Re: Problem with transfers/double accounting
Richard Wackerbarth wrote: On Thu, 01 Jun 2000, Bill Gribble wrote: tboldt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would have to agree - having the ability to transfer a transaction from one account to another using a field in the transaction entry is going to be very confusing. You are mixing entry fields for the transaction with actions done to the transaction. Actually, no. The account on "this end" of the transaction is as much of a data field of the transaction as the account on "that end". It makes sense to be able to change either end from a register view of the transaction, just as you could change the "Transfer From" field for a split. I think that the problem is that the users tend to think of transactions as being associated with accounts. In reality, they are not intrinsically associated with any account. The register is just a report that uses the transactions which happen to affect that particular account. However, when you edit any transaction, you are not doing so in the context of an account. The edit of a transaction could just as well be done in its own separate window. -- Gnucash Developer's List To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I guess this comes down to who is your intended user: 1) professional accountants who view transactions divorced from accounts and thus would have no problem with "moving" transactions from one account to another since they aren't really moved. The transaction cannot be "moved" if it was never really "in an account" in the first place. Under this view, which I have a hard time understanding - I compare this to learning OO programming after too many years in non-OO programming, the terms "moving the transaction" and "transferring funds", I guess, would tend to meld into the same thing. Thus, using what I call a data entry field for this purpose makes sense - I guess. 2) non-professionals who want more than a checkbook register. These people would tend to view transactions as associated with an account. These types would tend to view the register windows as data entry windows into which they enter data into "an account" or "transfer funds from one account to another". Under this view I "transfer" funds and "move" transactions. For example, I "transferred funds" from account A to account B using the register window for account A. Later, I decide that account was the wrong source of the funds and account C should be the proper source. To the non-professional I would "move" the transaction from A to C and gnucash should take care of resetting the proper "from" account. A professional accountant would just think, if I get your argument right, okay I change the "Transfer From" window to read C instead of A and gnucash then takes care of "moving" the transaction from the A register to the C register. I guess that viewed in that manner, both arguments are "right" - which do you think non-professionals will think of first and which do you think the professionals will think of first and which do you want as your primary users? Can you satisfy both - I really don't know. -- Gnucash Developer's List To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with transfers/double accounting
On Fri, 02 Jun 2000, tboldt wrote: Under this view I "transfer" funds and "move" transactions. For example, I "transferred funds" from account A to account B using the register window for account A. Later, I decide that account was the wrong source of the funds and account C should be the proper source. To the non-professional I would "move" the transaction from A to C and gnucash should take care of resetting the proper "from" account. A professional accountant would just think, if I get your argument right, okay I change the "Transfer From" window to read C instead of A and gnucash then takes care of "moving" the transaction from the A register to the C register. I think that your view is more that of "single entry"/"double entry" rather than "professional accountant"/"non-professional". In single entry, you imply the transfer from the account which the register represents. In that context, "moving" the transaction to another register makes sense. However, you seem quite willing to "edit" the expense category. In reality, that is "moving" the transaction to a different expense account. In double entry, we don't make the distinction between asset accounts and expense categories. They are both accounts. Therefore, editing any part of the transaction makes sense. Changing an account is just changing an account. -- Gnucash Developer's List To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with transfers/double accounting
On Fri, 02 Jun 2000, tboldt wrote: Under this view I "transfer" funds and "move" transactions. For example, I "transferred funds" from account A to account B using the register window for account A. Later, I decide that account was the wrong source of the funds and account C should be the proper source. To the non-professional I would "move" the transaction from A to C and gnucash should take care of resetting the proper "from" account. A professional accountant would just think, if I get your argument right, okay I change the "Transfer From" window to read C instead of A and gnucash then takes care of "moving" the transaction from the A register to the C register. I think that your view is more that of "single entry"/"double entry" rather than "professional accountant"/"non-professional". In single entry, you imply the transfer from the account which the register represents. In that context, "moving" the transaction to another register makes sense. However, you seem quite willing to "edit" the expense category. In reality, that is "moving" the transaction to a different expense account. In double entry, we don't make the distinction between asset accounts and expense categories. They are both accounts. Therefore, editing any part of the transaction makes sense. Changing an account is just changing an account. I think this issue will go away with the next release, where the 'blank transaction' will go back to using a 'transfer' account field instead of the direct field. This makes sense for entry, as you are going to enter a transaction for account A into the register for account A. Existing transactions will use the direct 'Account' field. dave -- Gnucash Developer's List To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with transfers/double accounting
