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; } } }

Why doesn't the Find option work any longer?

Shelli Windham

While in the check register, I often use the Ctrl F to see if an entry has been previously entered. This function is not working when I look for a check number. This function seems to be working when I put in "some" amounts. What happened to this tool? I need to be able to search for previously entered check numbers.

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

Rocket J Squirrel

Congratulations, you have found a bug. Searching for check numbers fails for me, too.

Interestingly, I can search for some parts of check numbers. Searching for "1430" fails, but searching for "143" or "43" does find check number 1430. Searching for "430" does not find check 1430, though. Definitely a bug.

Until this bug is fixed, I suggest sorting the register by check number temporarily to help you find the checks you need to find.

Rocket J Squirrel

R25.18 here too. This must be a new bug.

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/6031128/uploads/editor/fx/7zixss6o15op.png

All comments

Tom Young

What version of Quicken (Help > About Quicken) are you using. It's working for me with V 24.14

Rocket J Squirrel

Congratulations, you have found a bug. Searching for check numbers fails for me, too.

Until this bug is fixed, I suggest sorting the register by check number temporarily to help you find the checks you need to find.

Rocket J Squirrel

If your purpose is "to see if an entry has been previously entered", you can set a preference to warn you if a check number is reused.

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/6031128/uploads/editor/rn/h5chjbs04xxm.png

Shelli Windham

To Tom, I'm using version R25.18 And to Rocket J thanks for confirming what I found to be happening. Lets hope it gets resolved soon.

Rocket J Squirrel

R25.18 here too. This must be a new bug.

Quicken Natalie

Hello All,

This behavior has been reported and a Bug Ticket has been opened.

There is currently no ETA on a resolution, however, I will be sure to post back with any updates/changes as they become available.

We appreciate everyone's patience as this is being worked on!

-Quicken Natalie

CTP-552

Peter Isakson

Also see this error with R25.21. Hope it gets fixed soon.

David C Hitch

Previously discussed without resolution. Have used the general search for years. With the current Quicken Premier version it now has a problem. Example: search for BILLPAY is OK while search for 6142 fails to return the check number entry. Yes there is a 6142 check number in the file. This is new for I have used this function for probably decades. Quite frustrating.

Sherlock

David C Hitch said:

Previously discussed without resolution. Have used the general search for years. With the current Quicken Premier version it now has a problem. Example: search for BILLPAY is OK while search for 6142 fails to return the check number entry. Yes there is a 6142 check number in the file. This is new for I have used this function for probably decades. Quite frustrating.

I suggest you use the register search filter at the upper right of the register.

Michael Rosen

I think this is related. I discovered the same issue when some downloaded transactions weren't matching to the register. I believe it has been limited to checks as those are the items that can't be found on a search.

Michael Rosen

Has this not been resolved yet? I am matching transactions and a cleared check won't match the check in the register. But I was able to search for the check number now.

Sherlock

Michael Rosen said:

Has this not been resolved yet? I am matching transactions and a cleared check won't match the check in the register. But I was able to search for the check number now.

I think the bug has been resolved. I'm no longer able to reproduce the issue using R26.23.

Michael Rosen

> @Sherlock said:
> (Quote)
> I think the bug has been resolved. I'm no longer able to reproduce the issue using R26.23.

I should have noted I am on R26.23 as well.

Shelli Windham

I am using R26.23 and yes, the bug has been fixed!
Thank you.