Intuit confirms Income/Expense report Exclude Internal transfer bug
John Blaustein
not function properly (when Exclude Internal Transfers is selected) will
find the following transcript of my Intuit Tech Support Chat Session
interesting.
If you scroll down to the 4:35 PM entry, you will see the tech finally
confirms that Q2004 has this bug. At first, he suggests my data file might
be corrupt, but when I persisted, he obviously tested what I was describing
and confirms Exclude Internal transfers does not work. He then tells me to
report the bug. Why can't HE report it?
Following his suggestion, I once again reported this bug. Let's hope they
fix this thing!
John
***************************************
Customer Transcript
4:10 PM
System
Welcome John Blaustein ...
4:10 PM
System
Connecting to server. Please wait...
4:10 PM
System
Connected to quicken.ehosts.net
4:10 PM
System
Session ID: <removed for NG post>
4:10 PM
System
Initial Question/Comment: Hi... I'm using Q2004H&B, R3. When using
Reports>How Am I Spending My Money?>Income/Expense Report, I am finding that
the Custo
4:10 PM
System
http://www.intuit.com/support/quicken/netagent_chat/chatcv.html
4:11 PM
System
Jain has joined this session!
4:11 PM
Jain
Welcome to Quicken Chat for technical support. Could you please provide me
with a more detailed explanation of the issue?
4:12 PM
You
Hi Jain... Yes, when using the Income/Expense Report and Customizing the
report, when selecting the Advanced tab in Customization, the option to
Exclude Internal transfers does not work. When Exclude Internal is selected,
it yields the exact same results as Include All transfers.
4:17 PM
Jain
Thank you for your patience. It is important that I provide you a correct
solution. I am working on your request and will be with you shortly . . .
4:17 PM
You
OK, thank you.
4:19 PM
Jain
Thank you for your Patience , John
4:19 PM
Jain
We need to determine whether this is an issue with the program or your data
file. To do so, from the Quicken File menu choose New File. Name this file
"Test", and then create the account in question when prompted. Now try to
duplicate your issue in this "Test" file. If the problem persists in this
file, then your issue is program or system related. If you cannot reproduce
the issue, then it indicates that you have data damage in your original
file. If this is the case, follow the steps to repair your data file at
http://www.intuit.com/support/quicken/docs/w_corruptdata.html .
4:22 PM
You
This problem has been documented repeatedly in the
alt.comp.software.financial.quicken newsgroup and I have tested it myself in
more than one Quicken file. If you test this, I think you will get the same
results. My data file is not corrupt.
4:25 PM
Jain
On my System I have tried this again , and it works fine
4:26 PM
You
Can you e-mail me your file(s)? I will try it on my system. You can send the
file(s) to <my-email-address -- removed for NG post>
4:26 PM
Jain
John , I( am sorry , But I cannot do a E mail of the Data file .
4:28 PM
You
Where does that leave us? I am telling you that I have confirmed my data
file is not corrupt and that when I run an Income/Expense report, I get the
same results whether Include All transfers or Exclude Internal Transfers is
selected. This should not be the case. What do I do now?
4:30 PM
Jain
please give me a moment , i am still working on the issue , thank you
4:30 PM
You
Take your time...
4:34 PM
Jain
Thanks , John.
4:34 PM
Jain
you are right
4:34 PM
Jain
Exclude internal is not working in the I\E report.
4:35 PM
You
Now what? Can you report this to your developers as a confirmed bug?
4:36 PM
System
Jain pushes page, http://altserv.intuit.com/orien/qkn_enhance.html
4:36 PM
Jain
I apologize for the inconvenience caused. We are facing this issue in
Quicken 2004. exclude Internal is not working properly in Quicken 2004.I
adviose you to use either Include All or Exclude All.I have pushed you a
Product Suggestion Reporting web link , please use it and that will convey
the report to the required department , thank you .
4:38 PM
You
You mean to say I have to report this bug? You have no way to do this?
Actually, I have reported it on the "Report a Bug" page before. I have had
no response.
4:42 PM
Jain
You can report this as a Bug , This will be looked upon by the Quicken
Product Development team for 2004 , and will be fixed by releasing a patch
or in the next product release.
4:43 PM
You
Thank you for your help, Jain. Good-bye. John
4:43 PM
Jain
Is there anything else I can assist you with today concerning Quicken?
4:44 PM
You
No, thank you. John.
4:44 PM
System
The session has ended!
John Blaustein
Steve Larson
must say your patience with the support tech is admirable, I don't know that
I would have done so well. By appearances, it looks like Dell's support,
which is based in India, which pretty much says it all. I sure hope they
fix this bug, this is the only bug keeping me from trying Q04 again.
"John Blaustein" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:woSdnTuiHpG...@lmi.net...
mark
If you know it's clearly a bug, why ask him to test it out? You reported it
once, now you have to wait like everyone else until Intuit gets around to
fixing it. Don't bust the product support guy's balls, he didn't develop the
thing. He's probably just a twenty-two year old wanna-be web developer or
something that's stuck doing phone support until the economy improves!
"John Blaustein" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:woSdnTuiHpG...@lmi.net...
John Blaustein
I don't "know it's clearly a bug." What I do know is that it's not working
correctly on my system with my data file. Further, others here have
experienced the same behavior in Quicken 2004. Intuit has not confirmed
this bug and they haven't fixed it yet.
I went out of my way to be polite and patient with the tech guy. I simply
asked if he would take a closer look and see if he got the same results. He
did. I didn't "bust his balls" at all and thanked him graciously for his
help.
I'm sorry you thought I was "playing games" with the technician. That
certainly was not my intention. I am happy "to wait like everyone else" now
that Intuit support has confirmed the bug.
