Quicken for Mac v6.1 Released

Jon

Downloaded 6.1.1, this fixed the problem I had reported above with the reconciliation history. Thanks!

Quicken Marcus

Garry@ said:

@Quicken Marcus

I have had a problem both before and after v6.1 was released.

I have tried to enter a transfer of shares transaction. I selected “One Security” and selected the security.  I then tried to click on the “Transfer to Account” drop down.  The drop-down did not open but, instead a message dialog was displayed saying “No “Transfer to Account” selected”.  That dialog cannot be dismissed.  It re-displayed immediately after I click on “OK”.  No matter what I do it redisplays again and again.  I have attached a copy of the dialog.

.

This prevents me from closing Quicken; entering more detail on the transaction; accessing any other accounts; etc.  The only way to overcome this is to force quit Quicken.  Force quitting doesn’t seem to corrupt my data.  The transfer transaction is saved as a “Buy” transaction which I have deleted after re-opening Quicken.

Can this be fixed soon ?

Hi Garry, I'll reach out to you directly. I'm not able to reproduce this probably because I have 2 brokerage accounts. I want to ask you more about the number of accounts you have, etc to figure out why the list of accounts isn't showing.

Quicken Marcus

Jon said:

Downloaded 6.1.1, this fixed the problem I had reported above with the reconciliation history. Thanks!

Thanks for letting us know. I'm glad it worked.

Quicken Marcus

smayer97 said:

@Quicken Marcus Now that this is in place, any possibility of carrying forward the reconciliation history from QM2007?

smayer97, Unfortunately, this would be too costly for us to do. Changing the conversion code is very difficult to do since the Quicken 2007 codebase is so old and different from modern macOS technology and the number of people converting their file isn't high enough to justify the expense. I realize this explanation doesn't diminish the loss of that historical data but it's the reality we're working with.

smayer97

Quicken Marcus said:

smayer97 said:

@Quicken Marcus Now that this is in place, any possibility of carrying forward the reconciliation history from QM2007?

smayer97, Unfortunately, this would be too costly for us to do. Changing the conversion code is very difficult to do since the Quicken 2007 codebase is so old and different from modern macOS technology and the number of people converting their file isn't high enough to justify the expense. I realize this explanation doesn't diminish the loss of that historical data but it's the reality we're working with.

Thanks for the reply on this. That's very unfortunate though I am a little puzzled since migrating for this as I would thing that this should not involve knowing the codebase of QM2007... but rather ought to simply be about whether the data is there in the original database that identifies reconciliation data and periods and applying it to the new database, so mostly a mapping exercise.

Rick2022

I've had the subscription model of Quicken for about 2 years (or more).  My reconciliation history only goes back 3 months for the only account that I reconcile.   Should it go farther back?  There aren't any discrepancies. 

And without discrepancies, why is the history needed? 

 

jacobs

@Rlck  That's correct. The ability to store the reconciliation history only began with version 6.0, so older history does not exist. Over time, you will build up a history of new reconciliations.

caram

smayer97 said:

BTW, in QM2007, you can actually click and hold the reconciled flag on one transaction then drag down the list to unreconcile multiple transactions at a time. So that is an alternative to unreconcile a group of transactions.

Early versions of Quicken Windows (or was it Microsoft Money) allowed the <space> key to toggle the reconcile status in the Reconcile window.

I would welcome that feature in Quicken Mac.

More precisely, <space> toggles the reconcile status and moves to the next transaction.

caram

Create Renaming Rule > if statement name contains

@Marcus, would it be possible to make this field a little larger?

I often have tags in that field that span over multiple lines (4 in the example below). It makes it quite difficult to edit the tags (12 in the example below, 10 of which are unnecessary):

Just Lurking

caram said:

Create Renaming Rule > if statement name contains

@Marcus, would it be possible to make this field a little larger?

I often have tags in that field that span over multiple lines (4 in the example below). It makes it quite difficult to edit the tags (12 in the example below, 10 of which are unnecessary):

I've also been having issues with the renaming and quickfill rules recently, and I hope you don't mind if I piggyback off your question. There are many experts ITT and perhaps someone (or you) will be able to provide knowledgeable feedback:

1. Is there a way to make a renaming rule scoped to one or more specific accounts? For example, my spouse and I have between us multiple accounts (at the same FI) that will download a transaction with a generic but identical payee. For example, "Payment Received." 
   
