Why no ability to sort while processing uncategorized payments? (imported from bank statements) The default (descending by date) works fine ONLY if there are a few transactions. The larger the batch, the more error prone the process becomes when rules are automatically applied. (The program supports sorting on most other screens, but not here.)
It’s visually much easier (and faster) to catch auto-applied “RULE based classification ERRORS” (during review) when all auto-categorized (“similar downloaded bank transactions”) can be sorted so they are together/one above the other. It might be a smart idea to also offer sorting by RULE NAME while reviewing imported bank transactions!
Other systems we’ve used support switching/selecting sorting methods here during the review process (by selecting the top header) to facilitate catching errors caused when bank rules are auto-applied during import…) ie: selectively sorting by EITHER memo field OR payee OR account etc.
Note: From the SUMMARY screen, it’s possible to click on “Suspense” and actually sort the “uncategorized” transactions that don’t have rules applied. BUT this screen does not 1.) Isolate transactions by bank, 2.) Has no support for Rules, and 3.) Does NOT support Batch Update.
Related suggestion: Whenever a downloaded transaction is edited & saved, it instantly disappears from the batch/list. After correcting, it would be nice to have the option of leaving it in the list. (For one final review so the BATCH UPDATE button could process the entire batch.)
Hi @lubos ,I hope this gets into ideas for the reasons mentioned by @WLS. It’s going to be easier to update all of the transactions which a rule has bee applied.
I am not sure what you meant here by downloaded transaction. If you meant uploaded transactions (Bank Statement Import), yes of course it will instantly disappear from batch list after you tag it to a specific account. Adding/editing all other information such as contact, date, etc would not make it disappear in the uncategorized list.
A downloaded transaction is one that came from outside statement. There is no capability of uploading anything from Manager to anywhere else. So your comment regarding that makes no sense.
Further, the original request ignores the fact that the entire purpose of the process is to assign posting accounts to uncategorized transactions. Once an account is assigned, the transaction is no longer uncategorized, so it has no purpose in the list. That is, it is no longer part of the process.
I’m referring to EVERY transaction that has been uploaded from the statements (during the review/approval process), whether they have rules pending user acceptance or not…
When reviewing these bank transactions (BEFORE ACCEPTING) they cannot be sorted by field header. (Or sorted by existing applied rules. - That would be a very helpful option as well. - To to keep all similar transactions together to make sure the rules were behaving as expected!)
Currently (I believe) they’re sorted by date. Or possibly they’re only displayed in the order presented by the bank. (I haven’t looked at the downloaded files.)
Worth mentioning that almost everywhere else in the program (including uncategorized/unapplied transactions that appear at bottom of the summary page “in suspense”) can be sorted by clicking on field headers. (BUT sorting is not available after importing during the review process.)
The thing is: You CANNOT sort that list during the acceptance process! - And that makes the entire process prone to making mistakes when similar transactions (along with their rules) are not next to one another.
I think everyone understands your point, @WLS. But you are overlooking a key fact. The presentation of unallocated transactions you are concerned about appears in the middle of a process, with data inputs temporarily stored from the imported statement. In all the other cases you mention, the lists you see are from the internal database. In other words, they are already in the database in permanent form.
In that case nor this case I did and do not see any utility for this functionality as explained for similar reasons provided by @WLS and @Tut, but it seems technically possible and probably does not do any harm.
I concur with your opinion, @eko, that this provides no practical utility. Whether it would be hard to implement, I do not know. But I will point out that the recurring invoices are internally generated. That may make a difference, but on that I am also ignorant.
I’ve used many other accounting solutions over the years, including some “big ones” like NetLedger…
IMO, Manager.IO is THE BEST accounting platform on the planet for a vast type businesses! Fast, efficient, flexible, scalable and dare I say “almost FUN to use.” (with unprecedented support too!)