John
"mark" <mark...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:x4wzb.21151$UG2....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
John Blaustein
Let's just hope this thing gets fixed.
I have noticed one interesting thing about the Exclude Internal setting: I
use Classes for all of my transactions. When I run an Income/Expense report
and only select to use one Class, then the Exclude Internal setting seems to
work. I have not tested this thoroughly, but at first glance, I think it's
working when limiting the report to only one (of several) Classes.
John
"Steve Larson" <r...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:H_vzb.288$ej....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> John, that's great news, thanks very much for posting this information. I
> must say your patience with the support tech is admirable, I don't know
that
> I would have done so well. By appearances, it looks like Dell's support,
> which is based in India, which pretty much says it all. I sure hope they
> fix this bug, this is the only bug keeping me from trying Q04 again.
>
<SNIP>
Steve Larson
things just to be a pain in the *ss. Thanks again for posting the
information.
"John Blaustein" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:BZydnQAhlff...@lmi.net...
mark
it is a bug too. That'll really piss em off won't it?
"Steve Larson" <r...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:npxzb.1570$L47....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Steve Larson
guy was trying to help other people, and the best you have is to shoot him
down and post needless sarcastic comments? The fact is that software
companies will place an issue at higher priority if they receive more
complaints. There is nothing wrong with the approach that the original
poster applied in this case. If you were familiar with the tech support of
most companies today, you would understand that they have very low level
people who need run run through a series of scripted questions/prompts
before the issue can be addressed. I don't think the chat script would have
been much different, regardless how the user had provided the information
about this bug. The other fact that you're conveniently ignoring is that
the Income/Expense bug with Exclude Internal is not documented by Intuit,
nor is it formally confirmed, so why should anyone assume that Intuit has
recognized it as such when they engage a support chat session? I think you
may need to work out your personal issues unrelated to this forum, as your
angst seems to be a bit misplaced.
"mark" <mark...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:YExzb.27426$lF6....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
John Pollard
I am rather agnositic on the direction that this thread has taken, but I do
not think your own attitude conforms with the facts ... even as you present
them.
>The fact is
> that software companies will place an issue at higher priority if
> they receive more complaints.
True, and they have a means for you to make those complaints ... either a
bug report or a product suggestion.
> There is nothing wrong with the
> approach that the original poster applied in this case.
The purpose of the tech support people is to try to help folks discover what
they do not already know; running them through an excercise like this did
not add anything to the solution to the problem.
> If you were
> familiar with the tech support of most companies today, you would
> understand that they have very low level people who need run run
> through a series of scripted questions/prompts before the issue can
> be addressed. I don't think the chat script would have been much
> different, regardless how the user had provided the information about
> this bug.
I am familiar and I agree, but I still fail to see that anything positive
was gained by this exercise. A "low level" person admitted that there was a
bug which you and John and dozens of others here already knew? And, I can
not believe that you did not think that Intuit knew it too.
> The other fact that you're conveniently ignoring is that
> the Income/Expense bug with Exclude Internal is not documented by
> Intuit, nor is it formally confirmed, so why should anyone assume
> that Intuit has recognized it as such when they engage a support chat
> session?
I think you might want to reassess your own assumptions; I personally find
it virtually impossible to imagine that Intuit did not already know about
this. And getting acknowledgement from a "low level" person, does virtually
nothing to increase the likelihood that the problem will get fixed. I am
surprised that you place so much significance on this very insignificant
result.
Intuit rarely "documents" bugs, and especially not during the period when
they have the hope and the possibility to fix them for a current release ...
nothing new here. Doing so might be an improvement, in my opinion, but only
if it could be done without wasting resources that might better be put to
fixing the bug. This exercise will not make that any more likely though.
Writing and debugging software is a process; if you stop and take a snapshot
of it at a particular point, it may look much worse than it is. The end
result is what counts here, not the momentarily ugly picture.
Just to put it in perspective; I support the idea of having people submit
their complaints/suggestions to Intuit (or any manufacturer). Unlike some,
I believe that it *does* do some good; but I do not think that because the
company does not specifically acknowledge the submissions (have you any idea
how many of those things they get ... would you really want them assigning
their limited resources to contacting every submitter and giving them a
personal response as some here have said, or implied, they would like) means
anything at all about what they will do about them. Intuit has provided a
formal channel for submitting bug reports; I assume that they have just the
people they need receiving and analyzing those reports ... and those aren't
the people they have assigned to "chat" with users.
And I agree that this particular bug is fairly important ... I also believe
that Intuit understands that too; I very much hope that they will fix this
with a patch to Q2004 and not wait until Q2005.
djebens
Jain
>You can report this as a Bug , This will be looked upon by the Quicken
>Product Development team for 2004 , and will be fixed by releasing a patch
>or in the next product release.
>4:43 PM
>
>You
>Thank you for your help, Jain. Good-bye. John
>4:43 PM
>
>Jain
>Is there anything else I can assist you with today concerning Quicken?
>4:44 PM
>
>You
>No, thank you. John.
>4:44 PM
>
>System
>The session has ended!
>
>
<snip>
Probably be fixed in next release 2005. Just as I am waiting for Intuit
to fix the backup to CD-RW that was broken in R3 2004.
dj
Steve Larson
know about it immediately when the product came out, but it sure didn't show
up in the October R3 update.
I know the purpose of tech support. My background, which I won't go into,
has provided varied opportunities in the IT field, focused mainly on
software development, support, and management. If Intuit is unwilling to
post a FAQ on their Quicken2004 bug list that at least addresses this issue,
and promises a future resolution, and their is no other way to know what
they're doing with product development or patch rollout schedule, then I
don't give a damn if every user in the United States goes on online chat and
innocently asks about this problem. Who are you to say how people should
behave when they contact support? Let's take the Dell model as an example.
