Payee Rename Rule not working properly

doman412

The rename rules are not working properly. When I attempt to add an additional keyword to the keywords list, the 'also rename existing transactions' gets disabled as if it cannot find related transactions. There are related transactions though, they are the same every month.

In this example I am attempting to rename a transaction for YouTube TV when 'google' and 'youtube' are in the statement name. You can see the match count goes to 0 when I add 'youtube' and I'm not able to apply this to all the other transactions with this keyword pairing.

Me attempting to create this rule directly from the transaction list by renaming the payee:




Me attempting to create this rule from the Rules section in Settings:

Coach Natalie

Hello @doman412,

Thank you for reporting this behavior to the Community, although I apologize that you're seeing this issue when creating a Payee Rule in Simplifi. 

Would you mind providing a couple of specific example transactions that that Rule should be applied to with the Date, Payee, and Amount, please? Screenshots of the Transaction Detail view for each of the examples with the "Appears on your statement as..." info would be wonderful to have.

Much appreciated!

-Coach Natalie

doman412

Here are 3 transactions for YouTube TV that I've since manually renamed the payee to YouTubeTV.



Here is another transaction that I did not manually change:



Along with me attempting to create the rename rule that should pick up this transaction but does not seem to find it:



Is it possible another rule is preventing this rule from finding that transaction? I've looked through other Google related rules and each have multiple keywords and I don't think they should affect this one.

Coach Natalie

Thank you for providing the requested examples, @doman412!

I have gone ahead and gotten this escalated and will be sure to post back as soon as I receive an update.

-Coach Natalie

SIMPL-12836

MrGood

I think I may be having a similar issue. 

Every month, Simplifi auto-renames a transaction incorrectly.  In my example, I have a Chase Plan for which a fee is added every month "Plan Fee" and it includes the originating merchant ("Guitar Center").  However, this is not an actual transaction from Guitar Center every month; It is merely the monthly plan fee from Chase.

Below is the latest example:


I've tried to fix this issue by creating a Payee rename rule.  However, when I attempt to add a "Payee Rename" rule, the "also rename payee for existing transactions" does not enable. I believe this is the case because it is matching on the Simplifi auto-renamed Payee ("Guitar Center") vs. the "Appears on statement" value.

Coach Natalie

Hello @doman412,

Thank you for your patience as this is being worked on!

It looks like a fix for this issue is expected with the 3.65.0 Web Release, so please be sure to let us know if you continue to see an issue after that time.

@MrGood -- I'm sorry to hear that you're also seeing an issue with this. I went ahead and added your information and the provided example to the ticket, and will be sure to let you know if any further info is needed from you. It's quite possible that the expected fix version of 3.65.0 will also resolve what you're seeing, so please be sure to let us know if it doesn't.

Also, out of curiosity, have you tried creating the Rule using "Guitar" and "Center" as the keywords instead to see if you get better results? If not, please give this a try and let us know how it goes.

-Coach Natalie

MrGood

@Coach Natalie -- Thanks for the update.  I'm looking forward to 3.64 and 3.65 for a couple of fixes.  In regards to your suggestion, using "Guitar" and "Center" does work.  However, this is not the rule that I need in this case because I specifically want to distinguish between the Chase transactions and bonafide transactions from Guitar Center, hence why I was hoping to match on "plan fee" since those will always be "fees".

MrGood

@Coach Natalie -- Wanted to close the loop on this one.  That monthly Chase charge came in today and the payee rules (using 3.65) appropriately renamed the issue.  Thanks to you and the team on this one.

Coach Natalie

Yay, @MrGood! Thanks for letting me know.

-Coach Natalie

Kanda

For what it’s worth, this resolves a feature request I put in which incorrectly interpreted the earlier bugged behavior as intentional. Don’t know how to link it but you already reviewed and edited to avoid misleading folks.  Thanks!