Memo fields in Split Transactions
When I bought MoneyDance 1 year ago I was not happy with the lack of Memo field in a split transactions.
Then I read http://help.infinitekind.com/discussions/switching-from-quicken/243...
I have been using that method since. However, after xmas I started created my annual report. I found for me that this is not working. For example:
Transaction 1:
Description: WalMart Memo: Blue Shirt Category: Xmas Gift Tag: Bob
Transaction 2:
Description: Target Memo: nothing Category:
Split
Split 1:
Description: Yellow Shirt Category: Gift Tag:
John
Split 2:
Description: Pink Shirt Category: Gift Tag:
Jane
So now when I do a simple data dump report of the Gifts I bought I get the following
| Description | Memo | Tag |
| Walmart | Blue Shirt | Bob |
| Yellow Shirt | nothing | John |
| Pink Shirt | nothing | Jane |
Notice the inconsistencies in the table above. Now i don't know where 2 of the shirts are coming from.
If we had the Memo field instead of description in the Split Screen this would not be an issue. At the very least, enable the memo fields in Categories account, this way in the split I could put the Description (Payee), then I could go to the Categories accounts to enter the memo.
This is very important feature for me.
Mike
Showing the most recent page of comments. View the first page
32 Posted by bgorrell on 15 Oct, 2011 04:40 PM
Please add my vote for revising the way "Description" and the "Memo" field entries are reported in split transactions. Thank you "zubalea' for pointing out an issue that has also bothered me since I began using MD in 2008. For me however adding a "Description" field to the GUI of split transactions seems a bit redundant, the problem really lies with the way split transaction memo's are handled in reports.
Currently the "Description" field entry of single transactions appear as a "1st line" item in "detail" reports and the "Memo" entry appears in the 2nd line. When a split transaction appears in the same report, the "Memo" entries jump up the "data hierarchy" and appear as 1st line items.
I'd suggest that the fix is REALLY in revising the way "detail" reports handle split transaction "Memo" field entries. They should appear as 2nd, 3rd... and so on, line items in "Detail" reports. In regular reports memo's do not appear and of course in "Summary" reports individual transactions are not reported at all.
33 Posted by lbshaffer62 on 16 Oct, 2011 03:06 PM
Can someone from Moneydance please provide an update on this issue? I understand that it's been assigned a ticket number and that the developers are involved, but will this be addressed (its been an issue forever) and if so when? Thanks.
34 Posted by christopher.oldham on 26 Oct, 2011 09:08 PM
Please add my vote too! Being able to add a "memo" comment for each split (as per Quicken) is CRITICAL. In MD the "Description" field is effectively the "Payee". It makes no sense when doing splits for a transaction with the same payee, to have to effectively change the "Description" in the split to serve as a "Memo" to describe that particular split. As others have pointed out reporting will be all messed up too.
I've seen this issue in other threads here but cannot see any resolution or update. I recently imported 3+years of Quicken to MD and have just noticed this problem with all my imported splits. Being new to MD I also just discovered this problem when trying to enter a split.
35 Posted by Judi on 05 Dec, 2011 12:06 AM
Brand new former Quicken user here. The lack of a memo field is the only thing so far that has me mashing my teeth. Please count me in, too! Otherwise, this program is a breath of fresh air after 10+ years on Quicken!
36 Posted by Sara on 06 Dec, 2011 06:10 AM
This gets my vote, too.
37 Posted by bgorrell on 18 Mar, 2012 08:11 PM
Can we please get an updated status report on this issue? Has it been assigned a "ticket" number? If so, what's the ticket number and what it's status? If not, can we please get one entered so this problem can be corrected?
38 Posted by creek1 on 18 Mar, 2012 09:32 PM
Don't expect an answer. Many of us have been asking this question for over a year and we've never had the courtesy of a response. TIme to check out the new Qiuicken 2007
39 Posted by Sara on 18 Mar, 2012 09:43 PM
I don't get it. So often we get quick and to the point responses. Then this. It makes me, for one, feel disrespected. I don't want to go through the hassle of changing programs again, but I feel like I may be forced to do so. My interpretation of others' comments is that many feel the same--and I'm sure some who don't post and/or are evaluating options feel the same. Those in the market probably quietly go elsewhere. It seems like more and more folks are getting ready to leave, as well. Please, Sean, it's time to upgrade your efforts to upgrade customer satisfaction so that it's uniformly good--here and in the modules dealing with investments.
40 Posted by Henry on 19 Mar, 2012 01:18 AM
Sounds to me like this item is broken as designed.
There are 2 uses that I can see for a split transaction. Case 1: a deposit (say of a paycheck) where different amounts are placed into different accounts, and (case 2:) a purchase of multiple items where the memo field needs to be used to document what it is that is being purchased. In case 1 the memo value is common to all items in the split, but there is a requirement for different payee's. In case 2 the payee is common, but different memo values are required to describe the different items being purchased.
The problem (I am guessing here) is how to accommodate both cases at the same time. MD works fine for case 1, but is broken for case 2. Trying to use the current "description/payee" field in the split items as a memo value is not a solution since this field is really treated by MD as a payee field and thats easy to see in all the reports. Mixing the use of the one field between memo and payee creates a terrible mess that is very difficult to unravel in the reports or in a spreadsheet when the data is exported.