Dell hosts their own forum on their website, which is moderated by Dell
employees. They don't answer every question, because much of it is just
chatter, but they do scan the messages and provide answers and assistance.
Intuit could take a lesson from that. At least it would be a public record
of questions and answers that people could search for common problems, then
see that Intuit is either working on a fix, or they just don't give a damn.
At least people would have a way of getting the information.
The only talk of this major reporting bug was in unmoderated newsgroups.
Many messages posted in newsgroups are nothing more than flames and dead
ends designed to give people a soapbox. The messages are informal and only
chatter. How in the world would you assume that because people are
complaining about a bug with Quicken2004 here in the newsgroups that Intuit
is hot on the trail of fixing it, and a customer should not use online chat
to find out if this is a bug? I gotta tell you, anybody who thinks this guy
was out of line for going through online chat on this issue is out of their
freaking mind. His post of the chat record was the first acknowledgement of
any kind I have heard from Intuit that this reporting problem is a bug. I
have submitted numerous one-sided bug reports, and of course have never
received acknowledgement that they received the bug report. I had so many
website errors at various times when using their online bug reporting tool
that I figured the thing just didn't work at all. I tried numerous times to
see if online chat was available, it always said it wasn't available. I
thought about phoning support, but I didn't want to get into a battle over
whether Intuit believed this was a bug or not, then get charged freaking
$1.95/minute for the exercise. Shoot, for all I knew, they could have said
that's the way they designed it to work.
And as always, thanks again to John B. for posting his online chat
conversation. It was a great service you provided.
"John Pollard" <willnotw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WgIzb.90$X7...@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
mark
going about it by beating around the bush instead of just telling the
support tech that you need it fixed and asking the support rep to log it as
a bug.
And really, is there any reason to be so excited that a first line support
rep has "acknowledged" it's a bug? What exactly does that accomplish now
that the bug has supposedly been "officially acknowledged" by a first-line
support rep? Nothing. Not a thing. And since your buddy the OP tried playing
games with the guy instead of simply calling and telling him he wanted to
log a bug, the support rep probably said screw him after he hung up and
didn't even log it.
There's a right way to go about things and a wrong way.
I'd bet a million bucks that that rep was sitting there saying to himself,
as he was getting jerked, "Oh boy. Here we go again. Another bozo who won't
just come out and tell me the bug exists, he wants to play "let's prove it
together" as if I can then immediately start changing the code myself. How
many times am I gonna have to go through this. I wish they'd hurry up with
the patch for this already so I can get these guys off my back." Until the
next bug of course...
"Steve Larson" <r...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:jDPzb.891$X7....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
John Blaustein
I think Steve characterized pretty well what I was thinking when I contacted
Intuit via the Chat Support system. It is very frustrating that Intuit
insolates itself so well from its users. While I would like to think they
follow this and other newsgroups, there is no way of knowing if that's the
case since they don't tell us. (Bruce Lee from Intuit did formerly monitor
this NG, but he encountered such incredible rudeness that he finally
departed, for which I could not blame him.)
I searched all of the Intuit Support Web site for information on the bug
we're discussing and could find no mention of it. If Intuit knows about it,
why wouldn't they put an item in the report FAQ warning of the results of
improperly using this report, or advising of a workaround? Finding no
mention of this issue, I figured there was no harm in trying the "Chat
line." Perhaps I was wrong that this is a bug. Perhaps Intuit thinks the
reporting should work this way and, if so, perhaps I could get an
explanation of why it is working this way. I must confess that with over a
dozen Quicken accounts in my data file, data covering over ten years, and
using several Classes in addition to dozens of Categories, I find myself
having to be very careful in how I customize reports to accurately display
the results I'm after. In other words, maybe I've been wrong in thinking
this is a bug -- perhaps there's a reason why Exclude Internal Transfers
isn't a viable reporting option for this type of report. That's what I
wanted to find out.
To be honest, I was hoping the Chat tech would tell me Quicken is working
correctly, explain why it is set up as it is, and tell me how I should use
it accordingly. Instead, the guy confirmed the bug and suggested I report
it. I would suggest we all report it. The more people who encounter this
bug, consider it significant and report it, the higher it will be on
Intuit's list of things to fix. That's how I see it, anyway.
As is all too often the case in this newsgroup, this thread is no longer
about Quicken. Instead, we're now debating who should use Chat support and
when. We're guessing about whether or not Intuit reads this NG, guessing
about what bugs they might be trying to fix, guessing about the best way to
get Intuit's attention, etc.
At this point, I'm sorry I brought it up in the first place. (Well, I'm not
really all that sorry, but it will make me think twice the next time. If
one jumps into shark infested waters, one should not be surprised to be
attacked.)
John B.
"Steve Larson" <r...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:jDPzb.891$X7....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
Steve Larson
makes you, or anybody else here, such an authority on what you think is
going on inside Intuit? You sure do have a lot of opinions about what the
rep did or didn't do. You know that the first line (only line) support rep
didn't log it? (If you believe that, you're an idiot. Low level support
reps lose their job if they don't have call logs that show they're doing
something for the money.) You know that their acknowledgement of a bug
doesn't mean anything? Based on the inadequacy of the rep with the English
language, I would suggest he/she wasn't sitting there saying pessimistic or
antagonistic comments like yours. I doubt you've ever seen a call center or
the people who work in one, so go ahead and bet your million bucks.
"mark" <mark...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:epQzb.8134$t87....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
Steve Larson
out there that they feel they need to shoot down somebody just trying to
help others.
