nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Quick report option from register for payee option not working properly.....

Snowman

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/6031128/uploads/editor/sr/p569euxzhgkh.jpg

I tried recently to get a three year report using the option shown in the above screen shot.

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/6031128/uploads/editor/76/lcr24wjkrai7.jpg

Click the button I get the following and I selected the option to show the payments for the last three years for the selected payee. By clicking the "Show Report" button one would expect the following report would be for the three years. However when the button is pressed the report that results is only for one year.

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/6031128/uploads/editor/v5/76xcyadsteum.jpg

This needs to be fixed. I am currently using Quicken 2019, R 18.16 with Windows 10.

Find more posts tagged with

New

Comments

mshiggins

From C. D. Bales:
"By clicking the 'Show Report' button one would expect the following report would be for the three years."

I don't think so.

There is no regular Quicken report date range named "last 3 years", so no straightforward way to pass that parameter along to the Quicken regular report.

In fact, only two of the six mini-report date range choices have a regular Quicken report counterpart: Last 30 days, and Last 1 year (which is Last 12 months).

Quicken has never created a regular report from a mini-report with any other date range than "last 12 months" (tested back to Q2012) (*) - probably, at least partially, due to the inability to consistently communicate the mini-report date range to the regular report.

[ (*) True for mini-category reports as well as mini-payee reports.]

Snowman

"By clicking the 'Show Report' button one would expect the following report would be for the three years."

I don't think so. "

I just had lunch with 6 friends, two are commercial pilots, one is an accountant, one is a businessman and two are in IT specifically tech support and programming. I pulled out my laptop opened Quicken, brought up the "mini report" choose the 3 year option and then I posed the question, "When I click the "Show Report" button what do expect to get? To a person they all said you should get a full report version that reflects the mini report that you selected. That is the logical flow. That Quicken does not do this defies that logical flow. It is yet another example of a whiz bang feature that was quickly added to sell more programs and was not fully thought out or implemented.

We are not talking about regular Quicken reports, but the mini reports with options and the show report button. The logical flow of the program (from my two IT lunch mates) would dictate that whatever selection you make for the mini report when you click the Show Report that is what you should also get. They all pointed out that the "Show Report" button does not say "Show last 12 months Report" or anything else, just Show Report.

"Quicken has never created a regular report from a mini-report with any other date range than "last 12 months" (tested back to Q2012) (*) - probably, at least partially, due to the inability to consistently communicate the mini-report date range to the regular report. "

So we are back to the excuse that since it has worked this way for 7 years that makes it ok but then you throw in "due to the inability to consistently communicate the mini-report date range to the regular report." which proves the point THERE IS A programming issue.

With this in mind the "Show Report" button should be either 1) removed as it does nothing useful especially if there is an inability to consistently communicate the mini-report date range to the regular report or a custom programmed report, or 2) it should be fixed so that when you select a range in the mini report and then press the show report you get a full report with the range selected. The fact that Quicken doesn't have that report is a deflection from the real issue.

q_lurker

Your issue is not that the "Show report" behavior is not working properly; it is that it is not working the way you expect it to.

The help file indicates that the user should "Click the Show Report button to view additional detail or to customize the report display. "

That is exactly the behavior it is showing. By clicking that button, you are able to get additional detail and customize the report display -- including time frames. The button is a quicker way to get to that Transaction Report.

Personally, I would expect that Transaction Report to come up using the default time frame specified under the preferences (in my case - Current Year). I might also expect it to pop up the customization for that report, since that is also my selected preference.

To present that it should be done your way or not at all is ludicrous.

mshiggins

From C. D. Bales:
"We are not talking about regular Quicken reports, but the mini reports with options and the show report button.".

But I am, and you should be, also talking about regular Quicken reports.

The Show Report button creates a "regular Quicken report" - namely, thenBanking > Transaction report. There is no "Last 3 years" date range option in that Quicken regular report, or any other Quicken regular report. So there is no viable way for the mini-report to tell the Banking > Transaction report to use "Last 3 years" as the date range.