   It would be useful to be able to have "Payment Received" in Account ABC be renamed to "ABC Account" and "Payment Received" in Account XYZ be renamed to "XYZ Account", but this doesn't seem to be possible.
   
   
2. A related example that shows the benefit of similar functionality with Quickfill rules:
   There is a local gas station and convenience store that we visit often. The charges download with identical names, but on spouse's account it's almost always a convenience store purchase, and when it's on my account it's almost always fuel. If I could create different quickfill rules for different accounts, these could be categorized correctly in both accounts.
   
   
3. There is a frequent purchase that we make that downloads in the following format:
   
   "TransactionNameXXXXX zzz-zzz-zzz" Where the "TransactionName" is a unique name, XXXXX is a number that seems to be random, and zzz-zzz-zzz is a unique phone number (truncated by one digit).
   
   I've not figured out a way to create a search which works for these transactions. While "TransactionName" would be perfect to search, Quicken doesn't appear to perform a substring search so I get no results when I use it to search (as it's scrunched together with a random number). Not sure if this is a bug or a design decision?
   
   In addition, when I try to use the phone number as the search string, it appears to add the area code, exchange, and digits as separate fields, and thus also fails to return any results.
   
   
4. Is it possible to prioritize certain renaming rules over others? For example, here's a real issue we encounter at a place we visit frequently. There are two types of transactions that download like this:
   "Name1 Name2 Parking"
   "Name1 Name2 [Random#]"
   
   "Name1 Name2" are identical in both types of transactions (it's the same company), but the first is obviously a parking transaction and the second is not. A more advanced rules system (either by prioritizing certain rules to fire in a particular order OR by allowing negative keywords such as excluding the word "Parking") would allow us to categorize and rename both types of transactions correctly.
   
   
5. When in the Payees or Renaming or Quickfill windows, why isn't the selection maintained when moving between Renaming/Quickfill and back to Payees? The Payees window allows me to jump from a Payee to see its Quickfill or Renaming rules, but once I'm in either Quickfill or Renaming I can't jump to the other (or back to Payee) without the search resetting and needing to re-enter the name. I find myself doing this often and it's quite tedious.

jacobs

All reasonable and good suggestions. I can address, or at least provide some information, for some of them…

Just Lurking said:

1. Is there a way to make a renaming rule scoped to one or more specific accounts? For example, my spouse and I have between us multiple accounts (at the same FI) that will download a transaction with a generic but identical payee. For example, "Payment Received." 

A number of people have asked for the capability to make renaming rules and/or categorization rules account-specific. For categorization, this Idea post captures that request -- and it also carries a reply from the developers: "Unfortunately, the amount of work this would take means that we won't consider this idea right now."

For Payee renaming rules, there's an Idea thread here. I don't know if this would fall into the same response as categorization by account, but you can add your vote and comments there. Unfortunately, that idea hasn't garnered much support so far (4 votes as of this writing.)

Just Lurking said:

2. A related example that shows the benefit of similar functionality with Quickfill rules: There is a local gas station and convenience store that we visit often. The charges download with identical names, but on spouse's account it's almost always a convenience store purchase, and when it's on my account it's almost always fuel. If I could create different quickfill rules for different accounts, these could be categorized correctly in both accounts.

This falls into the reply to the first idea above regarding categorization by account, where the developers have said they are not going to pursue it because of the complexity. It can't hurt to add your vote, and your example as a post in that thread -- use cases like this can help the developers understand why people are asking for an idea -- but based on the reply, I wouldn't expect anything in this area anytime soon.

Just Lurking said:

3. There is a frequent purchase that we make that downloads in the following format:"TransactionNameXXXXX zzz-zzz-zzz" Where the "TransactionName" is a unique name, XXXXX is a number that seems to be random, and zzz-zzz-zzz is a unique phone number (truncated by one digit).I've not figured out a way to create a search which works for these transactions. While "TransactionName" would be perfect to search, Quicken doesn't appear to perform a substring search so I get no results when I use it to search (as it's scrunched together with a random number). Not sure if this is a bug or a design decision?