"John Blaustein" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:yYadnTxZxMY...@lmi.net...
mark
applies everywhere. I happen to have had some experience doing some
consulting work for both a global fortune 50 financial services company as
well as a tax software company, and I can tell you that at both of those
places there was no control in place that would disable the ability of a rep
to not log every call.
And as usual, your post was pointless as you went off-topic and started the
personal attacks with your pseudo-psychological profile. You need to get the
income/expense report hair out of your ass and quit whining about it on this
NG. Report it as a bug to Intuit and be done with it. Just please don't call
them and make like you don't know it's a bug.
"Steve Larson" <r...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:WZQzb.1212$V7....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Rick Hess
(snip)
> At this point, I'm sorry I brought it up in the first place. (Well, I'm
not
> really all that sorry, but it will make me think twice the next time. If
> one jumps into shark infested waters, one should not be surprised to be
> attacked.)
You didn't do anything wrong and I don't see your chat session as "playing
games". If the TS staff wasn't aware of this then you did them a favor.
They're too quick to suggest file corruption to callers. Hopefully the TS
staff has a way of communicating bugs to each other; therefore you may have
saved some subsequent callers the grief of going through the hoops and
hurdles of "fixing" an incorrectly-diagnosed corrupt file.
How else can you possibly know that the right personnel at Intuit actually
processed a bug report without getting some feedback (chat support is the
most accessible) from SOMEONE at intuit? I've reported at least one bug in
Q2001 (incorrect P&I split) that wasn't fixed by the last release of Q2002
(I don't know if it ever was fixed, since I haven't upgraded beyond Q2002).
In that case, Q support told me my file was corrupt even after I told them
that the error was reproduced in this NG. In fact, they told me that others
in this NG with the same problem also had corrupt files!
--
Rick Hess
New Orleans
To reply, eliminate All_Spammers
John Pollard
> You believe Intuit thinks this bug is fairly important?
I said nothing about how important Intuit thought this bug was.
> Hmmm, I let
> them know about it immediately when the product came out, but it sure
> didn't show up in the October R3 update.
And this statement shows how ignorant or just anti-Intuit you are. You have
zero knowledge of how difficult a job it is to fix this bug so you have no
way to gauge what is too long a time to fix it.
>
> I know the purpose of tech support.
> My background, which I won't go
> into, has provided varied opportunities in the IT field, focused
> mainly on software development, support, and management.
So is mine; 35 years. So what?
> If Intuit
> is unwilling to post a FAQ on their Quicken2004 bug list that at
> least addresses this issue, and promises a future resolution, and
> their is no other way to know what they're doing with product
> development or patch rollout schedule, then I don't give a damn if
> every user in the United States goes on online chat and innocently
> asks about this problem.
Just because it makes you feel good, doesn't mean it is actually doing any
good.
> Who are you to say how people should behave
> when they contact support?
I don't recall saying anything about how anyone "should behave"; I was
speaking about the concept involved here and whether the route John took
added anything useful to solving the problem.
> Let's take the Dell model as an example.
> Dell hosts their own forum on their website, which is moderated by
> Dell employees. They don't answer every question, because much of it
> is just chatter, but they do scan the messages and provide answers
> and assistance. Intuit could take a lesson from that. At least it
> would be a public record of questions and answers that people could
> search for common problems, then see that Intuit is either working on
> a fix, or they just don't give a damn. At least people would have a
> way of getting the information.
As I said, if Intuit could do something more to inform customers about
problem status without at the same time taking resources away from solving
those problems, I would support that.
> The only talk of this major reporting bug was in unmoderated
> newsgroups. Many messages posted in newsgroups are nothing more than
> flames and dead ends designed to give people a soapbox. The messages
> are informal and only chatter.
> How in the world would you assume
> that because people are complaining about a bug with Quicken2004 here
> in the newsgroups that Intuit is hot on the trail of fixing it, and a
> customer should not use online chat to find out if this is a bug?
I said nothing like that (that Intuit was "hot on the trail of fixing it"):
do not attribute words or meanings to me that I did not write. Did you read
what I wrote? John Blaustein already knew this was a bug. If some user did
not know that this was a bug and they contacted Intuit via chat to inquire,
I assume that is the way the process is supposed to work. The problem is
that if you already know it is a bug, you are essentially wasting the chat
person's time for no gain.
> I
> gotta tell you, anybody who thinks this guy was out of line for going
> through online chat on this issue is out of their freaking mind.
Try to stay calm. I said I was largely agnostic about this, I just think
the process is getting credit it does not deserve.
> His
> post of the chat record was the first acknowledgement of any kind I
> have heard from Intuit that this reporting problem is a bug.
There are higher priorities than keeping you so informed: like fixing the
bug. See my earlier comments.
> I have
> submitted numerous one-sided bug reports, and of course have never
> received acknowledgement that they received the bug report.
It costs money to provide such responses; it is not clear that it would be
money well spent.
> I had so
> many website errors at various times when using their online bug
> reporting tool that I figured the thing just didn't work at all.
Hmmm. Sounds like a personal problem; I have never had any difficulty
submitting a bug report or a product suggestion at Intuit's web site. And,
perhaps because I do not go off half-cocked and berate the folks at Intuit,
I have actually gotten a couple of responses.
> I
> tried numerous times to see if online chat was available, it always
> said it wasn't available. I thought about phoning support, but I
> didn't want to get into a battle over whether Intuit believed this
> was a bug or not, then get charged freaking $1.95/minute for the
> exercise.
In my opinion, you place too much importance on this acknowledgement. If
all other things are constant, more knowledge is generally better, but the
problem is that other things are rarely constant. There is a price for
knowledge and it is certainly not possible for companies to hold the hand of
every customer giving each exactly what they want.
