Re: Ability to change "Downloaded Payee"?

On 5/25/2024 3:52 PM, Zaidy036 wrote:
> On 5/25/2024 1:37 PM, John Pollard wrote:
>> On 05/25/24 8:00 AM, Andrew Schmidt wrote:
>>> I had two checks written within a few weeks of each other for the 
>>> same amount.  One cleared, and I accepted the transaction.  The other 
>>> did a few weeks later, but I noticed that Quicken matched the wrong 
>>> transaction with the first check during the first download....so I 
>>> had to accept this second transaction for the wrong payee the second 
>>> time (via a manual match).
>>>
>>> Net effect is, of course, the same. Both checks are now cleared.  But 
>>> the "Downloaded Payee" field in the register shows 'Check 2120' where 
>>> 'Check 2019' should be and visa-versa.
>>>
>>> Long explanation of why I'm asking if that is something that can be 
>>> manually edited so the fields are correct.  I can't find anyway to do 
>>> that, and really, perhaps it shouldn't be allowed to in reality. 
>>> Being anal, it just bothers me (but I'd get over it).
>>
>>
>> None of the "Downloaded ...." fields can be changed - and for good 
>> reason.
>>
>> They are intended as a permanent record of what was in the download; 
>> changing them would destroy that record ... and achieve no useful 
>> purpose. You should consider all the "Downloaded ...." fields as 
>> already "correct.
>>
>> In your specific case, you created the "problem" when you accepted 
>> Quicken's mismatch of the first downloaded check transaction. Quicken 
>> does not always get the matches correct (though it usually does for 
>> downloaded check transactions). So the user has to be on guard for 
>> Quicken mismatches.
>>
>> When you say, "But the "Downloaded Payee" field in the register shows 
>> 'Check 2120' where 'Check 2019' should be and visa-versa", it sounds 
>> like you have it backwards.
>>
>> The transaction that has "Check 2120" in the "Downloaded Reference" 
>> field, should have check# 2120 in the Quicken Check# field and the 
>> payee name for check# 2120 in the Payee field. The same logic for 
>> Check# 2019. Looked at another way: instead of changing the 
>> "Downloaded Payee", change the Quicken register payee.
>>
>> {You could also effectively undo the "match" by using "Cut 
>> transaction(s)"/"Paste transaction(s)" to remove, then re-add, the 
>> same transaction to the account. The result will be to remove all the 
>> "Downloaded ...." fields  from each transaction. See footnote below.]
>>
>> I think it's unlikely that there will be any problem if you leave 
>> things as they are, but there is at least one possible problem that 
>> might arise.
>>
>> One of the "Downloaded ...." fields is "Downloaded ID", which is a 
>> unique transaction ID (assigned by the financial institution - or 
>> Intuit) which identifies a specific transaction. Quicken uses that 
>> unique ID to filter out any possible duplicate downloaded transactions 
>> - that is, any downloaded transaction with a "Downloaded ID" that is 
>> the same as the Downloaded ID for an existing Quicken transaction in 
>> the same account, will be ignored by Quicken.
>>
>> Also your Quicken transaction "Posting Date" may cause you problems if 
>> the two checks cleared in different Statement Periods. See footnote 
>> below.
>>
>>
>> [ (*) Before doing the Cut/Paste transaction, you might want to 
>> manually record the "Downloaded Posting Date" for each of the 2 
>> transactions. Once the transactions have been Pasted (and lost their 
>> "Downloaded ..." values), you can tell Quicken what the Posting Date 
>> was for each transaction by: right-clicking the transaction, holding 
>> down CTRL while left-clicking "Copy transaction(s)", and entering the 
>> manually saved "Downloaded Posting Date" in the Quicken "Posting Date" 
>> field (which is NOT the same as the Downloaded Posting Date). Quicken 
>> uses the "Posting Date" for reconciles; and the Posting Date is 
>> automatically updated with the value of "Downloaded Posting Date" when 
>> a downloaded transaction is Accepted.]
> 
> easiest is to edit each transaction by exchanging the info leaving the 
> posting info unchanged.

That's a thought!  Thanks....But I think I might end up screwing up the 
transfers of them and make my record keeping even worse so I'll live 
with it, but I do like the idea...I'll remember that in the future.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Regards -

- Andrew