So in order to provide what you want, Quicken would have had to either:
compromise the mini-report capability they wanted (leaving you without 4 ofnthe 6 current mini-report date ranges), or make, what I believe would have been, much more significant/expensive changes.

Quicken could have limited the mini-report date ranges to date ranges found in Quicken regular reports; but Quicken apparently believed that the mini-report would be better with the date ranges they chose to offer.

Quicken could have created an entirely new report just for "Show Report", but that would likely not have been cost effective.

"The fact that Quicken doesn't have that report is a deflection from the real issue."

Nonsense. It's are reflection of the reality that you choose to ignore.

Mini-reports came along well after Quicken regular reports. Quicken elected to offer some mini-report date ranges that did not exist in any Quicken regular report. They also elected to provide a button to make it easy to open a Quicken regular report that you could use to examine the transactions in more detail.

Software, like other products, is created and sold to make money. That means there will always be tradeoffs: manufacturers would like to offer certain features but can not justify all of the features they'd like to offer after taking costs and benefits into account.

I believe what you're seeing is a tradeoff. Quicken could have left off the mini-report button to "Show report", but that would have forced those who wanted to see more detail to go to the Reports menu and pick some report - which still would not have had the same date ranges as the mini-report. Providing the Show report button saves some steps for those who want to delve into the transaction details.

"So we are back to the excuse that since it has worked this way for 7 years that makes it ok ...".

Don't distort my meaning: I did not offer that as an excuse, but as an explanation.

The fact that it has always worked as it does and that it has worked that way for a long time (since mini-reports were first introduced, would be my guess), suggests that it is working as intended. If it is working as intended, it is not a bug. And the fact that virtually no one else has complained in all those years, suggests that you're overstating the seriousness of the issue.

" ... due to the inability to consistently communicate the mini-report date range to the regular report." which proves the point THERE IS A programming issue."

It proves no such thing. It simply reflects that Quicken choses to continue to offer what it believes are legitimate date range choices for the mini-reports, but does not believe it will be cost effective to offer those same date range choices in regular reports. As is so often the case, it's likely an economic issue.

You finally conclude that one option you'd accept would be for the ShownReport button to be " ... removed as it does nothing useful ....".

You're pretending that you speak for everyone - and I'm sure that's not true. There has certainly been no hue and cry to make the changes you claim
are necessary for Show Report to be "useful". Others are either finding ShownReport useful, or not using it.

Since no one is forcing you to click the Show Report button, you already have the ability to accomplish the same result as removing the button would accomplish ... just don't click that button. That will leave those who find that button useful, still able to click it. Quicken is full of features that not all users find useful; I suggest you get used to that.

Every company has to decide how best to employ its resources (which means they have to make tradeoffs); no product can or will satisfy everyone. It's one thing to make a suggestion about what you would like to see. It's a totally different thing to pretend that it is improper not to provide you with what you want.

I believe that your issue would have been better posted as an "idea" with the title, "Quick report option from register for payee option not working as I would like".

Snowman

Just the replies I expected. Again you try and deflect from the issue that it "is the way I want it to work" when that is not the case. Five other individuals that I put the issue in front of with no input from me as to what Q should do all said that they would expect the Show Report button to show what was selected which is does not unless you selected 1 year. Of those 5 individuals 4 use Quicken and the other one used to use Quicken but now uses Quickbooks. I guess I mistakenly thought user input was key. Apparently not. Both of you ignore that fact and try to make it personal.

"So we are back to the excuse that since it has worked this way for 7 years that makes it ok ...
Don't distort my meaning: I did not offer that as an excuse, but as an explanation."

Really?!?! Your "explanation" is an excuse and it seems to be a standard one that is used.

You also ignore the statement that was made "...last 12 months" (tested back to Q2012) (*) - probably, at least partially, due to the inability to consistently communicate the mini-report date range to the regular report. That would indicate there is an underlying issue of some sort.