John Pollard
> How else can you possibly know that the right personnel at Intuit
> actually processed a bug report without getting some feedback (chat
> support is the most accessible) from SOMEONE at intuit? I've
> reported at least one bug in Q2001 (incorrect P&I split) that wasn't
> fixed by the last release of Q2002 (I don't know if it ever was
> fixed, since I haven't upgraded beyond Q2002).
> In that case, Q
> support told me my file was corrupt even after I told them that the
> error was reproduced in this NG. In fact, they told me that others
> in this NG with the same problem also had corrupt files!
Doesn't this actually work against your argument? There is some fairly
strong anecdotal evidence - to which you have just added - that the current
tech support people have limited knowledge, less than ideal skills, and
often, language problems; why would you want to submit your problems to
them? I personally think that it is extremely optimistic to believe that
those people fielding the chat support questions are somehow understanding
all the questions, gathering useful data, and communicating that to the
folks that actually do understand the application and can fix it. While
some of that may occur, I can't imagine it would be faster, more accurate or
more reliable than submitting a bug report directly.
I believe it is up to those who poo-poo the bug report route to demonstrate
how any other route would be better, or even add anything; I think it is an
incredible assumption that submitted bug reports are not read and
considered. There is a big difference between having a customer feel good
("Oh boy, Intuit really does know that we think this is a bug."); and
getting such bugs fixed.
mark
in fact logged - though I'm sure many that the rep doesn't want to bother
logging aren't (see my previous post) are taken into consideration when it
comes to enhacements.
I ran into this very issue when I worked for a software company a while back
and was put on the team responsible for making judgments on what to
enhance/fix for the next release cycle. That team used nothing BUT the bug
reports/logged enhancement requests. Which was a mistake I quickly fixed...
"John Pollard" <willnotw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:YN1Ab.112$rG...@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Steve Larson
"mark" <mark...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:_gSzb.8203$t87....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
mark
I guess that reply just about sums up what little you have left to say now
that you're previous posts have been discredited.
"Steve Larson" <r...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:_ucAb.4174$mG....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Steve Larson
discussion. A few people posted messages saying they had a problem with the
Income/Expense reports, someone posted their experience with online chat on
this topic, that probably should have been the end of it. I appreciated
receiving the information, as others may have also, so I posted that. Why
do you people care how he approached this issue with Intuit, and whether you
think he knew it was a bug? And what is your basis for thinking John B.
knew this was a bug before the chat session? A few people posting newsgroup
messages doesn't exactly confirm that something is a bug, especially with a
feature that many users are not sophisticated enough to be aware of anyway.
>There is a price for
> knowledge and it is certainly not possible for companies to hold the hand
of
> every customer giving each exactly what they want.
You missed the point, they could post this in their online FAQ section, as
they have posted other bugs. There is no need to "hold the hand of every
customer", a pretty ridiculous extreme.
>And, perhaps because I do not go off half-cocked and berate the folks at
Intuit,
> I have actually gotten a couple of responses.
Logic suggests that your statement suggests that I have gone off half-cocked
and berated the folks at Intuit in my bug reports. Wow, that's amazing
talent. Hey, before you put that crystal ball away, what are the lottery
numbers this weekend?
>John Blaustein already knew this was a bug. If some user did
> not know that this was a bug and they contacted Intuit via chat to
inquire,
> I assume that is the way the process is supposed to work. The problem is
> that if you already know it is a bug, you are essentially wasting the chat
> person's time for no gain.
I believe he said he did not know it was a confirmed bug. Until it's
"confirmed", there is no hope that it will be fixed. There was no way to
know if it was a confirmed bug, as nobody had ever posted that information
here. That's an amazing crystal ball you have there.
> And this statement shows how ignorant or just anti-Intuit you are.
Real nice...thanks.
> Just because it makes you feel good, doesn't mean it is actually doing any
> good.
This was an inane response, not related to any point.
> I don't recall saying anything about how anyone "should behave"; I was
> speaking about the concept involved here and whether the route John took
> added anything useful to solving the problem.
Criticizing his approach in contacting tech support is effectively deciding
how he should behave.
But again I ask, what do you care how or why this guy contacted tech
support? What does it matter to you? If you didn't have any new specific
information about the Income/Expense problem in Q04, then your posts are not
really adding anything helpful here. I guess you felt the need to berate
this guy, I'm not sure why, but just let it go.
Steve Larson
"mark" <mark...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:szcAb.529$227...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
mark
> knew this was a bug before the chat session? A few people posting
newsgroup
> messages doesn't exactly confirm that something is a bug, especially with
a
> feature that many users are not sophisticated enough to be aware of
anyway.
>
It's statements like this one that show just how pompous you are.
Congratulations on being the resident Quicken expert, a high level of
"sophistication" you surely have.
John Pollard
> After I wrote:
>> John Blaustein already knew this was a bug. If some user did
>> not know that this was a bug and they contacted Intuit via chat to
>> inquire, I assume that is the way the process is supposed to work.
>> The problem is that if you already know it is a bug, you are
>> essentially wasting the chat person's time for no gain.
> I believe he said he did not know it was a confirmed bug. Until it's
> "confirmed", there is no hope that it will be fixed. There was no
> way to know if it was a confirmed bug, as nobody had ever posted that
> information here. That's an amazing crystal ball you have there.
I am ignoring the rest of your inanity; but this requires a response for
those who may be led to believe you know what you are talking about. Your
statement that "until it's 'confirmed', there is no hope it will be fixed"
is 100% bull; you are just exposing your ignorance. Not only do bugs not
need to be "confirmed" to be fixed ... they do not even need to be known to
any user to get fixed. Where in the world have you been serving time?
