"Steve" <respond@online.newsgroup> wrote in message
news:Xns9AAF880818CEF184365720018436572@207.46.248 .16...
> "Dick Watson" <littlegreengecko@mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote in
> news:urHd2KzwIHA.4896@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
>
>> "- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
>> news:eG$0RkywIHA.1504@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> I called the bank and " we've had no other reports of folks having
>>> problems..." which I find hard to believe.
>>>
>>> Any way around this ? Maybe - to have money "look at the comments
>>> and correct the name" ?
>>>
>>> This is the only bank I deal with, so any feedback - is this " a new
>>> standard" way of doing things - or probably just my bank's way of
>>> saving money by going to a lower cost provider of data ?
>>
>> The one way around this that works best is to skip the whole
>> downloaded transactions thing in the first place. Enter your data by
>> hand and you get it right the first time.
>
> Dick is right. Money is not designed for the person who wants to
> download data; it's designed for the person who wants to enter their own
> data, then download a file from the bank just to verify that he and the
> bank agree.
>
> If all you're going to do is download the one bank's data, Money might
> not give you any advantage over using the bank's online system.
>
This "typing stuff in" is a real nuisance.
So I've been spoiled all these years ?

Really the issue is 'onscreen' - after changing the first import entry -
EVERYthing after that changes to that payee and it can get confusing if
not careful.

Since M2001 I've downloaded from bank. Until now not an issue.
It used to take about 60 seconds to:
1. log onto bank website, export checking file, save to desktop:
2. open money, import - compare 2 balances - done.

I've checked other banks around here - they all use web-based - look at it
and compare but not exportable files. Hmmmm, maybe use Fidelity for all
checking from now on.

"Cal Learner-- MVP" <via_newsgroup@please.tnx> wrote in message
news:j8e344l8t63fh722g5ag5vm54thep3h9rq@4ax.com...
> In microsoft.public.money, - Bobb - wrote:
>
>>
>>Any way around this ? Maybe - to have money "look at the comments and
>>correct the name" ?
>>
>>This is the only bank I deal with, so any feedback - is this " a new
>>standard" way of doing things - or probably just my bank's way of saving
>>money by going to a lower cost provider of data ?
>
> It is not a standard way of doing things.
>
> Is this listed as a "third party" bank? It does not sound like
> something I would expect a bank that provided OFX would do.

Yeah, it is on the 3rd party listing.

Anyone else run into this ? or is my bank the only one in the country with
such a dumb system for saving/exporting.

My bank "updated their system" a few months ago and now when I looked at
my check register online - or download it, rather than having a name
associated with a check/withdrawal it just shows " DRAFT " on the
statement. So if it used to show " Check 123" in the name field, or "ATM
Withdrawal" it now shows ' DRAFT ' in the register - making it useless to
match the checks. At their website I can click the hyperlink for "the
check number" and it pops up an image of the check, but if I download and
import ( which I usually do), when I accept the first check as " electric
bill" everything else after that defaults to Electric Bill ( since I just
told Money 2006 that "DRAFT" = "electric Bill" ) and whatever the LAST
one I choose this month - all entries next month = THAT item by default
when I import.

Currently I download it - everything defaults to "whatever", and I view
the description to see "where did it really come from", then change the
name. I called the bank and " we've had no other reports of folks having
problems..." which I find hard to believe.

Any way around this ? Maybe - to have money "look at the comments and
correct the name" ?

This is the only bank I deal with, so any feedback - is this " a new
standard" way of doing things - or probably just my bank's way of saving
money by going to a lower cost provider of data ?

They probably wouldn't say they'd had other reports if they'd had 1,000 of
them. It's standard support line practice.

But they may not have had many of them. There just aren't all that many
people that use Q or M and really care about what this crap says. They'd
just as soon you use their web interface in the first place so the fact that
they make it better (you can click to see the image and so forth) is not too
surprising.

The one way around this that works best is to skip the whole downloaded
transactions thing in the first place. Enter your data by hand and you get
it right the first time.

"- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
news:eG$0RkywIHA.1504@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> I called the bank and " we've had no other reports of folks having
> problems..." which I find hard to believe.
>
> Any way around this ? Maybe - to have money "look at the comments and
> correct the name" ?
>
> This is the only bank I deal with, so any feedback - is this " a new
> standard" way of doing things - or probably just my bank's way of saving
> money by going to a lower cost provider of data ?

FWIW I am with Dick all the way on this one. I tried downloading one time
and it was so much hassle matching records that I gave up.

Never had a problem since and it only takes a few minutes to eyeball a paper
statement against Money.

--
Regards
Bob Peel,
Microsoft MVP - Money

For UK tips & fixes see
http://support.microsoft.com/default...d=fh;EN-GB;mny.


I do not respond to any emails that I have not specifically asked for.

"Dick Watson" <littlegreengecko@mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote in
message news:urHd2KzwIHA.4896@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> They probably wouldn't say they'd had other reports if they'd had 1,000 of
> them. It's standard support line practice.
>
> But they may not have had many of them. There just aren't all that many
> people that use Q or M and really care about what this crap says. They'd
> just as soon you use their web interface in the first place so the fact
> that they make it better (you can click to see the image and so forth) is
> not too surprising.
>
> The one way around this that works best is to skip the whole downloaded
> transactions thing in the first place. Enter your data by hand and you get
> it right the first time.
>
> "- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
> news:eG$0RkywIHA.1504@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> I called the bank and " we've had no other reports of folks having
>> problems..." which I find hard to believe.
>>
>> Any way around this ? Maybe - to have money "look at the comments and
>> correct the name" ?
>>
>> This is the only bank I deal with, so any feedback - is this " a new
>> standard" way of doing things - or probably just my bank's way of saving
>> money by going to a lower cost provider of data ?
>
>

"Dick Watson" <littlegreengecko@mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote in
news:urHd2KzwIHA.4896@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

> "- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
> news:eG$0RkywIHA.1504@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> I called the bank and " we've had no other reports of folks having
>> problems..." which I find hard to believe.
>>
>> Any way around this ? Maybe - to have money "look at the comments
>> and correct the name" ?
>>
>> This is the only bank I deal with, so any feedback - is this " a new
>> standard" way of doing things - or probably just my bank's way of
>> saving money by going to a lower cost provider of data ?
>
> The one way around this that works best is to skip the whole
> downloaded transactions thing in the first place. Enter your data by
> hand and you get it right the first time.

Dick is right. Money is not designed for the person who wants to
download data; it's designed for the person who wants to enter their own
data, then download a file from the bank just to verify that he and the
bank agree.

If all you're going to do is download the one bank's data, Money might
not give you any advantage over using the bank's online system.

Years of working with software development for marketing dorks has
taught me not to be surprised at anything they decide to do. You can be
sure that the marketing people at the bank make the decisions about how
the dowloads work. The IT department would design it to provide you with
the maximum amount of data with the minimum amount of trouble so they
never have to talk to you. Marketing doofuses (doofi?) want to talk to
you at every opportunity.
--
Steve B.
New Life Home Improvement

In microsoft.public.money, - Bobb - wrote:

>
>Any way around this ? Maybe - to have money "look at the comments and
>correct the name" ?
>
>This is the only bank I deal with, so any feedback - is this " a new
>standard" way of doing things - or probably just my bank's way of saving
>money by going to a lower cost provider of data ?

It is not a standard way of doing things.

Is this listed as a "third party" bank? It does not sound like
something I would expect a bank that provided OFX would do.

LOL

"Steve" <respond@online.newsgroup> wrote in message
news:Xns9AAF880818CEF184365720018436572@207.46.248 .16...
> doofuses (doofi?)