How can I filter or remove cleared or reconciled items from the manually match list?

My manual match list includes a plethora of entries which have been previously cleared, matched and reconciled.  How can I clean this list up?

Comments

  • Tom YoungTom Young ✭✭✭✭✭ SuperUser ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2018
    I'm not sure if this would clean up that list or not, but I'd suggest trying to validate the file.  This sounds to me like some data base corruption.
  • PerryPerry Member
    edited December 2018
    I have just executed file validation.  is there a way to view the file other than a bank download?
  • PerryPerry Member
    edited December 2018
    Thank you for your response.   I will let you know if this corrects the problem
  • George MaysGeorge Mays Member
    edited July 2018
    It’s a problem, happens to me some times. If it’s ony a few,I delete the reconciled entry then past it back in the register an match it with the one just received. I accidently downloaded 3 years of transactions on a credit card. Too much, restored file from a few days earlier backup and solved that problem.
  • Rick GumpertzRick Gumpertz Member ✭✭
    edited January 11
    I wonder if there is an "Easter egg" (CTRL+SHIFT) hidden command somewhere that allows one to edit (or at least delete from) the list of transactions that are offered when one uses Match Manually.  Anybody know of one?
  • PerryPerry Member
    edited December 2018
    I don't think it is possible.  Someone reported that in years past there was a "back door" command to remove the unwanted transactions from appearing. That was reportedly eliminated.  It seems to me like it should be a straightforward fix.  I spoke with a Quicken help line person.  I got the impression that he was unsure what I was talking about or thought it was ok to just live with it.....hard to tell.   but in the in end it was a strike out.  In working through the plethora of problems created with transaction updates one would think Q would see the value.          
    I am afraid  
    All we can do is hope - 
  • markus1957markus1957 ✭✭✭✭✭ SuperUser ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2018

    I wonder if there is an "Easter egg" (CTRL+SHIFT) hidden command somewhere that allows one to edit (or at least delete from) the list of transactions that are offered when one uses Match Manually.  Anybody know of one?

    This list is likely generated from a query each time the table is opened. As such it's not as simple as deleting an entry; it requires changing the query logic. One option would be to offer options in the pop-up window to filter out "types" of entries in the list. 

    The other option would be to add the filters directly to the query. I expect there would then be complaints listing valid reasons why in some particular case the filter should not be applied. Thus my suggestion to offer check-box options to filter the query table.
  • PerryPerry Member
    edited August 2018

    I wonder if there is an "Easter egg" (CTRL+SHIFT) hidden command somewhere that allows one to edit (or at least delete from) the list of transactions that are offered when one uses Match Manually.  Anybody know of one?

    I agree it should be  2 or 3 binary questions. 
  • QPWQPW ✭✭✭✭ Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2018
    There was a "Easter Egg" for a "workaround" for this problem.  It was broken a few years ago, and frankly it was a poor workaround anyways since you had to do one transaction at a time.

    The sequence is still there, it just has no effect on the manual match list.
    Hold Down Ctrl+Shift right click on transaction, select Copy Transaction(s)
    In the dialog you would select Downloaded Transaction and put in a posting date.
  • QPWQPW ✭✭✭✭ Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2018

    I wonder if there is an "Easter egg" (CTRL+SHIFT) hidden command somewhere that allows one to edit (or at least delete from) the list of transactions that are offered when one uses Match Manually.  Anybody know of one?

    UPDATED to make follow statement clear:

    In my opinion the "query" shouldn't be changed to "filter types".  Instead they should "expose" the data that they are using to create the manual match list.  Adding "filtering" just makes the whole process more complicated than it needs to be.

    One thing that isn't clear is exactly the criteria for generating that list.

    Is it the fact that a transaction doesn't have a posting date?
    It certainly isn't the cleared status, because it has no effect.

    Is there some kind of hidden "Downloaded Transaction" flag like the "Easter egg" dialog I posted below suggests?

    But frankly I don't see a need for both the posting date and a Downloaded Transaction flag, so lets go with just a posting date.

    Currently that posting date is read-only.  If the query is show all transactions where the posting date has not been set. Then just making that field writable will allow the user to set it and get transactions off of the list.

    I might add that there have been times where the financial institution has downloaded posting dates that are "not to the user's liking" and will not appear on their reconcile.
    Even though I don't think it is a good practice to change the posting date, that would at least allow them to change it if they like.