It would be logical -- and, I agree, extremely helpful -- if the renaming rules which say "if statement name contains…" actually performed a true "contains" query, in the SQL database definition of "contains". That is, a search for that text string no matter where it appears in the field. for some reason, it appears the developers are searching for keywords, which need to have spaces around them, instead of searching the the text which might be part of a longer, mashed together strong of text as often comes in from financial institutions. This type of searching is native to SQL, so it seems possible. We'd need to get Marcus to comment, or create this as its own Idea post so it can collect votes and be forwarded to the developers.

Just Lurking said:

4. Is it possible to prioritize certain renaming rules over others? For example, here's a real issue we encounter at a place we visit frequently. There are two types of transactions that download like this:"Name1 Name2 Parking""Name1 Name2 [Random#]""Name1 Name2" are identical in both types of transactions (it's the same company), but the first is obviously a parking transaction and the second is not. A more advanced rules system (either by prioritizing certain rules to fire in a particular order OR by allowing negative keywords such as excluding the word "Parking") would allow us to categorize and rename both types of transactions correctly.

Could you do this: one renaming rule for "Name2 Parking" and a second renaming rule for "Name1 Name2", both renaming to the same Payee. Quicken allows multiple renaming rules for the same Payee. I'm not sure whether they execute in the order they appear -- which is the order you enter them -- but I'd at least try that. But if you successfully rename them the same, then Quicken will have no way to distinguish for the purpose of applying a QuickFill categorization rule. So for that reason, I'd suggest naming the Payees independently:
  "Name1 Name2 (Parking)"
  "Name1 Name2"
Then you could have a different QuickFill categorization rule for each of the two Payees.

Quicken Marcus

smayer97 said:

Quicken Marcus said:

smayer97 said:

@Quicken Marcus Now that this is in place, any possibility of carrying forward the reconciliation history from QM2007?

smayer97, Unfortunately, this would be too costly for us to do. Changing the conversion code is very difficult to do since the Quicken 2007 codebase is so old and different from modern macOS technology and the number of people converting their file isn't high enough to justify the expense. I realize this explanation doesn't diminish the loss of that historical data but it's the reality we're working with.

Thanks for the reply on this. That's very unfortunate though I am a little puzzled since migrating for this as I would thing that this should not involve knowing the codebase of QM2007... but rather ought to simply be about whether the data is there in the original database that identifies reconciliation data and periods and applying it to the new database, so mostly a mapping exercise.

We continue to use QMac 2007 to do conversions and haven't written a separate converter that just reads the file format of 2007 files. The 2007 files aren't normal structured files that are easily parsed so it's a little more complicated to deal with. In any case, this is why we rely so heavily on the old 2007 code for importing 2007 files.

Quicken Marcus

smayer97 said:

@jacobs thanks for confirming both these things. That is what I suspected.

@Quicken Marcus  so there appears an inconsistency between the register and the re-conciliation window in handling unreconciling transactions. I suggest that at a minimum, they work the same... allow selecting multiple transactions in the re-reconciliation window and be able to unreconcile them in one step, just like in the register. 

smayer97, You can multi-select transactions, right-click and mark them as Cleared or Uncleared which is essentially unreconciling them.  Is this essentially what you want?

Quicken Marcus

caram said:

Create Renaming Rule > if statement name contains

@Marcus, would it be possible to make this field a little larger?

I often have tags in that field that span over multiple lines (4 in the example below). It makes it quite difficult to edit the tags (12 in the example below, 10 of which are unnecessary):

That does look cramped. Part of the thought was that you would most likely delete tokens so wouldn't need too much space but it doesn't even look like 3 rows fit so we should grow the height to at least fit 3 rows if not 4. I've written up a ticket to make that change. Thanks.

Quicken Marcus

"TransactionNameXXXXX zzz-zzz-zzz" Where the "TransactionName" is a unique name, XXXXX is a number that seems to be random, and zzz-zzz-zzz is a unique phone number (truncated by one digit).

I've not figured out a way to create a search which works for these transactions. 

I have a question to the dev on this. I would have assumed we would tokenize the word phrase "TransactionName" separate from any numbers that followed it but if we're not I'm not sure why we couldn't. I do know we use spaces and other special characters to create the tokens that one can exclude, etc but not sure why we couldn't also simply break text and numbers.

