Need option for Search results showing only matching split lines (Q Mac) [Edited]

Richard Kennedy

I am using Quicken Premier for Mac Version 7.0.0 (Build 700.48698.100) under macOS 13.3.1.

I often have dozens and dozens of splits in a single transaction. When I search for certain text in an account, only the top level transaction is listed. This then requires manual searching through the splits to find the required text.

The text search for should be easier to find when a transaction has multiple splits. The searched for text could be bolded or colored.

FredMac

If you are in a register, and in the search you type a category name, it works great except for split transactions. For example if I search for the category "medical expense", and have a split transaction ($60.00 food, $20 medical expense) it will show the transaction, but the amount is $80.00. It would be more accurate to show $20.00 and the amount.

[Merged Post]

Quicken Anja

Hello All,

This idea seems to have fallen stagnant and due to the age of the request and lack of user votes/comments, will be archived within the next 7 business days.

If you would like to see this idea kept alive and considered for possible future implementation in Quicken, be sure to add your vote and a comment explaining how this idea would be beneficial for you.

More information, including steps to vote and how to submit your own ideas for future product features/improvements, is also available here.

Thank you,

Quicken Community Support Team

[Merged Post]

jacobs

This is actually a significant shortcoming in Quicken Mac. This is another case where the subject line of this post has probably not helped users who would want this feature to find it. [It has been edited to be more descriptive now.]

If I can restate the feature request: the ability to conduct a Search in a register which returns only the transactions (for non-split transactions) and the split lines (for split transactions) which match the Search text. This would also allow the total displayed for the Search results to be the actual total of the items which match the Search, rather than the sum of the full transactions where some split lines do NOT match the Search term.

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/7853541/searching-for-totals-when-some-are-inside-split-transactions

…and here…

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/7891483/all-transactions-filtered-view-shows-split-total-rather-than-selected-category-q-mac

This is one of several key revamps to splits which Quicken developers ought to implement, in my opinion. Being able to search and replace without excluding split transactions is another. Being able to optionally combine splits in reports (where they are split apart-- the opposite of the issue in this thread) is a third. Making the split window match the columns which are shown/hidden, in the same order and width as the main register, is a fourth. But this Idea should definitely be kept alive.

UKR

Out of curiosity … why do you "have dozens and dozens of splits in a single transaction"?
What's the reason for that? Are you perhaps recording all your monthly credit card charges as a lengthy split in the credit card payment transaction in your checking account? If so, there's an easier way to do that …

Richard Kennedy

No, I often purchase up to one hundred books from a single vendor with a single payment. The notes for each split contains the price paid for each book and the notes contain the book's title, ISBN number, etc. I need to retain this information for each book. The current search doesn't allow me to go directly to the split item.

jacobs

This might be more work than you'll want to do, but I'll throw this out as a possible solution…

Create an Asset account using the name of the vendor. Instead of recording one purchase with dozens of splits, record each book as its own transaction. It's not a lot more work because you're already entering the memo and price for each one (and you can save a QuickFill rule for the Payee to auto-fill just the category). Then record the payment in your checking account or credit card account as a simple transaction — no spits — which is a Transfer to the asset account for the entire amount of the purchase. The asset account will always be zero after you enter the purchases and the payment, because the expenses are offset by the transfer from the payment. Your expense reports will be accurate, and now a search will lead you directly to the book transaction you're looking for.

smayer97

This is actually not a new idea but really another way of presenting the same idea of being able to isolate only the split lines when performing a search, as in when one wants only a total of the searched for split lines.

So, maybe this should be merged with that idea thread?