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 6 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
151 Posted by john phillips on 03 Jan, 2010 10:39 PM
Thanks, I'm sorted.
152 Posted by Mike Spadazzi on 04 Jan, 2010 02:30 AM
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:39:25 -0500, john phillips
<[email blocked]> wrote:
153 Posted by Randy on 07 Jan, 2010 06:06 PM
Thought I would post this from the mailing list, it is the first comment on transaction downloading and matching from the developer I have seen in quite some time. Looks like changes to this process are forthcoming.
It is answers to questions asked earlier in the mailing list:
From: Sean Reilly [email blocked]
Subject: Re: [moneydance] transaction matching
To: General discussion related to Moneydance
Message-ID: [email blocked]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Jan 6, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Alan Cole wrote:
Well, it worked but wasn't the best solution possible. I was (and still am) trying for a solution that allows for two different workflows:
1) People can download and acknowledge/accept transactions as provided by the bank, and
2) People can simply accept the downloaded transactions from the bank, with (mostly) automatic cleaning up and categorization of downloaded transactions
The old method could do #1 just fine but #2 not at all
I agree... I just wanted to mention that I'm working on a better interface and should have something to show soon. If this doesn't work, then I'll add back the old option, but hopefully it won't come to that.
Thanks,
Sean
154 Posted by Shawn Willden on 07 Jan, 2010 06:43 PM
I suspected that was the rationale. It'll be great if it works.
155 Posted by Shawn Willden on 08 Jan, 2010 05:18 PM
I thought MD2010 was pretty badly broken this morning, but I understand what I did wrong. I thought I'd post it for others' benefit.
I have a bank account that doesn't support direct download. I hadn't downloaded for a while, so I decided to, just because I like to get the downloaded transaction details attached to the transactions (there's probably no value in that, but...).
In the meantime, though, I had gotten a paper statement and reconciled the account. So, I downloaded a bunch of transactions that were already marked as reconciled. The dates and amounts matched, but MD didn't offer me the option of matching them because they were marked as reconciled.
156 Posted by Angie Rauscher on 09 Jan, 2010 07:11 PM
Shawn,
Moneydance will not automatically propose matches for transactions which have been marked as reconciled. You could un-reconcile the transactions, I think this is the only work-around currently available. It is possible other users may have suggestions for you as to how they have dealt with this issue. I'm sorry I don't have a smoother solution.
Angie Rauscher
Moneydance Support
157 Posted by Shawn Willden on 09 Jan, 2010 10:55 PM
Angie,
I don't believe you read my comment. I explained that I understood how it worked and was explaining for others.
158 Posted by Jerry Clement on 10 Jan, 2010 06:12 PM
I continue to read of the problems users are having with Moneydance 2010. I myself have used Moneydance for a few years now, continue to do so (640) and have found it a much better financial program than Quicken or any other I have tried, including Microsoft Money. It's simplicity is its virtue.
I also believe that one of the problems at work here is the desire to have a product with a name that includes the year...i.e. Moneydance 2008, Moneydance 2010, Windows 98, Windows 2000...etc, rather than a version number not tied to any annual release schedule. The pressure to have a "year-current" package puts enormous pressure to release a product "on time." The fact that this project began as Moneydance 2009 is sufficient proof of that. Add to that the fact that a new product must have some new features, some new glitz and unnecessary changes, such as the file format for instance, are made that do not in fact improve anything. In this case it has made the product worse.
I would suggest a possible solution be that the product become open-source which can give some of the many pairs of experienced eyes out there a look at the issues and get this product back on a correct course before it is lost forever. I don't want to see this product fail.
159 Posted by Shawn Willden on 10 Jan, 2010 06:35 PM
Open source is an interesting idea, but obviously only if it still provides a way for the Moneydance developer and staff to continue making a living. Open source isn't completely antithetical to commercial sales, of course, but it requires care.
The most common commercial open source model is the one used by Sleepycat and other makers of open source software development tools: They're free when used to build free software, but require a commercial license otherwise. Clearly, that wouldn't work for Moneydance.
There's also the Red Hat model: The software is free, but support costs money. I don't think that would work either.
A similar model being tested by IBM's Rational organization is open source software that reserves all copyright privileges. You can get the code from IBM and look at it but you can't use it for anything without buying a license. That's closer to being workable for Moneydance, but don't think it would be a good idea. It works for IBM because the tools in question are almost exclusively used by corporations, who tend to be easier to catch when they use something illegally (just takes one disgruntled employee...).
That pretty much excludes all of the open source business models I can think of. If I were in Mr. O'Reilly's shoes, I would keep it closed unless it became commercially non-viable, which it isn't.
