amarc's Avatar


02 Sep, 2018 04:20 PM

Hello. It would seem that reminders that are one-time entries, should automatically remove themselves from the reminder list (on the reminder page) once the entry has been recorded. This should happen automatically for reminders that are:

1. non-recurring and manually entered
2. recurring but have exceeded their end date and/or number of entries

S for example, I make a one time reminder to pay my phone bill on the 15th, and choose to manually enter it on the 12th. I do this from the reminder list on the main screen, by recording it into my reguster. yet, the same reminder REMAINS on the reminder list (on the reminder page) until I remove it manually. This makes absolutely no sense.

I regularly have to cull old reminders from my list well after they have been used, and if I have created new ones for the same payee, must check each one to see which are new and which can be removed.

It would seem to me that this would be basic mode of operation of any reminder function.
So: am I missing something (a preference that enables this for example) or am I the only one?



  1. 1 Posted by Henry on 05 Sep, 2018 12:13 PM

    Henry's Avatar

    Hi Alan,

    Thank you for contacting us.
    I am afraid there is no automatic option to remove old reminders from the reminder list. You have to delete them manually as you did before.
    I have attached the relevant suggestion ticket to this thread so our developers can consider this feature.

    Infinite Kind Support

  2. 2 Posted by amarc on 05 Sep, 2018 01:31 PM

    amarc's Avatar

    Henry: Thank you for forwarding the note. Hard for me to understand how
    this notion was not simply a part of the original routine. Once a
    reminder does it's assigned job, then why would it continue to hang
    around? If you hired someone to do a job around your house, say fix your
    garage door, once he is done, do you want him just hanging around
    forever? I think not.

    I spent many years writing software, and while I like Moneydance very
    much, especially for it's simplicity, it seems like the developers have
    not carried some functions to their obvious conclusion. I don't know if
    this is due to budgeting constraints, short staff, or lack of
    imagination, but IMHO, this is certainly a good example. I can't imagine
    why you would need a "suggestion" to finish the reminder's job! Which is
    simply to remind you "X" number of times, then go away.

    All the components are in place, and one simple routine, probably a
    single line of code, would finish the job.

    Is my job done? If no, then continue to live. If yes, then die.

    Thanks for the consideration.


  3. 3 Posted by iandarkwater on 05 Sep, 2018 06:25 PM

    iandarkwater's Avatar

    I can easily see the argument to leave things as they are!
    I have insurances that continue from year to year but pay as 10 monthly payments. Hence they finish before restarting again at the start of the next year.
    It's convenient that the reminder is not auto-deleted then I can set it off again.
    I know that I could set up a new reminder from an old payment but I think that I'm happier with reminders not auto-deleting.
    MD could have a flag to allow auto-delete or not.

  4. 4 Posted by amarc on 05 Sep, 2018 08:08 PM

    amarc's Avatar

    < I can easily see the argument to leave things as they are!>

    A one sided argument to be sure.

    Of course you would, as a matter of best practices, make the option
    available to auto delete or not. But things as they are are only good
    for those served by a particular point of view, which is always only a
    portion of the user base for any software.

    There are so many ways you could do this, but at the end of the day, if
    you are using a one off, you want it to disappear, or at least have the
    option to have it disappear. That is the life of a one off item.
    Software lives to manage these types of tasks, and having a garbage heap
    of dead reminders serves no purpose.

    It becomes a matter of best practice, and in my opinion, the function as
    it stands now is simply incomplete.

    Ian Douglas wrote:

  5. 5 Posted by dwg on 05 Sep, 2018 09:47 PM

    dwg's Avatar

    It is really a matter of User requirements.

    You each have a different requirement, one wants a single use reminder that automatically deletes, the other wants a reusable reminder. Neither are invalid uses and both if at all possible should be accommodated.

    To my mind the solution to push for is a check box to automatically delete the reminder after the last use. This way the function can serve both usages models

  6. 6 Posted by amarc on 05 Sep, 2018 09:59 PM

    amarc's Avatar

    Exactly correct. Neither one is right, or wrong. But both make for a
    more flexible system.