(That's a rhetorical question, don't bother to answer).
Steve Larson
higher level perspective. Thanks for confirming it.
"mark" <mark...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:d%dAb.561$227...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
Steve Larson
necessarily fix all the reported bugs. Considering the magnitude of this
bug, which afflicts one of the most common tenets of financial management,
it would be reasonable to expect that they would have fixed it in the first
patch release. Again, try not to post here unless you have something that
adds value to this thread. If you have the desperate need to see your words
in print, then I guess you have to deal with that in your own way. Best of
luck to you, I hope you find happiness one day.
"John Pollard" <willnotw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cynAb.11396$mG....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Steve Larson
environment. I'd never assign programmers to fix something that has not
been identified as a problem. When working with resources and budgets, you
go after the stuff that's in black and white, and it is scheduled
accordingly. You assign priorities to issues based on the level of affect
on the user community. If the Income/Expense bug is determined to be
affecting very few people because they've gotten few reports on it, then
guess what? It won't make it into the patch release. So, again, I say
until a bug is confirmed by the people charged with fixing it, it will not
be handed off to a programmer to fix it. When Intuit lists bugs and
workarounds on their support website, the user would expect to see all
confirmed AND SIGNIFICANT bugs listed there as well, especially if we are to
believe a fix may come in the future. When a serious reporting bug like
this one exists, and it isn't addressed in the first large patch release,
and there is no mention of it anywhere on the Intuit support website, then I
encourage everyone to keep contacting Intuit to raise the issue to the level
of importance where they will post it to their website. It seems many
people aren't aware that this is all part of the software development and
maintenance cycle, and listing the known issues will only serve to enhance
customer service. Again, I wish you luck in working out your hostility, but
my guess is you'll ignore the growth opportunity and stick to your narrow
rant.
"John Pollard" <willnotw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cynAb.11396$mG....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
mark
"Steve Larson" <r...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:2HpAb.2031$rG....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Rick Hess
Jeeze, this thread has grown (from what I thought was a benign OP) since the
last time I looked; I'm not sure this is worth pursuing, but I don't think
you responded to the point I was trying to make.
First, I don't believe that informing TS is a substitute for processing a
bug report. I think that if a bug is suspected then it should be reported
in the manner provided.
John Blaustein said (did you read his subsequent posts?) he did NOT know
that this was a bug, although your 12/5/03 post to Steve Larson says John
Blaustein did know (I'll shrug my shoulders at that one since I'm basing
this on his posts in this thread). Apparently John Blaustein submitted a
bug report but still wanted validation of his suspicions. I suppose he
actually did get that validation when TS reproduced the error; I know I
would have.
I didn't know the P&I problem (my example used earlier in this thread) was a
bug either. I hoped it was a bug, and I hoped my file wasn't corrupt.
You're correct that my example does not support my point -- Since TS did not
reproduce the error or confirm Intuit knew it was a bug, I got nowhere. But
only hindsight is 20/20; I certainly don't regret discussing it with TS
personnel. I didn't (and still don't) know that my bug report was processed
and confirmed to be, in fact, a bug. TS *should* be informed of confirmed
bugs. The fact they didn't confirm my suspicions at the time I called
doesn't mean I shouldn't have called. It only means that the TS rep I spoke
to wasn't familiar with the alleged bug.
You snipped off the first part of my post. I don't know how TS at Intuit
works. If I was running it there would be some way to log and converge the
complaints coming into TS and statistically analyze them for trends that
might indicate product bugs as opposed to user errors. They should also
have access to the status of confirmed bugs that Intuit's working on.
Perhaps a small group might discuss common calls and bug reports at weekly
meetings. I don't know the size of Intuit TS (I assume it's huge) or to
what extent they deal with it.
If I assume Intuit's TS is so poorly run that there is absolutely no
communication between themselves and the staff handling bug reports, then,
OK, why bother calling them regarding bug suspicions. But I haven't made
all of those assumptions. Although my experiences with them haven't been
positive, the fact that they confirmed to John Blaustein that Intuit is
"facing this issue in Quicken 2004" tells me that there IS some
communication between the departments.
I've been vocal in this NG about the inadequacy of Intuit TS. But even a TS
rep with less than desireable skills should be able to read bug report
status. And we know they do have access to it.
> There is a big difference between having a customer feel good
> ("Oh boy, Intuit really does know that we think this is a bug."); and
> getting such bugs fixed.
And here's where I disagree with you. To me it IS important to know if a
user-suspected bug is a confirmed bug. An antonymous assumption could be
file corruption. If I suspect file corruption, that would certainly affect
my usage of Q: At a minimum I would immediately stop entering new data into
a suspected corrupted file.
Summary:
1. It helps me to know if erratic behavior with Q is a bug and not a
corrupted file.
2. I don't think asking TS about a suspected bug is "playing games" with
them.
3. TS has (at least limited) access to what bugs the staff is working on,
or at least confirmed.
4. I think this thread has been beaten to death.
Steve Larson
issue. You may understand it from someone else's perspective, apparently I
was not able to get through to you.
