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

On Sunday, June 25, 2023 at 4:56:07 PM UTC-5, Andrew wrote:
> 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.

I see the exact problem you described in R47.11, so it's been around for a while.
I don't think you're misunderstanding what to expect from the Search box: 
I suggest you submit a problem report to Quicken, via Help > Report a problem.

If your needs can somehow be satisfied by putting your "gif3ts" construct in only 
one field while perhaps using other means for narrowing searches 
(such as Tags, for example), then I think Quicken reports may be able to address your need. 

Quicken reports have a 
much more sophisticated method for specifying search (known as "Matching") criteria.
But Matching in reports will generally only be useful for one field in a given report. 
If you can find other means for narrowing the transactions subject to the Matching, 
you might be able to get the results you want with current releases of Quicken.