Is it possible to prioritize certain renaming rules over others? For example, here's a real issue we encounter at a place we visit frequently. There are two types of transactions that download like this:
"Name1 Name2 Parking"
"Name1 Name2 [Random#]"

If there is more than one renaming rule for a payee, I believe we'll prioritize the last used rule.

With that said, what does the Quicken Name look like? Could you create a Quicken Name rule for Name1 Name2 Parking and a Statement rule for the other one. I'm not sure this will work either. I have a question to the developer about what gets the priority, Quicken Name rules or Statement Name rules which would dictate if this has a chance of working or not.

smayer97

Quicken Marcus said:

smayer97 said:

@jacobs thanks for confirming both these things. That is what I suspected.

@Quicken Marcus  so there appears an inconsistency between the register and the re-conciliation window in handling unreconciling transactions. I suggest that at a minimum, they work the same... allow selecting multiple transactions in the re-reconciliation window and be able to unreconcile them in one step, just like in the register. 

smayer97, You can multi-select transactions, right-click and mark them as Cleared or Uncleared which is essentially unreconciling them.  Is this essentially what you want?

Yes, that is good. But @jacobs explained that this did not appear to currently be possible.

smayer97

Quicken Marcus said:

smayer97 said:

Quicken Marcus said:

smayer97 said:

@Quicken Marcus Now that this is in place, any possibility of carrying forward the reconciliation history from QM2007?

smayer97, Unfortunately, this would be too costly for us to do. Changing the conversion code is very difficult to do since the Quicken 2007 codebase is so old and different from modern macOS technology and the number of people converting their file isn't high enough to justify the expense. I realize this explanation doesn't diminish the loss of that historical data but it's the reality we're working with.

Thanks for the reply on this. That's very unfortunate though I am a little puzzled since migrating for this as I would thing that this should not involve knowing the codebase of QM2007... but rather ought to simply be about whether the data is there in the original database that identifies reconciliation data and periods and applying it to the new database, so mostly a mapping exercise.

We continue to use QMac 2007 to do conversions and haven't written a separate converter that just reads the file format of 2007 files. The 2007 files aren't normal structured files that are easily parsed so it's a little more complicated to deal with. In any case, this is why we rely so heavily on the old 2007 code for importing 2007 files.

Surprised that parsing is used/needed and not data mapping of defined fields. But thanks for the explanation.

smayer97

Quicken Marcus said:

caram said:

Create Renaming Rule > if statement name contains

@Marcus, would it be possible to make this field a little larger?

I often have tags in that field that span over multiple lines (4 in the example below). It makes it quite difficult to edit the tags (12 in the example below, 10 of which are unnecessary):

That does look cramped. Part of the thought was that you would most likely delete tokens so wouldn't need too much space but it doesn't even look like 3 rows fit so we should grow the height to at least fit 3 rows if not 4. I've written up a ticket to make that change. Thanks.

How about making the window or field stretchable or at least scrollable? Then it can accommodate the need for any amount.

jacobs

Quicken Marcus said:

"TransactionNameXXXXX zzz-zzz-zzz" Where the "TransactionName" is a unique name, XXXXX is a number that seems to be random, and zzz-zzz-zzz is a unique phone number (truncated by one digit).

I've not figured out a way to create a search which works for these transactions. 

I have a question to the dev on this. I would have assumed we would tokenize the word phrase "TransactionName" separate from any numbers that followed it but if we're not I'm not sure why we couldn't. I do know we use spaces and other special characters to create the tokens that one can exclude, etc but not sure why we couldn't also simply break text and numbers.

@Quicken Marcus Is there a reason you have to use whole words, separated by spaces? (I clearly don't understand the role of "tokenized" words.)  So many financial institutions mash words together, or words and numbers, or word and characters -- as illustrated by the example above.

It would be much more useful if it were possible for "if statement name contains…" to actually performed a true "contains" query (in the SQL database definition of "contains"). That is, a search for that text string no matter where it appears in the field. Using individual words (tokens) but only searching for them in the order they appear in the rule doesn't seem to do more than a contains search for multiple words, but a contains search could search on a something less than a full word separated by spaces.

jacobs

smayer97 said:

Quicken Marcus said:

smayer97 said:

@Quicken Marcus  so there appears an inconsistency between the register and the re-conciliation window in handling unreconciling transactions. I suggest that at a minimum, they work the same... allow selecting multiple transactions in the re-reconciliation window and be able to unreconcile them in one step, just like in the register. 

smayer97, You can multi-select transactions, right-click and mark them as Cleared or Uncleared which is essentially unreconciling them.  Is this essentially what you want?

