06:27 PM

    eddieb's Avatar

    Shawn - Is the "Automatically Merge Downloaded Transactions" option checked in the "Network" tab of the Preferences? That controls whether or not transactions are merged and matched automatically on download. if it's not checked, everything will be downloaded into your register, but nothing will be matched automatically and will require you to do it manually.

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