Re: Weird "FIND" behavior - anyone else see this?

On 6/25/2023 5:19 PM, John Pollard wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 3:08:48 PM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
>> On 6/25/2023 3:18 PM, John Pollard wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 9:47:48 AM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>>> MANY of my records
>>>> contain a digit inside other characters since they identify specific
>>>> people due to a professional identifier and this really sucks since I
>>>> can't use this to easily view those (and only those) transactions in the
>>>> register.
>>>
>>> Can you be more specific about the construct you're using,
>>> in what transaction fields you use it (and why), and
>>> if, and why, you would need to see matching transactions from all possible accounts at one time,
>>> as opposed to searching just one account?
> 
>> John, I'm not sure why any of what you ask is relevant to the issue as
>> hand. What difference does WHY I use this got to do with the fact it
>> doesn't work as described. I'd prefer not to give the specific format
>> for privacy purposes as to the actual client identifiers the
>> organization uses.
> 
> I wasn't looking for personal information -
> When I constructed my questions I intended them to be about nothing but methodology and usage.
> I just thought that I might be able to come up with a workaround, if the conditions were right.

Thanks John, I do appreciate that.  Often your workarounds I put in my 
memory for future.

But moving back to the original issue, do you indeed see the problem on 
your end as I've described? Am I overthinking or misunderstanding what 
the search box actually is for or the semantics that it searches for.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Regards -

- Andrew