Yes, that is good. But @jacobs explained that this did not appear to currently be possible.

The two of you are talking about two different things. What @Quicken Marcus is describing is something a user can do in a standard register: multi-select and change the status from reconciled to uncleared.

But this cannot be done in a re-reconcile window (unless I've missed something), which is what @smayer97 is talking about: if you multi-select previously reconciled transactions in a re-reconcile window, then right-click any one of them, you get this warning dialog…



…and then only one transaction is changed to unreconciled. You have to click on each transaction individually, right-click, change the status, and okay the warning dialog for each transaction to un-reconcile a bunch of them. Or you have to know to bypass the re-reconcile window and do your unreconciling in the register instead -- a difference in approach which isn't intuitive.

@Quicken Marcus  The reason this doesn't seem great is that if a user wants to re-do a messed up reconciliation and enters the re-reconciliation window, there's no quick/easy way to unreconciled everything and then start re-clicking transactions to reconcile. 

But the other thing @smayer97 is asking for -- and I think it would be a great improvement -- is the ability to "abort" a re-reconciliation. Think about it: if you start a regular reconciliation, realize something is wrong, you simply close the window and the reconciliation is discarded. But in the re-reconcile window, anything you've changed is saved immediately; if you close the window, the status of any transactions you changed remains changed. What would be useful is a Cancel button which would discard any changes made in the re-reconcile window and set the status of all transactions back to what they were before the re-reconcile started. (In other words, the equivalent of clicking "Revert" on each transaction which had been changed -- in one button click.)

lhossus

jacobs said:
... if a user wants to re-do a messed up reconciliation and enters the re-reconciliation window, there's no quick/easy way to unreconciled everything and then start re-clicking transactions to reconcile. 

The quick/easy way to unreconcile everything is to delete the reconciliation session from the Reconciliation History window. Just select a session and press the delete key. (Undo works here too, to restore the session.)

Then use the regular reconciliation process to re-do reconciliation.

smayer97

Except that is an all or nothing approach. Anyway, sounds like some finesse is being considered.

jacobs

lhossus said:

jacobs said:
... if a user wants to re-do a messed up reconciliation and enters the re-reconciliation window, there's no quick/easy way to unreconciled everything and then start re-clicking transactions to reconcile. 

The quick/easy way to unreconcile everything is to delete the reconciliation session from the Reconciliation History window. Just select a session and press the delete key. (Undo works here too, to restore the session.)

Then use the regular reconciliation process to re-do reconciliation.

Thanks for pointing out that a reconciliation can be deleted. There's no delete button anywhere, so it didn't occur to me that a reconciliation could be deleted. I now see that Control-clicking on the reconciliation in the Reconciliation History window allows deletion. (Although I'd note that deleting the reconciliation sets all transactions in that reconciliation back to "cleared", not uncleared.)

But this doesn't address the desire to have a way to cancel/abort a re-reconciliation. While I was testing the new re-reconciliation process, I made a bunch of changes to unreconciled some transactions, and then decided I should have just left the reconciliation as it was -- but there's no easy way to go back to the prior state. You can exit the re-reconciliation than then delete the reconciliation, or manually multi-select a bunch of transactions and set them to uncleared status. But you can't easily*  "go back to the way I previously had reconciled it."  (*I will say that Quicken Mac's powerful unlimited Undo comes through here: you can pretty quickly press Command-Z repeatedly to undo any transactions whose status your changed in the Re-Reconcile window. But I think a simple Cancel button at the bottom of the Re-Reconcile window would likely help people who start to re-reconcile and realize they've made things worse instead of better.)

Quicken Marcus

The two of you are talking about two different things. What @Quicken Marcus is describing is something a user can do in a standard register: multi-select and change the status from reconciled to uncleared.

