We’d love to hear your thoughts on the new Source column in the Transaction List!
For more details, check out our announcement:
Once you’ve had a chance to try it out, let us know what you think!
Cute. It's a nice optional column; not sure I will keep it showing all the time, but could be useful.
I had a time deciding where to put it; I didn't like it next to the Reviewed column. Right now I have it over on the right just before Exclusions column.
Initial thoughts. Keeping it open shows orange for pending, so would be easy to see the pending transactions if they were integrated into the transactions list. Maybe headed to a time where users can choose to put pending transactions at the top or not.
My first reaction is pretty positive for two reasons:
I like it! I also turned off status column since it's a little redundant and this is much more compact, the only thing missing then is the ability to filter by status - which I very rarely do so I can always turn that column back on first.
It also seems to make the Recurring column somewhat redundant, except that you get different info when hovering over the two columns. Hovering over the Recurring column tells you which series it's linked to, while hovering over this new column says "Linked to" but then seems to just tell you the statement name. That last bit is confusing, if it says Linked To it should say the series name. I think that perhaps it should say both and then we can just hide the recurring column. Or else, leave this column with just the pencil/dot/both icons and let the recurring column tell us if the transaction is part of a series.
Either way I really like that I can hover and see the statement name, that's a huge win and will save lots of time since I find myself opening transactions pretty often just to check for that.
Thanks!
I like this. I DO NOT feel it is redundant as it shows how the transaction was created. Seeing manual transactions as well as other types and the status can be useful when trying to understand what happened or is happening. There are two images I don't understand. The legend is helpful, but it doesn't have an explanation for when two dots of the same color are together. What does that mean?
Hi there thread! Thanks so much for giving the feature a try. We appreciate it. We need to update the legend and perhaps the feature. The double colored circles are either transfers (so showing aggregated transactions for transfers with another side) or they can be aggregated transactions that you used to create a series (I think we should try to update these to the recurring icon). Kirby
Thanks.
With this Source Column feature, it has reminded me that I am very confused as to what is exactly a link because it has so many uses and it changes depending on what came first.
A link can refer to merging a downloaded cleared transaction with a pending transaction, which I think ought to be a merge.
A link can refer to a transfer link, which ought to be called a transfer link.
And then link usually refers to a recurring reminder linked to a transaction. But depending on how it got linked, the option to unlink it may be "Unlink Transaction". Or "unlink series".
We even have cases when you mark something paid in a manual account when a linking transaction never occurs. Finally, how many links can one transaction have 2? 3? And when you are given the option to unlink it in the context menu, how do you know what you are unlinking and unmerging?
The context menu needs to make this clear: Unlink transfer, Unmerge downloaded transaction, and unlink reminder.
Maybe this doesn't really matter because I rarely need to do it, and I suppose if it is newly linked and you want to unlink it that is when I would do it.
