Kevin, I have acquiesced on the collapsible buckets idea, but I ran into something today that seems to contradict your position on that, and that is "hidden buckets".
It seems that from the forums that hidden accounts and hidden buckets are to allow you to "retire" an account or bucket that is no longer needed. All well and good, but when I hide a bucket, I can still assign transactions to it. That seems counter-intuitive and just as dangerous as your rationale for no collapsible buckets where you said in response to my earlier post "This comes up a lot and I'm pretty stubborn about it because I found the risk of having hidden numbers more dangerous than the visual benefit of a collapsed buckets list." Anyway, I'm not trying to pick a fight, but is there a reason for allowing transactions to be assigned to a hidden bucket? The same things seem to be true for hidden accounts. Just wondering what your thinking is on this. I appreciate it. Thanks. On Dec 10, 9:32 am, Kevin Hoctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 10, 2008, at 6:30 AM, kmacstuf wrote: > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > Do you have any insight on how often people tend to download their > > non- > > ofx transactions? > > Hi Kevin, > > I don't have statistics but I do know that there is a large group of > people that prefer to manually enter transactions so everything is > tracked by them and nothing slips by but there is an equally large or > larger audience that downloads and imports transactions. All my Chase > accounts are updated via direct connect but my ING Direct accounts > require me to download and import (ING doesn't like direct connections). > > Many banks offer OFX/QFX downloads but no direct connect so you can > still get the benefits of OFX data, just not the convenience of a > direct connection. > > > Also, on the collapsible buckets idea, Mvelopes solves the "hidden" > > numbers bit by not hiding them at all. When the group is collapsed, > > it shows the sum of the underlying envelopes next to the "root"? > > envelope. So this at least gives you a visual of + or - in the > > overall group, which I think minimizes the potential for danger, > > although admittedly doesn't eliminate it entirely. I do like the > > cleaner look and more screen real estate for the rest of my buckets - > > most of which would not be in groups anyway. > > I do understand what you're saying and I did have the subtotals in the > early test versions of MoneyWell but I still don't like the hierarchy. > I think it's too easily abused. I also think that there is a benefit > to reducing your bucket count and focusing on just those expenses that > really are trouble points for you. For example in Quicken, I had a > Utilities category, with a Telephone category below it and three more > below that for Local, Long Distance, and Mobile. All this detail > looked great on the reports but did nothing to deter my spending. Now > that I have one bucket for Telephone, I don't miss the detail. > > Now I do break out Dining, Entertainment, and Activities because those > are impulse spending areas that I want to watch and make sure that I > monitor before going over my plan. > > For those that need to track certain transactions in more detail, > MoneyWell will get tags in a future release so you can mark a > transactions for a specific person or event. > > Peace, > > Kevin Hoctor > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > No Thirst Software LLChttp://nothirst.comhttp://kevinhoctor.blogspot.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "No Thirst Software User Forum" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/no-thirst-software?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
