> I actually liked the process of re-categorizing my 10 years of Quicken > data. It spotlighted some big mistakes I was making in missing certain > assignments and assigning other buckets wrong. I also saw that I had > too many buckets (some categories three levels deep in Quicken).
Your are a better man than I am. All I want the data for is a history of "how much did I spend on X" for the new MoneyWell flows. I already know that I did it wrong. No need to relive it. :( That and with several businesses a 1 month import from September 08 was … let me say nasty. After reading most your reply and several other posts that I found via search, the nastiness is entirely related to the way I did things in quicken. I shall let it go. > Members of this forum have heard this one many times by me and if you > hang around here, you'll no doubt hear it again. I usually suggest > that people stop trying to break out their paychecks using split > transactions. Here's my reasons. My accountant now agrees with you! As you clearly point out the issue at hand it one of "form over function". MoneyWell provides a beautiful form and only appears to lose function if you refuse to consider that the lost function is redundant. Your method of looking at this is starting to make me reconsider several other aspects of my existence. My wife will not like that. > Definitely. I do it all the time and MoneyWell will learn how to > categorize these as you correct the imported transactions. After a few > imports, the process becomes very smooth and quick. [removed for brevity] > No, let MoneyWell match then and merge the transactions. Merging gives > you the advantage of your manual naming with the storage of the > original payee, memo, and bank specific ID numbers in the back end of > the transactions. Just add aliases to your memorized transactions if > they don't catch and update an imported transaction correctly. Sorry to be slow, but I am starting a real world test run by paralleling Q and MW for the rest of the month tonight and I want to ensure that my method is as close to "best practice" as possible… What you are saying is that I should manually enter "net" transactions AND do the QFX import (my institutions support OFX, which is preferred?). Now that you have straightened me out on splits I should see the merge and clear/reconcile become more automatic as it is in Quicken. Correct? > Please ask more questions if you need anything. I think you'll find > MoneyWell much faster to work with than Quicken but you will have to > change a few habits first. I am willing to change. But even before i decided to change my mindset MoneyWell proved to be more effective for our mental image of processing. Too effective. Quite depressing once you start to see how stupid you can be with your $$. > Peace, And joy to you and yours. Jaysen --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