Richard Wackerbarth wrote: On Fri, 02 Jun 2000, tboldt wrote: Under this view I "transfer" funds and "move" transactions. For example, I "transferred funds" from account A to account B using the register window for account A. Later, I decide that account was the wrong source of the funds and account C should be the proper source. To the non-professional I would "move" the transaction from A to C and gnucash should take care of resetting the proper "from" account. A professional accountant would just think, if I get your argument right, okay I change the "Transfer From" window to read C instead of A and gnucash then takes care of "moving" the transaction from the A register to the C register. I think that your view is more that of "single entry"/"double entry" rather than "professional accountant"/"non-professional". In single entry, you imply the transfer from the account which the register represents. In that context, "moving" the transaction to another register makes sense. However, you seem quite willing to "edit" the expense category. In reality, that is "moving" the transaction to a different expense account. In double entry, we don't make the distinction between asset accounts and expense categories. They are both accounts. Therefore, editing any part of the transaction makes sense. Changing an account is just changing an account. I think you are probably right in your assesment of double entry/single entry - however - and there is an however, How many non-professionals do you know that think in terms of double entry accounting?? Probably all of the professionals do, maybe the small buisness owners do (after they have been small buisness owners and have been "educated" by their accountants). The average Jane/Joe working for a W2 probably doesn't know beans about double entry. Maybe after using a program like gnucash for a few months/years they will. How many Quicken users do you think really think in terms of double entry accounting? I have never, ever used Quicken, I used CA Simply Money. Looking back after using gnucash for a very short time, doing double entry under Simply Money was probably doable, but not easily. I'll bet that Quicken is the same. Again, I say who is your targeted primary user - the professional, semi-professional or the converted Quicken user? Can you satisfy all three? Should you satisfy all three? Will you come up with the proverbial camel - a horse designed by a committee - if you try to satisfy all three? Only time will tell. But you should be diligently trying to answer that question if haven't already. -- Gnucash Developer's List To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with transfers/double accounting
tboldt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think you are probably right in your assesment of double entry/single entry - however - and there is an however, How many non-professionals do you know that think in terms of double entry accounting?? This is a straw man. There are lots of people using gnucash right now with no problems and I doubt there are more than 5 people on this list who could even vaguely be considered to be financial professionals. Double entry bookkeeping is just not that hard. Yes, there is a learning curve, but there's a learning curve with EVERY piece of software. Given good documentation and tutorial instruction, someone who wants to use the software will be able to figure out how. Again, I say who is your targeted primary user - the professional, semi-professional or the converted Quicken user? Can you satisfy all three? Should you satisfy all three? Will you come up with the proverbial camel - a horse designed by a committee - if you try to satisfy all three? It's just not all that interesting to talk about the problems that hypothetical "average" users will have, when you keep insisting that "average" users are too stupid to understand double entry. I don't mean to dismiss your criticism, but you are just repeating the same thing over and over, and it smells more and more like FUD. Do YOU PERSONALLY have problems understanding what gnucash is doing? If so, ask questions and we'll try to answer them. It's a basic premise of gnucash that people are NOT too stupid to understand double entry, and in fact that programs like Quicken cripple people's abilities to store and analyze their financial information by restricting them to an artificially simplistic model. I think it would be wrong to try to replicate that "feature". Bill Gribble -- Gnucash Developer's List To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with transfers/double accounting