So the problem here is not that development does not understand or agree with the problem, they just don't want to break existing functionally (case 1).
I personally never use the case 1 "multiple payee" feature, but really need the "multiple memo" feature, so I (and probably others posting on this thread) are screwed.
There is not really a UI problem here. Both the parent and child transactions in a split have room for both description and memo fields. And the meaning is pretty clear as well. A blank description field in a child inherits the description from the parent. A blank memo inherits a common memo from the parent.
The problem is probably not with the entering, but that the resulting structure being incompatible with other code, perhaps in the report generator, etc. Since the fix for this problem would allow the creation of something that would break other function, the cost to fix it is large.
Its not completely impossible that they really don't understand the problem but after all these requests, reports and years of having it explained to them that seems highly unlikely.
But in either case, I would not be holding my breath for a near term solution.
Henry
41 Posted by RobS on 19 Mar, 2012 09:40 AM
@ Henry. I'm not sure I agree with you pay check scenario. Surely however it is received, it is from one payee only, and is deposited into ONE specific account, eg your current (checking) account. It may be a split transaction to identify tax paid, other stoppages or allowances, but you need a memo for these lines, not a payee.
If you then wish to reallocate the funds to other accounts, you do a new transaction, either split or single, to make the transfer.
In this way, the requirement for deposits is identical (IMHO) to that for payments; ie memos not descriptions are the most important field. Though I concede that having both may please more users...
Or have I misunderstood what you are saying.
Regards,
Rob
Or have I
Support Staff 42 Posted by Jon Hoover on 23 Mar, 2012 02:46 PM
Hi,
I checked in with the lead developer about this and also the data linked to the ticket. Regarding the ticket status you should see it posted at the top of this page if you are viewing the discussion through the website and not over email. The ticket number is
943 and it is an open ticket.
I can confirm that in our ticket tracking system we are well aware that it is a popular request.
There is however some concern that changing how this functions will upset more people then those who would like to see the change. (But that's somewhat guess work and not a blocking concern on implementation)
Changing it would not be a trivial change but is doable.
It is currently not our top development priority for the next major release, though it is certainly on the radar and under consideration.
At this point we cannot offer a timeline for when this will be changed.
I apologize for the frustration this may cause some of you. Thank you for your feedback regarding this, it is useful know that a number of people would desire this change and makes it more likely that it will get top priority.
Sincerely,
Jon Hoover, Moneydance Support
43 Posted by hgmps on 23 Mar, 2012 03:51 PM
The fact that this feature is seriously broken as explained in numerous posts and is still not top priority clearly indicates a development team with an agenda that has no correlation with what the users need.
Because of this, I have abandoned Moneydance, and have told everyone I know that was considering migrating from Quicken to hold off. And now that Quicken 2007 Lion is out, no reason to consider MD.
44 Posted by RobS on 23 Mar, 2012 04:48 PM
@Jon Hoover. "There is however some concern that changing how this functions will upset more people then those who would like to see the change. "
In another thread on this issue, I suggested that this change could be made optional for the user.
This could be one of the program preferences wherby the default program setting is the current arrangement of editable description fields in split transactions, but by ticking an option box, the editable field within splits becomes the memo field.
Alternatively, if BOTH description AND memo fields were editable in splits, then surely no-one would be upset as existing functionality would be retained.
Sincerely,
RobS
45 Posted by Athene on 25 Mar, 2012 07:48 AM
I've got to the point where I feel that I will vote with my feet. Several users, myself included, have been asking for this and patiently explaining the rationale for it since 2007. Each time they ask for a new ticket/thread/whatever to be opened. At least now they are admitting they have no real interest in changing it. I think omitting this function was a massive oversight and they've organised the database structure in such a way that they can't unpick the mess. For me it's a real pain. Worst of all for me personally was the fact that with the latest version they advertised that this function was included and then after paying for the upgrade they admitted that it had been a mistake but no refund.
Support Staff 46 Posted by Jon Hoover on 26 Mar, 2012 01:19 PM
Hi Athene,
Sorry to hear that you are disappointed and frustrated. As Ben said in an early post on this thread when it happened that it was unfortunate that a support staff member made the mistake of saying that memos in splits were implemented. Our refund policy has always been very generous and we would have offered any people who had wanted a refund if they had inquired.
Sorry again that we could not meet your needs.
Sincerely,
Jon Hoover, Moneydance Support
47 Posted by lbshaffer62 on 28 Mar, 2012 12:58 AM
Jon - Thanks for the honest feedback.
48 Posted by peterschueler on 27 Apr, 2012 08:58 PM
Moneydance is a good program there is no doubt about that and the engagement of the team regarding feedback is encouraging and more often than not lacking elsewhere in other companies. So I offer a positive view here and no I'm not about to jump ship to Quicken .. it was too much of a nerve-racking experience coming over from the dying Ms Money Program but it worked. But enough of the waffle and lets be clear here. Reading through these posts it seems you have a solid number of users who really are looking at your program closely and really do see a short coming regarding memos in split transactions me included. It maybe that hundreds or even thousands of users may also want this function included but can't be bothered or don't have the time to write. Those who do write are not doing it for selfish reasons they really want to help make the whole thing better... and one day you may need their help too.
Please reconsider this if you can and include it.