    My point simply being that it would have been the logical conclusion to
    the Reminder function and should have, my opinion...should
    have been written when the reminders were created. Else, the function is

     From a coding standpoint, not to mention best practice, it is always
    easier and less of a risk to complete a given function before it is
    integrated into the bigger picture. One hates to go back and finish
    something after the fact.

    Which is a good reason why it may never happen.

    Regardless, like to use MD and it has many attractive things that make
    it what it is.

    dwg wrote:

  7. 7 Posted by dwg on 05 Sep, 2018 10:58 PM

    dwg's Avatar

    I feel that Tik suffers from the problems that many small organisations face.

    In a large software house you have reams of Product requirement documents including detail function requirement documentation. The result of many many hours of research of the market requirements, competitor products etc.

    I would not expect that TiK has the resources in terms of either people or money do do such work, hence the product more evolves over time. The syncing capability reminds me of this as you have the basic capability, but you do not really have the capability needed for ongoing maintenance of the solution in terms of how to manage the incremental files nor methods to seamlessly force a full resync if it is required, thus leaving the user to manually stop the process and setting it up from scratch,'

    in short it is not ideal but I understand why and how it happens in the real world, Alas I do not see any simple, not to mention cheap, effective solutions.

  8. 8 Posted by amarc on 06 Sep, 2018 12:06 AM

    amarc's Avatar

    I'm sure you hit the nail squarely on the noggin. The sync issue is
    interesting as well. I have no need to use it, but explored it when I
    first began to use the program, and just didn't feel it was mature
    enough. But I am just a single user, so it matters little if at all to me.

    Often times with small organizations, sometimes just a few people in
    fact, there is a brain that creates the initial product, then leaves or
    is replaced and now you have a diversion in the natural evolution of the
    product. A different point of view, skill set or  personal preference
    sends the code into a slightly different orbit resulting in odd
    combinations of functions and features.

    For me, the tip off was the lack of feedback during the backup process.
    No report or gauge of progress, just a notice of the process ending. Odd
    to me, as feedback is everywhere. But these are most likely routines
    that must be home grown, and can be set to a back burner or eliminated
    from the flow chart altogether as other pressing items present themselves.

    Regardless, the suggestion has been made. It obviously isn't a deal
    breaker as there are other more pressing issues to be sure. My big pet
    peeve is the merge function. How can you allow a new debit item to be
    merged with an old item that has already been cleared? That is truly a
    huge issue. But if you don't set your time frame tight enough, that will
    happen, and can you imagine the havoc that would cause in a situation
    where there are thousands of transactions a month?

    Allowing this function to settle on only a time frame to judge whether a
    previous transaction may be merged into a new one is downright crazy.
    And very poor judgement. But from experience, it smacks of taking the
    easy way out. But again, an unfinished function. Because disallowing a
    transaction to be merged into a new one should depend FIRST on whether
    it has already been cleared. If it has, how do you offer it up for merger?

    Until I figured this out, it wrecked my register several times. I had no
    idea I was losing transactions because they were being merged into ones
    that were already cleared!

    Regardless, I gave up Quicken because I found MD to be suitable for my
    needs, without all the muss and fuss that I don't want or need. i
    actually enjoy using MD and look forward to it maturing as we go forward.

    For me, less is more, and MD fits nicely in that equation.

    Kind regards....

    dwg wrote:

  9. 9 Posted by dwg on 06 Sep, 2018 01:14 AM

    dwg's Avatar

    I do not see that a transaction being marked as cleared should exclude it being merged with a downloaded transactions. You could easily enter a transaction by hand mark it as cleared and then decide to download transactions. If you are doing this via an OFX download and you do not allow it to be merged you are not allowing the transaction ID to be added to the transaction and thus facilitate the automatic discarding of duplicates..

  10. System closed this discussion on 06 Dec, 2018 01:20 AM.

Comments are currently closed for this discussion. You can start a new one.

Keyboard shortcuts


? 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