Paul Fenwick wrote: G'day GnuCashers, On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 12:31:16PM -0700, Dave Peticolas wrote: Are you talking about the transfer field on the transaction line in multiline mode? That field wasn't there previously, the space was just blank. The new field (currently called 'transfer to') allows you to move a transaction into another account. The transfer fields on the split lines, and the transfer field in the single and double modes, should work as they always have. Aha, this is exactly what I'm talking about. However I'm sure that the space most certainly had an effect, or at least the way that I used it. I'll explain. I run auto-single mode. Almost all of my transactions are single lines, but I like having the current transaction make room for splits so that if there are any, I can enter them. In the vast majority of cases, I'll enter a transaction exactly as if it were a single transaction. Eg (in Assets:Cash) 01/01/2000 Groceries Expenses:Food $100.00 The Expenses:Food indicates that I've taken $100 from my cash asset, and transfered it to the my Expenses:Food account. GnuCash takes care of the double entry and all those other good things, and I just leave the split lines empty (hit enter on them) because there aren't any splits. However, now (when running in auto-single mode) if I do the same thing, the transaction dissapears and moves itself to the Expenses:Food account, which is not at all what I want. Now I have to enter ANOTHER line of information for the split, which is a lot more keypresses, and a lot more work. Alternatively, I can change to use single mode, but that's annoying if I ever find myself wanting to enter splits. To me, it made a lot more sense for GnuCash to allow me to enter both single transactions and splits in auto-single mode, and certainly provided me with a lot of flexibility and reduced wasted keystrokes. Using one account's register to enter data into another account's register (when not part of double entry) doesn't strike me as a feature that would be used very often. There's also the potential for people to accidently enter a transaction into another account, and the user having to hunt down the rogue transaction. (Scrub does this well if you use double-accounting, but not everyone does.) Cheers, Paul -- Paul Fenwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "When I see an adult on a bicycle, http://www.advogato.net/person/pjf | I have a hope for the human race." PGP KeyID: 0xB1479E55 | -- H.G. Wells Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature I would have to agree - having the ability to transfer a transaction from one account to another using a field in the transaction entry is going to be very confusing. You are mixing entry fields for the transaction with actions done to the transaction. If you want to accomplish some action on the transation such as deleteing it or moving it to another account that should not be accomplished using a data entry field. Currently if I want to delete an entry I can use the mouse and right click on the entry to bring up a small dialog window. Imagine if one of the data entry fields caused a transaction to be deleted by entering data in the field. This would cause great confusion and havoc. Well I think you are doing the same thing with using a data entry field to cause a transaction to be moved to another account. Well I could on and on, but I think you get my point - if we are voting on this I vote to move this 'function' to the same menu that 'delete' is on and out of a data entry field. -- Gnucash Developer's List To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problem with transfers/double accounting
G'day everyone, It's good to be back on the mailing list. I thought everyone had just gone really quiet for a while. Unfortunately this means I'm a little behind in what's going on. I've just tried the current CVS source, as well as the files tagged as gnucash-1-3-8, and it seems the behaviour of the register has changed a little bit. It used to be that using the transfer field. In the past, the transfer field could be used for double-accounting purposes. Unfortunately, it now seems that using the transfer field removes the transaction from the current register, and moves it to the account specified by the transfer field. Not a particularly useful function as far as I can tell. Am I the only one to have encountered this problem? I apologise if this has already been noticed and a solution exists or is in progress. I haven't quite finished catching up with all the mailing list archives during the time when I was unsubscribed to the list. All the very best, Paul -- Paul Fenwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "When I see an adult on a bicycle, http://www.advogato.net/person/pjf | I have a hope for the human race." PGP KeyID: 0xB1479E55 | -- H.G. Wells PGP signature
Re: Problem with transfers/double accounting
--VV4b6MQE+OnNyhkM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable G'day everyone, It's good to be back on the mailing list. I thought everyone had just gone really quiet for a while. Unfortunately this means I'm a little behind in what's going on. I've just tried the current CVS source, as well as the files tagged as gnucash-1-3-8, and it seems the behaviour of the register has changed a little bit. It used to be that using the transfer field. In the past, the transfer field could be used for double-accounting purposes. Unfortunately, it now seems that using the transfer field removes the transaction from the current register, and moves it to the account specified by the transfer field. Not a particularly useful function as far as I can tell. Are you talking about the transfer field on the transaction line in multiline mode? That field wasn't there previously, the space was just blank. The new field (currently called 'transfer to') allows you to move a transaction into another account. The transfer fields on the split lines, and the transfer field in the single and double modes, should work as they always have. dave -- Gnucash Developer's List To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with transfers/double accounting