"mark" <mark...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BJvAb.418$kz2...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
XLanManX
>bug
>From: "John Pollard" willnotw...@hotmail.com
>Date: 12/6/2003 8:37 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cynAb.11396$mG....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>
You, my arrogant friend, are blowing smoke out of your ass. I worked as a
software developer for many years, and I can tell you that bug fixes are done
on a cost/benefit basis. Known bugs are definitely *not* always fixed depending
on how many customers are affected, cost (remember, every bug fix may introduce
one or more other bugs), the impact to the reputation of the company, loss of
market share, etc. etc.
mark
this - I currently work for a software company and am part of a small team
of people who decide what is going into the next product release cycle,
whether those be enhancements, bug fixes, etc. At this particular company
(incidentally an accounting software company, though indirectly...can't say
more) up until very recently they chose which bugs to fix solely on the
number of logged calls in response to the particular bugs in question. This
is a short-sighted way of doing things when it comes to enhancements, since
the majority of our users don't bother to call with those. So if you base
your software changes solely on the small percentage of users that call tech
support all the time (ie, the "sophisticated" guys like Stevie) versus the
"unsophisticated" dopes that make up the majority of users, you lose out on
new sales dollars because the features that sell a product can and are
different than those that make already licensed users happy.
Impact to the reputation nor loss of market share, while certainly valid
criteria to consider when it comes to program changes, are not always taken
into account, though they should be.
That said, you do mention cost as being a factor, and it certainly is. For
example, I recently did a cost analysis for a handful of customers of one of
my company's solutions, in which that handful of customers wanted a
particular form added. In order for this form to be added, it would have
taken 3 months of design/development time since the data that would be
populated onto the form was so radically different in terms of the logic
required, from the current sets of forms. Total cost of about $100k in
development. Considering only 5 customers asked for it, and the licensing
renewal annually is less than $10k per year, needless to say that form ain't
gonna get added anytime soon (meaning ever).
John Pollard
>
> You, my arrogant friend, are blowing smoke out of your ass. I worked
> as a software developer for many years, and I can tell you that bug
> fixes are done on a cost/benefit basis. Known bugs are definitely
> *not* always fixed depending on how many customers are affected, cost
> (remember, every bug fix may introduce one or more other bugs), the
> impact to the reputation of the company, loss of market share, etc.
> etc.
I did not say, nor even imply that all bugs were fixed. What in the world
are you talking about? If you can't understand English, how can you expect
to conduct a discussion?
I am definitely not blowing smoke: I said that confirming a bug to a user
was not necessary to get the bug fixed. And I am right about that. Bugs
often get fixed without ever notifying users that the bug exists or that it
is being worked on. And I punctuated that comment by stating what I know to
be a fact: some bugs get fixed that are never even noticed by users, much
less reported by them , much less confirmed to them.
I know exactly how bug fixes are approached; I said nothing that
contradicted the notion that there is generally an attempted cost benefit
analysis involved. If you did not understand what I was saying you should
have asked, not made assumptions that came nowhere near the truth.
Steve Larson
and I was accused of being arrogant? You just invalidated your ability to
sell your perspective. Every user is important, and everybody has a
different perspective. For you to work at a software company, and to lump
most users together as "unsophisticated dopes" pretty much paints a picture
of you knowing better than your users, a condescending attitude that is a
cancer in the technical community. It's those companies who value their
customers that are the most successful, or at the very least, the most
appreciated by their customers. I think you need to work for a different
company to get a better perspective about customer service.
"mark" <mark...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:pryAb.1535$Ji....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
Steve Larson
>>my company's solutions, in which that handful of customers wanted a
>>particular form added. In order for this form to be added, it would have
>>taken 3 months of design/development time since the data that would be
>>populated onto the form was so radically different in terms of the logic
>>required, from the current sets of forms. Total cost of about $100k in
>>development. Considering only 5 customers asked for it, and the licensing
>>renewal annually is less than $10k per year, needless to say that form
ain't
>>gonna get added anytime soon (meaning ever).
Um, didn't you just say, in a matter of different words, that you can't base
your software decisions on the few numbers who actually phone support? So,
why couldn't you say that a few people who called could be the tip of an
iceberg of a bunch more of your customers who could benefit from such
requested features? I guess then, that your internal elite decide what
changes the masses will receive, regardless of any call volume, and
regardless of the quality of call content from your user community. Seems
like a really good deal for your user community, I'm sure they appreciate
your heavy hand. What you could do is encourage a user community forum,
which would meet online and discuss various requested features. The
software world is full of companies like that, and that model works, unlike
the model of a few "elite" tech dweebs deciding what their users want. Let
me guess, you always restrict your cost benefit to what the return will be
inside of 1 or 2 years, and don't look at the bigger picture of long term
growth and value to the customer base. That's an unfortunate aspect of
American business, too busy worrying about ensuring the executive bonus
package this quarter, and not enough focus on long term growth strategy.
You work for a great company, pal. And again, I was accused of being
arrogant, by a misinformed hostile malcontent, and I'm seeing nothing but
arrogance and condescending tone in your post. And if it wasn't crystal
clear, let me restate your exact quote: [versus the "unsophisticated" dopes
that make up the majority of users,]
"mark" <mark...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:pryAb.1535$Ji....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
Steve Larson
vision of the world. Without knowing a damn thing about the guy your
replying to, you said he "can't understand English", as if your variety of
written language is a stellar model for the vast English speaking culture.
Please seek some counseling, it's clear you have trouble in social
situations when people don't buy your line of crap. Everybody has a
different perspective on things, and everybody's perspective has some value
to it, whether you agree with them or not. To get your point across
constructively, and maybe even get taken seriously for a change, you may
want to avoid insulting your audience at the beginning of your soapbox
orations.
"John Pollard" <willnotw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7aHAb.8555$nH....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
John Blaustein
unfriendly and downright hostile exchange? Go figure. It is disappointing
to me that we can't disagree with one another in a more civilized way. (No
doubt I'll get jumped on for just having said that! Oh well...)
I have what may be a startling addition to this discussion: The
Income/Expense Report MAY be working correctly after all! I'm not sure
about this, but the Include All Transfers and Exclude Internal Transfers
switch seems to be working differently on a test file I just created than in
my personal data file.