The fact remains the mini reports Show Report button is a poor implementation of the feature regardless of you attempts to make this personal.

cranky_user

If its any consolation, I agree with you @Snowman. At this rate I'd expect the super users to claim that your lucky to get any report at all when you click the Show Report button and you should be happy you get anything close to the mini report.

(False and argumentative information redacted)

mshiggins

From C. D. Bales:
"Five other individuals that I put the issue in front of with no input from me as to what Q should do all said that they would expect the Show Report button to show what was selected which is does not unless you selected 1 year".

You asked them the wrong question, so you got an answer that is meaningless to the issue.

Not getting what you "expect" does not mean the feature is working "improperly" (**). This community is loaded with discussions demonstrating that users often have unwarranted expectations.

Neither you, nor any of your "individuals" took into account the cost of providing what you "expected". While none of you had the information needed to determine the cost, that should have caused you all to think about your expectations. As I noted earlier: not all customer's expectations will ever be satisfied - but that does not define a product bug or prove a product is working "improperly".

And apparently, no one in your group took into account that the report produced by "Show report" was the best existing report for the purpose. And that it was the best economically feasible choice.

"Show report" produces a Banking > Transaction report, with the desired Payee (or Category) already selected. That saves the user several steps and helps those who might not know which report to use for the purpose. Once the Banking > Transaction report has been displayed, it is a fairly trivial matter to Customize it to display every date range available in the mini-report. For "Last 30 days" and "Last 1 year" it takes only two mouse clicks to match the mini-report date range. The remaining 4 mini-report date ranges can be customized by using the "Custom dates" date range.

Your personal opinion is that the report is "useless": just because you find it useless does not make it useless. It is useful and the best report choice available (**).

"You also ignore the statement that was made '...last 12 months (tested back to Q2012) (*) - probably, at least partially, due to the inability to consistently communicate the mini-report date range to the regular report'."

Wrong. I did not ignore "the statement that was made" - try re-reading my previous response: I definitely responded to your comment - and I provided a reasonable explanation for why Quicken works as it does.

You have not provided any evidence to prove that Quicken is working "improperly", just that it is not working as you "expect". That means that you are substituting your personal expectation for facts (and so are your friends) - facts that mean you can not ignore that there are other legitimate considerations besides user "expectations". The number of people that share your expectations does not change the reality.

You arrived at your conclusion before posting here, and without the slightest idea why Quicken is working as it does - and have made no attempt to consider that there could be any reason for the behavior you don't like other than Quicken working "improperly".

I have no idea why you believe that you must make false and unsupported claims in order to let Quicken know you would like a change made to the product.

As I suggested earlier, if you would like a change made to Quicken, all you have to do is post an "idea" here (including a convincing explanation of why you want the change would also be helpful); but there is no need to invent Quicken mistakes that do not exist. Quicken will consider changing the software even when there is no existing bug or erroneous action taking place. But, as I suspect you know, Quicken needs to have a good reason to make an "improvement" - a reason that makes the suggested improvement a good idea after considering the cost of implementing the improvement.

I believe it's time for you to accept the fact that the claim you made in the title of this discussion is bogus. And your notion that Quicken should remove the "Show report" button is absurd.

[ (**) It appears you were so anxious to respond to my post that you apparently did not read q_lurker's post that immediately preceded my previous post. q_lurker pointed out that Quicken Help tells you what to "expect" when you click "Show report", which proves conclusively that there is no excuse for you expecting anything other than what you currently see.]

Snowman

""Five other individuals that I put the issue in front of with no input from me as to what Q should do all said that they would expect the Show Report button to show what was selected which is does not unless you selected 1 year".

You asked them the wrong question, so you got an answer that is meaningless to the issue.

Not getting what you "expect" does not mean the feature is working "improperly" (**). This community is loaded with discussions demonstrating that users often have unwarranted expectations.