I have this problem too. I'm using multi-line mode. Terminology: proto-transaction: a transaction which is being entered in the register window onto a blank transaction, and is still in one line mode (or has one blank split displayed below...). In gnucash 1.3.7, the transfer field is labelled `Transfer From'. Now, I find this label confusing, because it is only right when you receive money, not when you spend it... (talking about a cash account) but, let's keep going. In gnucash 1.3.8, this column is labelled `transfer to'. Entering an account into this column on a one-line proto-transaction causes the transaction to be moved to that account, and to have no connection with the originating account. This breaks the way I usually enter transactions. In version 1.3.7, the first line of a multi-line transaction contained the source account, which is always the one you are in. The other lines displayed the to accounts for the various splits. I found this quite understandable. When the transaction was displayed in one line (while entering the first part), the transfer field represented the destination account of the first split. This was convenient. I must admit that all this would be very difficult to explain to a newcomer, so, if you are trying to clean this up, you are to be commended. However, I don't understand how 1.3.8 is supposed to work, and I've gone back to 1.3.7. Ben. Dave Peticolas wrote: --VV4b6MQE+OnNyhkM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable G'day everyone, It's good to be back on the mailing list. I thought everyone had just gone really quiet for a while. Unfortunately this means I'm a little behind in what's going on. I've just tried the current CVS source, as well as the files tagged as gnucash-1-3-8, and it seems the behaviour of the register has changed a little bit. It used to be that using the transfer field. In the past, the transfer field could be used for double-accounting purposes. Unfortunately, it now seems that using the transfer field removes the transaction from the current register, and moves it to the account specified by the transfer field. Not a particularly useful function as far as I can tell. Are you talking about the transfer field on the transaction line in multiline mode? That field wasn't there previously, the space was just blank. The new field (currently called 'transfer to') allows you to move a transaction into another account. The transfer fields on the split lines, and the transfer field in the single and double modes, should work as they always have. dave -- Gnucash Developer's List To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ben Stanley |barf [ba:rf] 2. "He suggested using FORTRAN, PhD Student | and everybody barfed." - From the Shogakukan SITACS| DICTIONARY OF NEW ENGLISH (Second Edition) University of Wollongong | Australia |http://www.uow.edu.au/~bds02 -- Gnucash Developer's List To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with transfers/double accounting
I have this problem too. I'm using multi-line mode. Terminology: proto-transaction: a transaction which is being entered in the register window onto a blank transaction, and is still in one line mode (or has one blank split displayed below...). In gnucash 1.3.7, the transfer field is labelled `Transfer From'. Now, I find this label confusing, because it is only right when you receive money, not when you spend it... (talking about a cash account) but, let's keep going. In gnucash 1.3.8, this column is labelled `transfer to'. Entering an account into this column on a one-line proto-transaction causes the transaction to be moved to that account, and to have no connection with the originating account. This breaks the way I usually enter transactions. In version 1.3.7, the first line of a multi-line transaction contained the source account, which is always the one you are in. The other lines displayed the to accounts for the various splits. I found this quite understandable. When the transaction was displayed in one line (while entering the first part), the transfer field represented the destination account of the first split. This was convenient. I must admit that all this would be very difficult to explain to a newcomer, so, if you are trying to clean this up, you are to be commended. However, I don't understand how 1.3.8 is supposed to work, and I've gone back to 1.3.7. Well, it is pretty confusing, so we may just be better off taking it out for 1.4. It actually works exactly the same as in 1.3.7, with the exception that, in multi-line mode, where there used to be a blank space in the transaction line, there is now a field you can use to move the transaction to another account. As before, the transaction line refers to the current account. This is reflected by the fact that this field starts with the current account already filled in. Other than the new field, multi-line mode works exactly as before. dave -- Gnucash Developer's List To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with transfers/double accounting
I have this problem too. I'm using multi-line mode. Terminology: proto-transaction: a transaction which is being entered in the register window onto a blank transaction, and is still in one line mode (or has one blank split displayed below...). In gnucash 1.3.7, the transfer field is labelled `Transfer From'. Now, I find this label confusing, because it is only right when you receive money, not when you spend it... (talking about a cash account) but, let's keep going. In gnucash 1.3.8, this column is labelled `transfer to'. Entering an account into this column on a one-line proto-transaction causes the transaction to be moved to that account, and to have no connection with the originating account. This breaks the way I usually enter transactions. In version 1.3.7, the first line of a multi-line transaction contained the source account, which is always the one you are in. The other lines displayed the to accounts for the various splits. I found this quite understandable. When