[GNC] 1) How to "jump" to a date in ck register? 2) Form for writing a check? 3)finding checking transactions to apply to bills?

[Adrien Monteleone]

> On Mar 16, 2020 w12d76, at 6:06 PM, Fran_3 <mailbox0600 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> 1) Using Find to lookup a transactions by date range results in a split view of each transaction... is there a way to have this appear as the check register does with one transaction per line?

I use ’Transaction Journal’ View by default, so I guess I’m a bit biased. I don’t notice a difference, but perhaps check the View menu and see what is checked off. If it is not ‘Basic’ view, then select it and see if you prefer the result. (it seems you want ‘Basic’ view, but search results are in ’Transaction Journal’ view, this might be a bug, or it might be intended behavior. You’d have to check the bug reports, or file it as a bug or enhancement.)

> 
> 2) Entering a new random check at the bottom of the check register works but is a little tedious.
> It would be nice to have a popup form accessible by a shortcut key to create a new random check... i.e. not a bill payment but just an incidental check for gas or some  local purchase.

Not sure I’m following entirely, but any register transaction that *isn’t* a processed payment is just like any other transaction. It doesn’t matter the purpose.

As far as I know, you can print any transaction as a check with the right info.

So you question seems to be more generic than perhaps it is, unless I’m misunderstanding the question.

Therefore, to create a new transaction, use the ‘blank’ functions as previously described. Perhaps explore assigning a keyboard shortcut to this via the WIKI if one doesn’t already exist in the Help file.

Let’s be clear, the ‘check printing’ function is 100% separate from the ‘Business Features’ which involves entering, paying, and tracking bills and invoices. It is possible to print checks without engaging the rest, and it is possible to use the business features, without printing checks.


> 
> 3) I have 200 or 300 checking account transactions that were imported and now need to "assign as payment" but they are buried in a 1,000 plus other imported transactions that are incidental purchases that do not need to be "assigned as payment."
> 
> The problem is finding those checking transactions that do need to be "assigned as payment" without having to grind through all the other transactions in the register line by line.
> 
> Possibly I can export the check register as a csv file, import it into a spreadsheet, and come up with some search algorithm to mark them and then sort on that mark. I will explore that technique.
> 
> Also, for others doing large imports... in this case many bills were paid via credit or debit card so there is no check number. That occured to me half way through the import so I started coding a number in the check number field to indicate "Bill Payment" so with regards to those transactions, I should be able to find them and "assign as payment" quite easily.
> 
> Wish I had thought of that at the outset... 2020 hind site.
> 
> Thanks again for the help.

Yes, if you know in advance that some transactions need to be assigned, if you can finagle some text or tag to indicate them, that would help.

If not, then you’ll have to decide how to divide them up to find them quickly. Usually, a search on Description (which should be the Vendor) will help.

I’m not sure what your file looks like. Give us some examples and perhaps we can help.

A very *last ditch* resort would be to revert to a previous file state and re-import with enough descriptive info to make a Find easier. But before you go that far, be sure to offer some more specific detail here on the list as we might be able to help you craft the right search terms and/or parameters. Of course, make specific info generic or obfuscate as needed.

The worst case scenario (which doesn’t get better with traversing rabbit holes) is just get it done, line by line. I’ve seen too many cases of people looking for an easier solution that could have been solved in their case with ‘dirty’ methods, or ‘brute force’. (I know I’ll get flack for that, but so be it)

Regards,
Adrien