But this cannot be done in a re-reconcile window (unless I've missed something), which is what @smayer97 is talking about: if you multi-select previously reconciled transactions in a re-reconcile window, then right-click any one of them, you get this warning dialog…

I'm not talking about the register. I believe multi-select clearing or unclearing transactions is possible in the re-reconcile window. I don't get that message above when I right-click on multi-selected transactions. I get a menu that lists:

• Mark as Cleared
• Mark as Uncleared

Are you not seeing that? When I click on one of these menu items, I will get the warning above but after clicking OK all the selected transactions will be cleared or uncleared.

Quicken Marcus

jacobs said:

Quicken Marcus said:

"TransactionNameXXXXX zzz-zzz-zzz" Where the "TransactionName" is a unique name, XXXXX is a number that seems to be random, and zzz-zzz-zzz is a unique phone number (truncated by one digit).

I've not figured out a way to create a search which works for these transactions. 

I have a question to the dev on this. I would have assumed we would tokenize the word phrase "TransactionName" separate from any numbers that followed it but if we're not I'm not sure why we couldn't. I do know we use spaces and other special characters to create the tokens that one can exclude, etc but not sure why we couldn't also simply break text and numbers.

@Quicken Marcus Is there a reason you have to use whole words, separated by spaces? (I clearly don't understand the role of "tokenized" words.)  So many financial institutions mash words together, or words and numbers, or word and characters -- as illustrated by the example above.

We're somewhat limited by the way Quicken Windows implemented this feature which then defined the way this was implemented on the cloud. This doesn't mean the Mac user interface explicitly follows that implementation so it's possible that some form of what you're asking is possible. I don't know offhand. The issue @Just Lurking describes sounds like it could happen often so I'm hoping we can find a solution working within the parameters of the way the Statement Name matches work.

I do remember that the initial Quicken Windows implementation was very powerful and had lots of ways to match phrases and included starts with and contains and other operators but most people never took advantage of that extra complexity and in fact were confused by it. I do know they tore it all out and came up with the design we have today and supposedly it improved matching for most people or more people took advantage of the matching now that it was simplified but I wasn't involved in any of that so I don't know the exact history.

jacobs

Quicken Marcus said:

I'm not talking about the register. I believe multi-select clearing or unclearing transactions is possible in the re-reconcile window. I don't get that message above when I right-click on multi-selected transactions. I get a menu that lists:

• Mark as Cleared
• Mark as Uncleared

Are you not seeing that? When I click on one of these menu items, I will get the warning above but after clicking OK all the selected transactions will be cleared or uncleared.

@Quicken Marcus Aha! I did some more testing after reading your post, and, well, we're both right! What I was originally doing was multi-selecting multiple transactions, then placing my cursor over the CLR column green check-mark of one of the transactions, and Control-Clicking. When you do that, you get the warning dialog I showed, and Quicken changes only one transaction.

Based on your comment, I tried something different: I multi-selected the same transactions, and control-clicked somewhere other than near the CLR column. Voila! It behaves as you say it should: a menu to mark as cleared or uncleared, then the warning dialog, then the action performed on all the selected transactions.

It never occurred to me that where you right click changes the action on the multi-selected transactions!

So, the good news is that you can change the status of multiple transactions at once in the the re-reconcile window, as you say.

But my suggestion would be to fix the behavior that if the cursor is over the CLR column, only one transaction is changed. If other users are like me, and control-click over the CLR checkbox, the behavior is not what is expected. I would expect that in the re-reconcile window, control-clicking anywhere on the multi-selected transactions would do the same thing: pop up the mini-menu to mark as cleared or uncleared.

jacobs

Quicken Marcus said:

jacobs said:

Quicken Marcus said:

"TransactionNameXXXXX zzz-zzz-zzz" Where the "TransactionName" is a unique name, XXXXX is a number that seems to be random, and zzz-zzz-zzz is a unique phone number (truncated by one digit).

I've not figured out a way to create a search which works for these transactions. 

I have a question to the dev on this. I would have assumed we would tokenize the word phrase "TransactionName" separate from any numbers that followed it but if we're not I'm not sure why we couldn't. I do know we use spaces and other special characters to create the tokens that one can exclude, etc but not sure why we couldn't also simply break text and numbers.

@Quicken Marcus Is there a reason you have to use whole words, separated by spaces? (I clearly don't understand the role of "tokenized" words.)  So many financial institutions mash words together, or words and numbers, or word and characters -- as illustrated by the example above.