the transaction was displayed in one line (while entering the first part), the transfer field represented the destination account of the first split. This was convenient. I must admit that all this would be very difficult to explain to a newcomer, so, if you are trying to clean this up, you are to be commended. However, I don't understand how 1.3.8 is supposed to work, and I've gone back to 1.3.7. Well, it is pretty confusing, so we may just be better off taking it out for 1.4. It actually works exactly the same as in 1.3.7, with the exception that, in multi-line mode, where there used to be a blank space in the transaction line, there is now a field you can use to move the transaction to another account. As before, the transaction line refers to the current account. This is reflected by the fact that this field starts with the current account already filled in. Other than the new field, multi-line mode works exactly as before. No need to take it out for 1.4. Just label it properly. In multiline mode, the title for the 'transfer' column should just be a 'account'. Each line then describes what happens to a specific account, and what could be more natural than to edit the account name to move the entry to another account? But in single-line mode, where the column has a very different meaning, it's just fine to label it 'transfer'. -- hendrik. -- Gnucash Developer's List To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with transfers/double accounting
Well, it is pretty confusing, so we may just be better off taking it out for 1.4. It actually works exactly the same as in 1.3.7, with the exception that, in multi-line mode, where there used to be a blank space in the transaction line, there is now a field you can use to move the transaction to another account. As before, the transaction line refers to the current account. This is reflected by the fact that this field starts with the current account already filled in. Other than the new field, multi-line mode works exactly as before. No need to take it out for 1.4. Just label it properly. In multiline mode, the title for the 'transfer' column should just be a 'account'. Each line then describes what happens to a specific account, and what could be more natural than to edit the account name to move the entry to another account? But in single-line mode, where the column has a very different meaning, it's just fine to label it 'transfer'. That a good idea, thanks! I'll put this in CVS for people to try out soon, probably tomorrow. dave -- Gnucash Developer's List To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problem with transfers/double accounting
G'day GnuCashers, On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 12:31:16PM -0700, Dave Peticolas wrote: Are you talking about the transfer field on the transaction line in multiline mode? That field wasn't there previously, the space was just blank. The new field (currently called 'transfer to') allows you to move a transaction into another account. The transfer fields on the split lines, and the transfer field in the single and double modes, should work as they always have. Aha, this is exactly what I'm talking about. However I'm sure that the space most certainly had an effect, or at least the way that I used it. I'll explain. I run auto-single mode. Almost all of my transactions are single lines, but I like having the current transaction make room for splits so that if there are any, I can enter them. In the vast majority of cases, I'll enter a transaction exactly as if it were a single transaction. Eg (in Assets:Cash) 01/01/2000 Groceries Expenses:Food $100.00 The Expenses:Food indicates that I've taken $100 from my cash asset, and transfered it to the my Expenses:Food account. GnuCash takes care of the double entry and all those other good things, and I just leave the split lines empty (hit enter on them) because there aren't any splits. However, now (when running in auto-single mode) if I do the same thing, the transaction dissapears and moves itself to the Expenses:Food account, which is not at all what I want. Now I have to enter ANOTHER line of information for the split, which is a lot more keypresses, and a lot more work. Alternatively, I can change to use single mode, but that's annoying if I ever find myself wanting to enter splits. To me, it made a lot more sense for GnuCash to allow me to enter both single transactions and splits in auto-single mode, and certainly provided me with a lot of flexibility and reduced wasted keystrokes. Using one account's register to enter data into another account's register (when not part of double entry) doesn't strike me as a feature that would be used very often. There's also the potential for people to accidently enter a transaction into another account, and the user having to hunt down the rogue transaction. (Scrub does this well if you use double-accounting, but not everyone does.) Cheers, Paul -- Paul Fenwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "When I see an adult on a bicycle, http://www.advogato.net/person/pjf | I have a hope for the human race." PGP KeyID: 0xB1479E55 | -- H.G. Wells PGP signature
Re: Problem with transfers/double accounting
G'day Dave and GnuCashers, On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 10:42:56PM -0700, Dave Peticolas wrote: Ok, I see what you mean now, it's just the blank split for which the behavior needs to change back to the old, right? I will do that for the next release. *huge grin* That's exactly what I would like. Very much appreciated, Dave. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Fenwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "When I see an adult on a bicycle, http://www.advogato.net/person/pjf | I have a hope for the human race." PGP KeyID: 0xB1479E55 | -- H.G. Wells PGP signature