The one other option that might be considered is to ask for volunteers who are willing to contribute to the code on a closed-source basis, under NDA to prevent dissemination. If I owned Moneydance, I might consider that, but I'd have to think very hard about how to vet the volunteers.
It's not a bad suggestion, but I think Moneydance went closed source for the very good reason that it's a good business, and I can't imagine anything has changed that decision. Perhaps MD2010 was rushed out a bit too quickly; the answer to that is to fix the problems and be generous with refunds for people who prefer to downgrade until the issues are fixed, in the hope that customers won't leave for good. And to be more careful about thoroughly testing the next major release (MD2012, or whatever). Open sourcing it would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, IMO. It'd be great for the users, no doubt. No so great for the copyright owner(s).
160 Posted by avp2 on 10 Jan, 2010 07:17 PM
I paid for MD because it works better for me than anything else I could get at anywhere near the price. I think it still does and do not see how an "open source" model of operation would be an improvement.
I also like that MD staff provide some feedback to user rants and raves; Intuit, by contrast, was like pitching to a black hole.
Every program I have ever used has had some bugs, and things that could be improved. MD seems better than average in that regard.
My only big complaint is the user suggestions setup/process could use improvement; for example, a main forum, top XX list of suggestions/improvements, and"to do" items being worked on with user ranking (vote) function.
161 Posted by Angie Rauscher on 11 Jan, 2010 06:35 PM
Interestingly, Moneydance started out as open source many years ago. Sean ended up closing the code because very few (almost no) users other than him contributed to the open source code. While that might be different if we opened the code up today, our current business model is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Shawn- I did misunderstand your post. Thank you for your explanation, we appreciate your input and assistance.
Angie Rauscher
Moneydance Support
162 Posted by Angie Rauscher on 11 Jan, 2010 08:05 PM
An update from Sean (crossposted here )
The Moneydance 2010 transaction accept/match/merge procedure will be changing very soon.
I have spent the weekend and part of last week redesigning the system with everyone's comments in mind. I believe that I now have a design (and most of the code) that will make just about everyone happy, without having to resort to the way that MD2008 worked.
So, please hold tight... I will have a preview release available very soon.
Thanks,
Sean
163 Posted by jwc on 11 Jan, 2010 10:43 PM
Fantastic. This is the single issue keeping me from upgrading.
I can't wait to be able to filter reports by tags!
164 Posted by Gray Maddry on 13 Jan, 2010 02:58 PM
I hope Sean includes a fix for finding older downloaded transactions. With one credit card I have to download a qif file and can only choose transaction with last close.So during the month I have many repeats. Therefore I have to track back to the beginning of the billing period to find the older transaction. This is my primary credit card so I have a lot of transaction and in MD 2008 it was much easier. For accounts where MD downloads it is not as hard as you don't have the dup downloads.
165 Posted by Massachute on 23 Jan, 2010 03:39 PM
Just curious, do we have this fix yet?
166 Posted by Ben Spencer on 23 Jan, 2010 03:47 PM
Gary
If you select File->Preferences->Network you will see an option that says "Only match transactions that are at most [N] days apart". By default N is set to 30 however you can change this if you want to match older transactions. Does that help your situation?
Ben Spencer
167 Posted by wrenhunter on 23 Jan, 2010 08:29 PM
I am using MD 2010 r2 (735) on Mac 10.6.2. I download directly from several banks. I have "Auto Merge DL Transactions" unchecked, and "Only match" set to default of 30 days.
I am having two issues with reconciliation:
MD seems to have forgotten how to match certain frequent payees. Until last week it had no problem matching these with previous transactions of the same type. When I click the select list to "Confirm", I don't see the previous desc/category options as before. (And when I edit the transaction manually, the description autofills, but the category does not.)
If I edit the transaction with the right description and category, then click Accept, it reverts anyway -- even if I choose "Confirm description as " first.
This is really frustrating, especially the second one. Is this just broken until the new preview is ready?
David
168 Posted by Doug Kingham on 23 Jan, 2010 08:48 PM
________________________________
From: David <[email blocked]>
To: [email blocked]
Sent: Sun, 24 January, 2010 7:29:16 AM
Subject: Re: Matching downloaded transactions in MD 2010 [Problems]
169 Posted by mnc on 25 Jan, 2010 01:22 AM
Dave, thanks for posting that! I thought I was going CRAZY!
I'm trying to move to Moneydance -- the budget problem I had before has now been entered as a bug, so hopefully that's fixed -- but then as I was trying to accept downloaded transactions, THIS kept happening:
As per what David wrote: "If I edit the transaction with the right description and category, then click Accept, it reverts anyway -- even if I choose "Confirm description as " first."
Moneydance is unusable this way for me.
Is this a known bug? Priority? I really like Moneydance but two major bugs (for me) since I've toyed with converting is starting to discourage me..
