REQUEST: more linkable items

In this scenario I’m talking about bank reconciliations, but this goes for just about everywhere seems to lack easy ways to get to (what should be) linked items. For example, right now I’m trying to do a bank reconciliation. I am out on the particular day by $9, that’s fine because I can see that it’s something that I’ve paid and I have either

  1. allocated payment from the wrong account, or
  2. entered it on the wrong day

That’s fine, so let’s check it out… But I can’t. There is no direct link to that $9 purchase on that day, so I must open a new window/tab and manually search for that entry.

it would be “handy” if any one of these linked to anywhere*

  1. could link to the payment item itself, 2) could link to the suppliers invoices, and 3 could link to any and all transactions based on that date.

Luckily, because I have an entry for that day, I can just look to the supplier and look for invoices for that date (if it’s the opposite and I need to FIND the supplier, well, I have to log into my bank for that one).

SO I bring up the supplier for that date:

this is one way to check, but that’s not what I want, most links from here aren’t entirely helpful, this is the screen I really wanted:

from here I can directly check the invoice itself (edit) or the payment ($0 on the right). If any item labelled 1) in the first pic came hewre, that would be good.

Again, first world problems… lol

* @lubos, if you think there’s going to be too many links around the place, just make the highlighting of them less obvious. Underlines are already removed, I don’t think it would be an issue aesthetically.

As I mentioned, this is only for bank reconciliation, but when it comes to linking the entities, more links around the place would be better.

Your example shows how the program pointed you directly to the problem transaction. There is already an Edit button right there. So your lengthy explanation about how hard it is to find the culprit does not seem to make sense.

Your search for the original purchase invoice also does not make sense, because that is not involved with your bank statement. A problem with reconciliation can only be a difference between your bank’s record of the payment and the one you put into Manager.

Now, it may be that you entered the purchase invoice incorrectly and paid the supplier the wrong amount as a result. But that will never show up in a bank reconciliation

1 Like

on the contrary, if you check the first image again you will see where I suggest 4 different places where a link could be placed. Nowhere in there does it “point” me anywhere, I’m the one who had to go looking, not the application. And the application can do it so much more efficiently than I can :slight_smile:

As I did mention, this is but one example, I chose bank reconciliations because that’s where I’m working right now, but many screens within manager could use a little love with some linking of entities.

for the bank reconciliation, that one edit button (to the actual payment) brings up the payment edit screen. This is a c lassic example of a screen that could use some love. From this screen I am unable to view anything of the transaction in question:

for example, that invoice, there’s no way to get to it from this screen.

As I said, one example. It’s all about making it easier, less button clicks, not more.

I accept you may disagree with me.

I don’t see how you can say this. The program already told you every suspect transaction and gave you Edit buttons for all of them. No, it did not link you to the purchase invoice you keep mentioning, because that cannot have been the problem with the bank reconciliation. The program has no way of knowing which transaction you entered incorrectly. It can only find discrepancies between your records and the bank’s and tell you which transactions could be involved.

Again, a puzzling statement. From the payment’s Edit screen, you can view everything about the transaction in question. That screen is the transaction.

That is because there is no explicit linkage between the purchase invoice itself and the payment. The linkage is between the payment and a subsidiary register of the Accounts payable account. That may seem a small distinction, but when it comes to generating hyperlinks to places you might ultimately want to visit, it’s significant.

Let’s face it, @d3mad. What you are asking for is an artificial intelligence that can do all the same reasoning you can. I would not hold my breath.

1 Like

(emphasis mine)

Not really. (ie, not really significant)

Might ultimately want to visit? How many places could I possibly want to visit? All I would like to see is whatever that item relates to at the other end. It can only come from one place, the place that created the expenditure in the first place (in this case, a purchase invoice, that, if you visit the reconciliation item has a plain text reference only to the original invoice. That is perfectly useless, and it is perfectly insignificant to have a link back to it).

But, I do see your point and you are correct.

For the bank reconciliation itself, yes, everything IS there to edit the payment in question. I can change the amount, I can delete the amount, I can even create a new amount not related to any purchases or sales as well.

Explicitly “to reconcile the account”, it can be done from that screen. but your changes won’t link to anything and that’s not the way I’d like to leave it.

So on that note, I concede, you are absolutely correct.

However, Manager is more than just single screen of actions that are unrelated to anything else. It is all interconnected. Money coming into and out of your account are specifically tied to sales or purchases (or expenses, etc etc etc, it’s tied to something).

Credits and debits for your bank account do not live in isolation.

And all I am suggesting is that a few more links be applied around the place generically (not just in reconciliations) to make navigation between interconnected transactions generally easier to navigate.