    Or if Quicken Inc is really oppose to the user changing the posting date, add another field that you do the query for that list on, that the user can change.

    One other possibility is to make a change that query to be consistent with what they do with automatic match.  With automatic match if a transaction is marked reconciled it is never matched.  If they did the same with the manual match list query, that would give the users a way to get these transactions off of the list.  And in fact this might be the best/most natural way for it to work.

    Note in the past automatic match use to ignore if a transaction was reconciled or not.
    In recent years it was changed to the current behavior and I have not heard of any complaints because of this.  I think it makes lot of sense not to match reconciled transactions.
  • mshigginsmshiggins ✭✭✭✭✭ SuperUser ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2018

    I wonder if there is an "Easter egg" (CTRL+SHIFT) hidden command somewhere that allows one to edit (or at least delete from) the list of transactions that are offered when one uses Match Manually.  Anybody know of one?

    From C. D. Bales:


    " ... it requires changing the query logic. One option would be to offer options in the pop-up window to filter out 'types' of entries in the list."


    I agree.


    And one such option would be the condition Quicken removed some years back: do not display transactions in the manual match dialog that have already been downloaded.


    Making "not already downloaded" a condition (optional, if you like) for a transaction appearing in the manual match list, would (and did) allow users to tell Quicken that a transaction had been downloaded (even if it hadn't been downloaded *), thus removing the transaction from the manual match list.


    [ (*) Right-click a non-investment transaction. Hold down CTRL+SHIFT while clicking Edit Transaction(s). In the resulting dialog, put a checkmark in the "Downloaded transaction" box. Click OK.]
    Quicken user since Q1999. Currently using QW2017.
    Questions? Check out the  Quicken Windows FAQ list
  • QPWQPW ✭✭✭✭ Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2018

    I wonder if there is an "Easter egg" (CTRL+SHIFT) hidden command somewhere that allows one to edit (or at least delete from) the list of transactions that are offered when one uses Match Manually.  Anybody know of one?

    Personally I hate "hidden data" and "hidden Easter Eggs" especially when they are very "tedious".

    That is why my first recommendation above was basically "whatever they use use to decide" make it visible in one of the register fields, and allow the user to change it there.  Instead some hard to find, hard to do for lots of transactions, "Easter egg".

    But the more I thought about this, I think the best way is just to bring the manual match query in line with the automatic one.  That is if the transaction is marked reconciled don't include it.

    That is one that would just "naturally work".  No telling the user to change a field in the register or running an Easter egg sequence.

    I can't think of anyone that would complaint that they want to match a downloaded transaction to a reconciled transaction.  And even though it is possible some transaction might "live on the manual match list" a bit longer than one might want, there wouldn't be the long lists of them people have, and they would have a way to get it off the list.  Just reconcile.
  • mshigginsmshiggins ✭✭✭✭✭ SuperUser ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2018

    I wonder if there is an "Easter egg" (CTRL+SHIFT) hidden command somewhere that allows one to edit (or at least delete from) the list of transactions that are offered when one uses Match Manually.  Anybody know of one?

    From C. D. Bales:


    "That is if the transaction is marked reconciled don't include it."


    I believe that would be a faulty condition.


    Some users have been manually entering transactions, and reconciling those transactions, for some period of time before they start downloading. There is no reason why existing reconciled transactions should be denied the ability to have their never before downloaded, "logically matching", transactions match them.


    As I noted earlier: at least one criteria for leaving existing transactions out of the "match" dialog should be whether the transaction has already been downloaded. That used to be the basic criteria; for some reason Intuit/Quicken saw fit to remove that criteria. While I tend to think that would be a sufficient criteria, I'm convinced it should be the default criteria.


    I believe the match condition is intended to link a downloaded transaction to an existing Quicken transaction that has NOT been downloaded.


    The value of "matching" a downloaded transaction to an existing Quicken transaction is to avoid creating a duplicate transaction, and to assign the appropriate downloaded data (downloaded posting date, etc.) to the existing Quicken transaction.


    Manually entered and reconciled transactions benefit from being confirmed as having been downloaded and having their downloaded info (such as "posting date" - which the download will update).


    I believe the vast majority of claims about this problem are due to Quicken/Intuit having changed the old rule that previously "downloaded transactions" were not eligible to be matched to subsequent downloaded transactions.
    Quicken user since Q1999. Currently using QW2017.
    Questions? Check out the  Quicken Windows FAQ list
  • QPWQPW ✭✭✭✭ Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2018

    I wonder if there is an "Easter egg" (CTRL+SHIFT) hidden command somewhere that allows one to edit (or at least delete from) the list of transactions that are offered when one uses Match Manually.  Anybody know of one?