We're somewhat limited by the way Quicken Windows implemented this feature which then defined the way this was implemented on the cloud. This doesn't mean the Mac user interface explicitly follows that implementation so it's possible that some form of what you're asking is possible. I don't know offhand. The issue @Just Lurking describes sounds like it could happen often so I'm hoping we can find a solution working within the parameters of the way the Statement Name matches work.

@Quicken Marcus Thank you for some of the background and insight into the limitations of working with the rest of the Quicken family.

Just today there was a post in another thread from a user asking about the same issue. I'm posting it here just to give you another example where using numbers as delimiters for the tokens would be helpful:

Dave461 said:

Hey gang- I have a frequent merchant who uses Square to process my credit card. Square appears to assign a unique alphanumeric sequence to each and every transaction. Such that the Payee Name is unique for each transaction. i.e. SamplePayee3#$&% and SamplePayee*$@^ and SamplePayee%ey%$ etc.

As you can imagine this gives Quickfill fits since every occurrence appears to be unique and new to Quicken so I never get a match and the Category does not get assigned. I've tried to edit a Quickfill Rule such that it only looks for "SamplePayee" but Quicken refuses to Save that.

Anyone have a workaround? Thanks!

I'd also note that his examples include special characters, which Quicken Mac does use as delimiters for tokens in creating a renaming rule -- but perhaps isn't applying the same way when running the rule against Payees in new transactions. If his example is literally accurate, then "SamplePayee*$@^" tokenizes "Sample Payee" in creating a renaming rule, and should match incoming transactions -- but he's saying it doesn't.

Quicken Marcus

jacobs said:

Quicken Marcus said:

I'm not talking about the register. I believe multi-select clearing or unclearing transactions is possible in the re-reconcile window. I don't get that message above when I right-click on multi-selected transactions. I get a menu that lists:

• Mark as Cleared
• Mark as Uncleared

Are you not seeing that? When I click on one of these menu items, I will get the warning above but after clicking OK all the selected transactions will be cleared or uncleared.

@Quicken Marcus Aha! I did some more testing after reading your post, and, well, we're both right! What I was originally doing was multi-selecting multiple transactions, then placing my cursor over the CLR column green check-mark of one of the transactions, and Control-Clicking. When you do that, you get the warning dialog I showed, and Quicken changes only one transaction.

Got it. My mouse is set up to do a right-click so I don't get that.  It works fine in the CLR column.  However, you're using a Control+Click, and Control+Clicking on that checkbox is special and is designed to unreconcile only that transaction. This action takes precedence over the contextual menu behavior.

smayer97

Quicken Marcus said:

jacobs said:

Quicken Marcus said:

I'm not talking about the register. I believe multi-select clearing or unclearing transactions is possible in the re-reconcile window. I don't get that message above when I right-click on multi-selected transactions. I get a menu that lists:

• Mark as Cleared
• Mark as Uncleared

Are you not seeing that? When I click on one of these menu items, I will get the warning above but after clicking OK all the selected transactions will be cleared or uncleared.

@Quicken Marcus Aha! I did some more testing after reading your post, and, well, we're both right! What I was originally doing was multi-selecting multiple transactions, then placing my cursor over the CLR column green check-mark of one of the transactions, and Control-Clicking. When you do that, you get the warning dialog I showed, and Quicken changes only one transaction.

Got it. My mouse is set up to do a right-click so I don't get that.  It works fine in the CLR column.  However, you're using a Control+Click, and Control+Clicking on that checkbox is special and is designed to unreconcile only that transaction. This action takes precedence over the contextual menu behavior.

And when you say, Control-Click, I presume you mean Control-Left Click...but the convention is that Control-Click is supposed to be equal to Right-Click.... so should the Control-Click feature/trigger be replaced with something like Opt-Click or Cmd-Click?

smayer97

RE: Renaming rules, here is the link to the discussion @jacobs mentioned:

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/7888535/how-to-create-a-custom-quickfill-rule

Any reason that QWin, and therefore QWeb/Mobile, are designed this way? Is this a technology limitation? Or is this an old design carryover that simply was never improved? Is there any opportunity to push back and coordinate a better more intuitive design for all versions?