Thanks!
\marc
170 Posted by eddieb on 25 Jan, 2010 01:58 AM
I discovered the same issue as David did. If you change a transaction before accepting and then click "Confirm Description As", it accepts the transaction, but the changes are lost and it reverts back to the original transaction after acceptance.
Although this is definitely a bug (at least in my opinion), I found an easy way around it. Confirm/Accept the downloaded transaction and THEN change it. Same amount of effort as if you changed it before accepting and the bug didn't exist. I've done this many times with no issue. Not a big deal in my opinion.
171 Posted by -Kevin N. on 25 Jan, 2010 02:24 AM
There is a Trac ticket for this issue if anyone wants to vote on it:
http://moneydance.com/trac/ticket/2492
172 Posted by mnc on 25 Jan, 2010 02:47 AM
Thanks for the link.
The Trac entry states that it only happens in investment accounts -- I can confirm this happens in ALL my accounts, in any register.
Thanks @eddieb for the workaround, though. Dunno why I didn't come up with that on my own, it'll get me going again for now. Must be tired. :-)
\marc
173 Posted by wrenhunter on 25 Jan, 2010 03:11 AM
I see this in banking account, too.
I use the same workaround. However, it is not perfect. First, there is extra effort -- I need to double-click the transaction to open it again.
Second, and worse for me, is that MD then memorizes the "raw" transaction, e.g. "FANCY RESTAUR BOSTON MA 7474747747". When I apply the workaround and try to enter "Fancy Restaurant", MD "helpfully" prompts me with the long garbage string above, until and unless I enter a different character. Sometimes this entails typing e.g. "Gancy Restaurant", then changing the initial letter to finish.
And lastly, this means it continues to remember this transaction indefinitely -- even if I can delete it, that's ANOTHER step.
So overall, not a deadly PITA, but a genuine PITA nevertheless.
174 Posted by eddieb on 25 Jan, 2010 04:04 AM
David - I could be wrong here, but I don't believe your three issues with the workaround are actual issues.
First, you mention an extra step of having to double click the transaction to open it before you can change it and then accept it. But don't you also have to double click it in order to open it if you want to change it BEFORE you accept the transaction as well? Regardless of what method you use, I think you need to double click to open and change the transaction regardless.
Same thing holds true for your second issue. Yes, MD tries to auto fill the transaction when you try to change it after you accept the transaction using the workaround, but if the bug didn't exist and you changed the transaction before accepting it, MD would also try to auto fill it as well. So again, regardless of whether the bug didn't exist or it did exist and you used the workaround, the efforts/issues for these first two issues is no different. The workaround causes no extra problems or extra entry efforts. This auto fill thing is an inconvenience, but it has nothing to do with this bug or it's workaround. it's a completely separate issue.
The third thing you mention is that MD remembers this transaction indefinitely, even after you change/delete it. Assuming I understand you correctly, that's not the case. MD only "remembers" any transactions that are in the register. Once they are deleted from the register, they aren't remembered anymore. When you enter a new transaction, MD looks to that account register for purposes of auto fill. This information is stored nowhere else but in the register. So if you delete it there, it's also deleted for auto fill purposes.
175 Posted by wrenhunter on 25 Jan, 2010 01:58 PM
Eddie
You must be a lawyer. I grant points 1 and 3, but I can't even follow your logic on 2. And I don't want to. There shouldn't be a workaround. This is a bug, it IS relevant to the thread (reconciling downloaded transactions), and it p**ses me off. If you don't feel the same way, hey great for you. We all have different workflows, and bugs affect us differently.
David
176 Posted by Angie Rauscher on 25 Jan, 2010 05:06 PM
We've released the new beta build of Moneydance 2010 (2010r2 build 738). You can download the update here. We believe that this build will resolve a number of issues and provide improvements in transaction matching and other areas of the program.
Please let me know how it goes,
Angie Rauscher
Moneydance Support
177 Posted by Randy on 25 Jan, 2010 05:41 PM
I posted some rather long winded comments about build 738 (sorry about that) at post 60 of this thread:
http://help.infinitekind.com/discussions/md2010-beta/7-reconciling-...
178 Posted by Shawn Willden on 25 Jan, 2010 05:55 PM
Angie: Can you summarize the changes?
Randy: I don't think you could have posted anything about build 738 because it was just barely released.
Thanks,
Shawn.
179 Posted by Angie Rauscher on 25 Jan, 2010 06:34 PM
Shawn,
Build 738 is hot off the presses, I hope to have a list of changes ready to release later today or tomorrow morning.
Angie Rauscher
Moneydance Support
180 Posted by Randy on 25 Jan, 2010 07:56 PM
Yes my comments were on build 738.