I created a test file, entered some data, including a number of transfers,
and then ran different versions of the Income/Expense Report. It seems that
how Include All Transfers and Exclude Internal Transfers work is dependent
on the data range selected. I am thinking this all has to do with "balance
forward" numbers either being included or excluded and that depends on the
date range.
If anyone is interested in looking at my test file you can download it here:
ftp://ftp.johnblaustein.com/
Username: qkn
Password: qkntest
The test files are contained in a ZIP file called QKNTEST.zip and it's about
500k. The file was save in Q2004 H&B R3. Those using Q2004 Deluxe should
have no problem opening the file. There are no Invoice or Sales Tax
accounts in this file -- as far as I know, those are the only accounts that
distinguish H&B from Deluxe.
You will see three accounts in the file and one saved report called
Income/Expense TEST. Play around with modifying the date range and Exclude
Internal and Include All Transfers. Perhaps we can work together here and
come up with a better understanding of what's going on with this most
troublesome report.
By the way, for those who aren't clear about my original intention in
contacting Intuit Chat Support, please re-read my 12/4 post, particularly
the paragraph beginning "I searched all of the Intuit Support Web site..."
and the following paragraph.
John (original poster)
Steve Larson
I'm still unsure why Exclude Internal works properly on my home page, yet
when I bring up a full version of the graph, the switch stops working. In
Q03, it displays the full graph exactly the same as the miniature on the
home page. Are you suggesting there may be other new functionality
introduced in Q04 that side-effects this feature somehow? What about Intuit
saying that they are aware of this as a bug?
Steve
"John Blaustein" <n...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:m_adnXSmJbv...@lmi.net...
mark
"unsophisticated" users. But you missed the joke/insult, so what does that
make you? I suppose you're an unsophisticated usenet reader? lol
"Steve Larson" <r...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:6hKAb.8912$nH....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
mark
missed another opportunity to point out your flawed logic:
"It's those companies who value their customers that are the most
successful, or at the very least, the most appreciated by their customers."
Hmmm...I'd say you were clearly wrong about that. Apparently Intuit has not
valued your opinion much, however you still purchase and use the product now
don't you? And better yet, I'm sure you use it over top of that wonderful
garbage OS from Microsoft that certainly doesn't value or appreciate you.
"Steve Larson" <r...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:6hKAb.8912$nH....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
mark
seen in this thread in which you try to do some sort of fraudulent
psychoanalysis on someone's reply to your assenine comments. Maybe you
better stick to whatever it is that you do for a living (you certainly do it
with much "sophistication" I'm sure), and stop playing usenet Freud.
"Steve Larson" <r...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:xyKAb.9025$nH....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
mark
unreliable and unsophisticated Intuit tech support. Wouldn't it be a hoot
if, after all this, it turns out that you guys were bitching and whining
about a bug that isn't a bug after all?
lol
"Steve Larson" <r...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:aYOAb.10807$nH....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
John Blaustein
To be honest, I'm not sure what I'm suggesting! I am not comparing Q2004 to
an earlier version. I'm just observing that on closer inspection, the
Exclude Internal / Include All switch seems to work differently depending on
the date range for the report. It also seems to be working differently in
my personal data account than it does in the test file I created. My
personal file contains 10+ years of data, includes a dozen or more accounts
(some closed, some investment accounts), uses several classes, etc., so it's
hard for me to know whether Quicken is reporting the data correctly or not.
(I have always assumed Quicken reporting is accurate, and I have relied
heavily on that for years.) On the other hand, using the test file I
created, it's easy to see what is happening since there is so little data in
it.
I just modified my test file and included the I/E report on the home page.
I'd be curious to hear your conclusions after looking at the test file and
playing around with changing the date range and the Include/Exclude switch.
Regarding your question: "What about Intuit saying that they are aware of
this as a bug?" -- as we all now know from other messages in this thread,
the tech person I communicated with in Chat Support is at the bottom of the
lowest level of Intuit Tech Support. Just because this guy observed and
acknowledged the bug doesn't mean anyone else at Intuit confirms it is a
bug. As you recall from the chat session, the tech asked me to report the
bug; he didn't do it himself. I think it's safe to say Intuit is aware of
the bug, or at very least they are aware that many users think there is a
bug, but until it's on their Web site I'm not sure we can say Intuit has
confirmed there is a bug.
John
"Steve Larson" <r...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:aYOAb.10807$nH....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
John Blaustein
<SNIP>
>Wouldn't it be a hoot
> if, after all this, it turns out that you guys were bitching and whining
> about a bug that isn't a bug after all?
>
> lol
Yeah, I would have to agree, after all of this. I hope that turns out to be
the case.
John
Steve Larson
have appreciation for them. Are you really that slow, or is this just an
act?
"mark" <mark...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:q6PAb.1492$kz2...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
Steve Larson
"mark" <mark...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:s8PAb.2912$Ji....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
Steve Larson
talk?
"mark" <mark...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:%aPAb.1494$kz2....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
Steve Larson
I find...I have to reinstall Q04 first.
"John Blaustein" <n...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:B-GdnXJF4_l...@lmi.net...
John Blaustein
I'm not sure it's worth the trouble to reinstall Q04. The test file has
three accounts -- checking, savings, cash -- and about a dozen transactions,
including transfers. You can re-create this kind of test at any time.
I figure Intuit must have a small army of accountants testing everything
they can think of in Quicken. While this report doesn't always seem to be
working correctly, I'd sure like some definitive resolution of this. For
someone who knows accounting, I suspect it wouldn't be too tough to figure
out if there is indeed a problem.
John
"Steve Larson" <r...@NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:bLSAb.7052$rG....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...