Neither you, nor any of your "individuals" took into account the cost of providing what you "expected". While none of you had the information needed to determine the cost, that should have caused you all to think about your expectations. As I noted earlier: not all customer's expectations will ever be satisfied - but that does not define a product bug or prove a product is working "improperly".

Sorry we will just have to disagree. I asked the question from a "user" perspective. Also two of the individuals were programmers with decades of experience in implementation and cost of what needed to be done. I did read qlurker's post and I got no such information from the help file which itself is an issue unto itself and needs attention.

If the program was well written the "cost" of the fix would be minimal but because the program has been allowed to bloat as "feature" after "feature" poorly implemented as they were were added to the program we have what we now have. If the feature had been done properly there would be no cost now. It should have been addressed before it ever made it into the program.

The new owners of Quicken should have a whole section dedicated to the removal on bugs and operation inconsistencies in the program, many having to do with reports. So far I have seen little evidence of this.

""You also ignore the statement that was made '...last 12 months (tested back to Q2012) (*) - probably, at least partially, due to the inability to consistently communicate the mini-report date range to the regular report'."

You did not respond to the part of the statement in bold, why did you make that comment. If there is an inability to consistently communicate the mini-report date range to the regular report that sounds like a problem, ie BUG.

"Show report" produces a Banking > Transaction report, with the desired Payee (or Category) already selected. That saves the user several steps and helps those who might not know which report to use for the purpose. Once the Banking > Transaction report has been displayed, it is a fairly trivial matter to Customize it to display every date range available in the mini-report. For "Last 30 days" and "Last 1 year" it takes only two mouse clicks to match the mini-report date range. The remaining 4 mini-report date ranges can be customized by using the "Custom dates" date range."

Yes it saves several steps so why not complete the job and program the show report properly, especially if it is "a fairly trivial manner to customize"? It should be just as trivial a manner to program that feature fully.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. It seems to be the default position of some of the superusers that problems with Quicken are not Quicken but the users problems and in some cases they are, this is NOT one of them.

Quicken Sarah

Hello All,

This thread has become argumentative and is being closed.

Thank you,

Sarah

Quicken Sarah

Hello @Snowman,

I appreciate your taking the time to share the details of this issue with the Community, although apologize that this issue has persisted for so long.

I have been researching this matter and also see that any time the "Show Report" button is selected, the full report defaults to showing the last 12 months, regardless of what date range has been selected in the quick-report, 30, 60, 90 days, 3 years etc.

I have opened a ticket with Development to investigate this further, however it may be determined that this behavior is by design. If so, any changes to the default date range in the full report would need to be submitted as a Idea post.

Once I receive an update and confirmation from Development on the ticket and behavior I'll be back to share.

In the meantime, I have re-opened this post for comments, however, please be aware that if comments continue to be argumentative or violate the Community Guidelines, the post may be closed again.

Thank you,

Sarah

Snowman

Thank you Sarah. I was not trying to be argumentative but just trying to get clarification of what was being said because it did not make sense and other information conflicted with previous statements. I have since then queried 12 more individuals about this situation and 10 responded that the show button should bring up a report for the selection made, 30 days, 60 days, 1 year, etc. Of the other 2 one said they were not sure and the other just did not know. I understand Quicken has to balance the cost against benefit. What I do not understand is that some individuals on this forum seem to have the default position to make it personal by trying to make it sound like "it is the way I expect it to be" and shutdown further discussion. Thank you for all of your efforts it can be a thankless job at times but I will always try and give credit were it is due.

q_lurker

It would strike me as far more productive (less argumentative) to create an Idea post proposing Quicken be improved in a specific manner rather than an a post claiming the unprovable position that the program is not working properly (as designed). Then if 10 people want to log on and support that idea, they can do so.

I suggest a new post rather than altering this one so that readers not get bogged down by the positions taken in this discussion.

Snowman

Done.