And no, I’m not asking for any AI at all. Just a way to reference and link it all together. They are links that I have already made within the system, they are links already within the database, there’s no “guessing” or intelligence involved at all.

Anyway, if you don’t like the idea, downvote it, it was merely a suggestion.

This is your flaw, @d3mad. The expenditure, as far as bank reconciliation is concerned, was not created by the purchase invoice. The expenditure (as recorded in the Bank Accounts tab) was created by the payment. Think about it: you are reconciling with a statement from a bank that knows absolutely nothing about the purchase invoice. And this is basically what you went on to agree with.

Only indirectly. When you raise the purchase invoice, then pay it off, the payment is not tied to the purchase invoice, but to the Accounts payable account. You might not have even designated the invoice when entering the payment, only the supplier. Then you wouldn’t even have an indirect linkage, only Manager’s automatic allocation to unpaid invoices.

That isn’t possible. And I wouldn’t do that on the basis of personal preference if it was. We’ll see if this topic attracts any other comments.

Please bear in mind, reconciliations was just the example I based my proposition on. We’re only focusing on how “reconciliations” don’t work that way, which I’m sure if I expanded into others areas would just change to “accounting” doesn’t work that way.

Yes, maybe it is only indirectly, but that’s why we do double entry accounting, for every “one” part there’s a balancing “counter-part”

You have bludgeoned me with “reconciliations are based purely on the bank account and nothing more,” and I get what you are saying. But what I am asking for is to link those various parts together. Not just in or specifically related to reconciliations, but across the board.

Because it is double entry accounting, and because we do balance our books, there is something we can marry* the bank statement with. (*I have realised that I am using reconciliations to mean more than a “bank reconciliation” and it’s unfortunate I chose this example, because in reality I am talking about reconciling (err, let’s use another word: marrying, matching, [insert really cool accounting jargon here]) what appears in the bank account with what appears elsewhere in our books. Because of the fact we do balanced entries, that $9 will be balanced off “something” and my request for a feature enhancement was about opening up entries that appear on one side of the book to link up with it’s nemesis. If only to help fools like me. And it’s not like manager would have to “guess” what to balance it against (there are rules that could be utilised for that), because I do not import my bank reconciliations, I manually enter each one by hand, by creating my invoices and making my payments and receipts against the bank account. To me doing it that way results in the least mistakes.

I hope that I have given you enough for you to realise this could be a useful feature, and handy, (like I say, probably) if only for fools like me.

This explanation helped me understand what I believe you are looking for.

Under Receipts and Payments if you have a Payment that is tied to a Purchase Invoice there is no link between them. Currently you have to click the payment (edit or view) take note of the invoice number then go to Purchase Invoices to see what it was for.

The same thing goes from within the Bank Rec, you only have an edit button which does not link to the original purchase invoice.

Did I understand your wishes?

Pretty much yes.

As I mentioned, it’s not one particular area of manager, it’s across the board:

Audit trails, bank reconciliations, invoicing vs direct transactions, the list goes on.

This is not as simple as you portray

For example, a payment may be linked to more than one invoice, or indeed to a combination of invoices, payslips, expense claims and direct payments. What would you link to in this case?

In order for a payment to be linked to more than one, they would have to be multiple lines on the payment. Simple really, make those lines link to the appropriate item.

Just like a sales invoice, if it has multiple payments applied to it, you should be able to link to the individual payment from the view screen where they are already listed with reference numbers.

But, to see that, you would need to be on the Edit page already, a place @d3mad seems to want to avoid going. His original examples were all in lists, where such line-item information does not show.

Why can’t it be on the view screen?

A purchase invoice with 3 payments, what would be wrong with having the mini statement at the bottom link to the individual payments and vice versa?

A payment that pays 2 different purchase invoices are already listed on individual lines, why can’t those link you to those invoices?

Because the concept of a view screen does not apply to lists. You only have the list, which does not show line items. @d3mad gave examples where he was requesting links within lists, but your suggestion, @VISA-MC, was to have links within the line items. You cannot correlate one with the other.

The mini-statement appears only on the View screen, which cannot contain hyperlinks. You would not want to be sending a customer or supplier hyperlinks into your accounting records.

I am 100% there is a way to strip those links before sending to a customer.

He stated that was one example, but would like to see it scattered across the program.

I am not sure what this means. In order for us to locate linked purchase or sales invoices, you have to leave the bank rec or payment tab and locate manually in the appropriate tab. The list you speak of only exists on the purchase invoice screen but not on the payment screen. If I want to know what invoices a payment covers, it is a manual process.

This is the second topic in a month you have refused to put into ideas for people to vote on. I am not sure what the purpose of the ideas category is if it isn’t used by forum users requests.

