Home Page link  

Renaming Rules

  
Groups | Search | About
User Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Quicken Personal Finance Discussions - Quicken - personal finance software discussions

 Post an article  get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Renaming Rules Joe McDermott 12-21-2007
Posted by Oilcan on December 28, 2007, 6:40 pm
Please log in for more thread options
 I disagree. OFX is a standard with definitions developed by Microsoft,
Intuit and Checkfree. The garbage that your bank (and in many cases my Bank
and Credit Cards) place in those fields resides on the FI side and is a
result of antiquated computer systems. I too would just like the Payee Name
(nothing else) in the Payee field and the rest of the information in the
memo field.

Oilcan
>
>
>> My bank always populates the Payee field with the word "Purchase" then
>> puts all the payee info in the memo field. Obviously they are the ones
>> causing the problem.
>
> That's one way to look at it.
> Quicken, on the other hand, says you can download this information but
> doesn't convert it to properly match the fields that QUICKEN HAS DEFINED.
> Apparently there are no accepted standards across the industry for
> defining fields in a data record so I think Quicken is as much (or more)
> to blame than the Financial Institutions. They are allowing you to access
> THEIR records. They are not obligated to make it conform to what Quicken
> has set up.
>
>


Posted by Ken Abrams on December 29, 2007, 11:21 am
Please log in for more thread options

>I disagree. OFX is a standard with definitions developed by Microsoft,
>Intuit and Checkfree.

You are free to disagree all you want.

We all know Microsoft is arrogant. Now add Intuit.

WE have created a standard and YOU (financial institutions) MUST conform to
it............sorry, it doesn't work that way.
If you contact your "bank" I suspect this is pretty much what they will tell
you.

Feel free to keep disagreeing.......just don't expect the situation to
change.

A well designed data import program would allow the user to define a mask
for each source, ONCE, and would use it to reformat the data on each
subsequent download. Looks like that's not the case here.



Posted by Oilcan on December 29, 2007, 2:22 pm
Please log in for more thread options
"A well designed data import program would allow the user to define a mask
for each source, ONCE, and would use it to reformat the data on each
subsequent download. Looks like that's not the case here."

Ken, I agree. I would like to assign renaming rules by source. I wiped out
my renaming rules earlier in this year because I could not trace the
behavior. Its better but not perfect.

Oilcan

>
>
>>I disagree. OFX is a standard with definitions developed by Microsoft,
>>Intuit and Checkfree.
>
> You are free to disagree all you want.
>
> We all know Microsoft is arrogant. Now add Intuit.
>
> WE have created a standard and YOU (financial institutions) MUST conform
> to it............sorry, it doesn't work that way.
> If you contact your "bank" I suspect this is pretty much what they will
> tell you.
>
> Feel free to keep disagreeing.......just don't expect the situation to
> change.
>
> A well designed data import program would allow the user to define a mask
> for each source, ONCE, and would use it to reformat the data on each
> subsequent download. Looks like that's not the case here.
>
>


Posted by Joe McDermott on December 25, 2007, 11:28 am
Please log in for more thread options
I'm glad you mentioned that Ken. I noticed this too but I thought I was
doing something wrong with the rule and it was driving me nuts.

Joe

Snip Snip
> Huge snippage:
>
> The sneaky part is that when the first new payee shows up, that payee
> _does_ get properly named since Quicken looks in the memo field when it
> doesn't have a rule. Let's suppose the payee in this case is "Vendor X",
> and that name is in the memo field in the first unknown-to-Quicken
> transaction; Quicken then creates a rule that says, "If Payee field ==
> "payee", then Payee = "Vendor X" ".
>
> That happens to be correct. But when more new, unknown-to-Quicken payees
> show up (Let's call them "Vendor Y", "Vendor W, and "Vendor Z", they all
> get renamed to "Vendor X" - since they all have "payee" in the "Payee
> Field".
>



Posted by Rick Blaine on December 25, 2007, 1:07 pm
Please log in for more thread options

>I'm glad you mentioned that Ken. I noticed this too but I thought I was
>doing something wrong with the rule and it was driving me nuts.


Yep. The first few times that caught me as well. I'd see a downloaded charge in
my register from a company that I knew I hadn't made in years. Really threw me
until I figured out what was going on.

Similar ThreadsPosted
Renaming rules April 18, 2007, 11:47 am
Backing up 'Renaming Rules" June 5, 2006, 10:28 pm
Quicken 2007 Renaming rules October 14, 2006, 4:17 pm
A Plethora of Rules December 15, 2007, 11:39 pm
Q07 Renaming August 19, 2006, 2:14 pm
Renaming Security October 29, 2006, 3:34 pm
Renaming Reports November 30, 2006, 4:27 pm
Renaming Problem in 2007p August 12, 2006, 7:42 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
This site is not affiliated with Intuit - makers of Quickbooks and Quicken software
This site is not affiliated with Sage Software - makers of Peachtree accounting software
XML SitemapXML Sitemap