    Yeah that makes sense.  Frankly I would like it either way provided whatever way they decided to do it was readily available to the user to change.  Not hidden in some "Easter egg" that is hard to find and execute.
  • mshigginsmshiggins ✭✭✭✭✭ SuperUser ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2018

    I wonder if there is an "Easter egg" (CTRL+SHIFT) hidden command somewhere that allows one to edit (or at least delete from) the list of transactions that are offered when one uses Match Manually.  Anybody know of one?

    From C. D. Bales:


    " ... I would like it either way provided whatever way they decided to do it was readily available to the user to change."


    I think it has been posted here many times that users would be better off having the "Posting date" made visible much in the same way that the "Downloaded posting date" is.


    I definitely support that; and making the "Downloaded Transaction" checkbox visible in the same way.


    But if I were forced to choose between the ideal (which we appear to agree on), and the lesser existing option for those fields; I would choose to keep the "Posting date" and the "Downloaded Transaction" checkbox just as they are; and have the "Downloaded Transaction" box as the default condition for removing transactions from the "Manual Match" checkbox.


    We know that Quicken once employed one, or both, of those "hidden" fields to exclude transactions from the Manual Match process; so it might be easier to revert to the old mechanism than to do the "right thing".


    I recall Intuit/Quicken attempting to explain the change (which created the current problem), but frankly, I never understood their explanation.
    Quicken user since Q1999. Currently using QW2017.
    Questions? Check out the  Quicken Windows FAQ list
  • QPWQPW ✭✭✭✭ Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2018

    I wonder if there is an "Easter egg" (CTRL+SHIFT) hidden command somewhere that allows one to edit (or at least delete from) the list of transactions that are offered when one uses Match Manually.  Anybody know of one?

    For what it worth, I just rebuilt my data file from a QIF export/import, and this time I took the step of enabling downloading of transactions.  This is of course like a person going from manual entry to automatic downloading of transactions.

    And from what I saw there wasn't any real benefit of matching old transactions, with the exception of just keeping them off of that manual list (which actually doesn't impact me).

    The presumption is that you start with a register the way you want it, and up to date, and hopefully reconciled.

    In general matching does these things, lets you know that transaction has cleared, makes sure you don't have duplicate transactions, adds the unique Id and the posting date, and gets it off of the manual match list.

    For the case of a switch over to automatic downloading you get all these "overlapping" transactions.  Clearly you want the unique Ids recorded so that Quicken doesn't try to import them again.  But just deleting them after downloaded is enough for that.  There is a small advantage of having them matched to the correct transaction so that you can see the unique Id for troubleshooting. But this would only be true for these "overlapping" ones, and as such isn't much value for the work of all the matching you might have to do.

    Marking transactions cleared when they are already reconciled is certainly not beneficial.  The date entered is fine to be used as the "posting date".

    So during this process of switching over I just deleted everything downloaded with the exception of a couple transactions that were really new since I started this last night.

    Of course this will get me "in trouble" for manual matching, right?

    Not really I use automatic transaction entry, and it has different manual matching rules.  For it to match a transaction the amounts have to be exactly the same.  Needless to say with that one rule, you don't build up a big list transactions that can match.

    So, in fact I do still believe that removing transactions off of the manual match list if they are reconciled would be a good "automatic" way to handle almost all of the problem, that really shouldn't impact anyone negatively.

    But as I said it really doesn't impact me, so here's wishing you guys get what you want.
  • QPWQPW ✭✭✭✭ Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 2018

    I wonder if there is an "Easter egg" (CTRL+SHIFT) hidden command somewhere that allows one to edit (or at least delete from) the list of transactions that are offered when one uses Match Manually.  Anybody know of one?

    BTW as sort of side note.  I have never found the manual match to a different amount to be useful because of the way it works.

    The way it works now if the transaction in the register is say $100 and the downloaded one is $101, and you match these, it will create a split with one split line with no category.  That seems like a very extremely unlikely use case.

    But what happens all the time is that you don't know the exact amount something is going to be so you are putting it in a reminder as an approximation.  So if it would allow matching the above and just change the transaction in the register's amount to the one downloaded, now that would be useful.
This discussion has been closed.