@VISA-MC, I will not put suggestions into the Ideas category that make no sense. You are arguing for links from information contained only in line items of individual transactions to be put into lists. But that information simply does not exist in the lists. If the information is not there, you cannot turn it into a hyperlink.

How can you say the information is not there? Here is a purchase invoice with 2 payments attached.

If we need to know which other invoices that payment may have been applied to, we have to go elsewhere rather than just clicking there.

Here is a payment made to a supplier for a purchase invoice. What did we buy exactly? You have to write that invoice number down then go somewhere else to search for it.

The information is clearly there on both documents.

I say it because you personally wrote:

as well as:

In both cases, you referred to line items on a payment form. But the discussion was about lists, of which bank reconciliation transaction lists were one example. Look at @d3mad’s screen shots in his first post. No line items are displayed. The same would be true if you were looking at lists of sales invoices, receipts, or anything else.

And I’ve already explained why you cannot link from a View screen.

So I’m finished with this topic.

I have already pointed out once - this topic is NOT only about bank reconciliations and lists, but rather about many facets of Manager.

This is what the OP said. I have provided two more examples of where linking would be helpful, yet this still isn’t in the ideas category, because you do not agree. I wasn’t aware the ideas category was only for ideas you agree with.

I also said that I am confident in lubos’ development abilities to be able to strip links before sending to a customer, but again you totally ignored that.

Here is another useful spot mentioned by the OP. Audit Trail. It would be nice to be able to click on these entries to see which item was updated or created.

Maybe another moderator can help us get this into the ideas category for users to vote, unless I have misunderstood the purpose of that category.

1 Like

I honestly do not get the bank reconciliation situation, it is not about linking of transactions, it is about suggesting possible reconciling items. The original post suggests there is a difference in the reco, in that case there is only two scenarios for each one of the “possible” reconciling items: (A) missing transaction(s); or (B) Duplicate/Incorrect record(s). Also, let us reexamine the purpose of bank reco which is to compare the internal records with reliable third-party records to identify temporary differences, duplication, omissions and errors and not to assume a certain error occurred and record plug entries to match the third party records. It may sound the same but it is not.Having said that, here are some of the problems of the system pointing you to suspect transactions for bank reco differences:

  • The example provided by @d3mad assumes an omission is the only case, what about if there was in error of $9 (say a payment of $99 recorded at $90 or a receipt of $90 recorded at $99)
  • What about when the difference is a temporary difference that will only be resolved in the future such as the supplier slept on depositing his check. Here the bank figure is least reliable, hence, companies rely on book-balance rather than bank-balance. We should not match the bank, instead we wait until the bank records catch up.
  • How about wrong transaction dates, this means the system must check all transactions (even reconciled ones an you will see why shortly)
  • It may be 1 transaction with the exact amount or a combination of 100s of transactions with vastly different amounts both Drs and Crs, in which case, there is no limit to how big the numbers are; $9 makes absolutely no sense here. In @d3mad case it was one, but in most cases it isn’t. so how could, or anyone really, know the what amounts to look for.
  • Where should we stop the search, we already missed the payment/receipt, should we look in invoices and crn/drn. Or maybe since we already missed once, we may missed the invoice then we should look in orders or quotes or payslips and expense claims. There should be a line somewhere.
  • Maybe then we should just assign each transaction with an attribute “reconciled/not reconciled” in that case all transactions that are not payments and receipts can be partially reconciled or can be one-of-many parts in a single reconciled payment or receipt, in which case, we can only look into payments and receipts for reco … back to square 1.

The way I see it, either considers all of the above in its suggestions (which is practically impossible or try like some other software to give false impressions that it is fine to over-simplify reconciliation and just spit out $9 transactions) which poses the risk of wrongly reconciling transactions until at one point the account is no longer reconcilable – which happens … like alot.

You can try to force manager to give you guesses (bad guesses, no sugar-coating the truth) or just import transactions from the bank and then assign them, this way you will always be reconciled, and it is easy and fast but does not give you a book-balance. You can also, choose a hybrid approach that will result in duplicates that you need to detect and delete manually or make sure to mention all relevant details in your bank instruction just to make the reconciliation a trivial task by working more on another area. Pick your poison, there is no escaping hard work. Just think about why you only see over simplified reco methods on low-end or simple accounting software and never on high-end software, there is always a reason.

On the other hand, I agree to the audit trial linkages, I think they should be linked. Also, maybe there is a method to view linked documents on the view tab instead of the edit – which there isn’t at the moment and I think there shouldn’t because you don’t want to miss around with a posted record in edit mode. I don’t know whether uses a separate matching table, but I think it should be possible to have the links in view mode along with the attachments just with different icons.