nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Issue when creating a rule with more than 2 words (edited)

ordi4les

When creating a rule, it is necessary to be able to enter it by phrase and not by word. I receive payments by Zelle and I also send money by Zelle, but I need to create a rule for the money that comes in "Zelle payment from" and another for the money that goes out "Zelle payment to". Currently, when you try, it only takes the first word of the rule.

Find more posts tagged with

Transaction Rules

Comments

SRC54

You can add more than one word. If it is always "Zelle payment from" and "Zelle payment to", you can make two rules and tell it to use that exact order. I can see that you couldn't use the one that says "contains".

To move from one word to another, you have to hit enter key after each word. I hope this is useful to you. I admit I haven't done anything quite this precise with rules. Good luck.

ordi4les

It doesn't work, it only applies the first word to the rule, you can put 3 words but the rule is fulfilled if it finds the first word

SRC54

So even if you say they have to be in the exact order; interesting. To me, this sounds like a bug. Since if you want 3 words in an exact order before it matches your rule, it ought to work. Again, I've never needed so much precision so I cannot try it out. We'll see tomorrow what others have to say.

DryHeat

@ordi4les "it only applies the first word to the rule, you can put 3 words but the rule is fulfilled if it finds the first word"

Can you post an image of the edit screen for rule you are trying to apply? Particularly this part of it:

ordi4les

When I make two rules like this, only one works since it only takes the first word "zelle". The rule applies to if it finds any of the words, it should search for the phrase

SRC54

I still see that you have contains instead of exact. Can you change it to exact? I’ve never used exact order in a rule but it seems made to order for your situation.

ordi4les

I need to create a rule that marks "zelle payment from" as Sales and "zelle payment to" as Purchases but it only applies to the word zelle and I can't differentiate what is a sale and what is a purchase.

ordi4les

"Exact" refers to how the complete phrase appears in the statement, for example "zelle payment from Jhon Doe" and having new daily clients I would have to create a new rule every time a client sends a payment

SRC54

https://community.simplifimoney.com/discussion/comment/49115#Comment_49115

Ok. I am confused. I thought you wanted a rule for money coming in and another for money going out.

ordi4les

Exactly, but the system only takes the first word "zelle" for the rule and does not differentiate if it is "payment to" or "payment from"

SRC54

So Zelle to in that exact order won’t category match with Purchases and Zelle from won’t match with Sales?

It seems as though it should. You obviously only care about the category as customer payee changes.

Sorry I wasn’t helpful, but I look forward to what the coaches have to say. Hope you find a solution!

ordi4les

When creating a rule that contains more than 2 words, the system only applies the rule to transactions that match the first word. For example, when I create these 2 rules, only one works and I can't differentiate "payment to" from "payment from"

The rule should look for transactions that contain all the words written in the rule.

DryHeat

@ordi4les

I'm sure you've already looked at this, but since you are matching the original statement name have you looked at the original names on the transactions that didn't match? Are they such that they should be matching?

If so, the only other explanation I can think of is that QS treats certain common words as "noise words" and ignores them in matching. A lot of matching algorithms ignore certain words — and the words "to" and "from" are often on the noise word lists.

On the off chance that "to" is on the list and "from" isn't, you could try putting the "from" rule above the "to" rule to see if it catches the "from" transactions before they go on to the next rule.

(See here on noise words: https://community.icims.com/s/article/Understanding-Search-Noise-Words)

DryHeat

@ordi4les

See my comment about "noise words" on your other similar discussion thread.

https://community.simplifimoney.com/discussion/comment/49119#Comment_49119

SRC54

@DryHeat That about noise words is very insightful, and you could well be right. It's not the kind of thing that most users would run into, which makes it even harder to track down. And it could be the kind of thing that takes a while to fix.

It reminds me of something that drove me crazy a while back in Reports, and it took a while to fix. Payee names that had special characters such as AT&T or all caps like ADT or even hyphens eg. Winn-Dixie would end up in reports as Att, Adt and Winndixie. These payees were right in the transactions; it was only in Reports that they were rendered incorrectly. Of course, it was easy to forget about unless you exported the reports.

I find these kind of problems fascinating. In this case, at first I was finding it hard to understand exactly why one needed different Zelle categorization. And Zelle is a unique identifier. But as we went along, it became obvious that this is a business and there are potentially lots of these transactions. So this is lack is more than a nuisance. And I had never bothered with using the exact order at all as I never needed it, so I learned something.

I have only about 4 Zelle transactions a year, which are Christmas gifts to family members. And they are recurring and have exact amounts so they always match up with their names without my having to even have a Zelle rule.

I see that @ordi4les has now started a new bug report thread, so these two will probably get merged.