[moneydance] Next Check # in Bank Accounts

[Edward Reid]

At 6/30/2009 07:37 PM -0500, Gordon Alley wrote:
>And next time you
>get a new batch of checks, be sure and specify a starting number
>greater than the last check number in the current batch.

Gordon, you must be young. Wallet checks only support four digits, so 
those of us who used to write a lot of checks have wrapped around 
several times. My primary checking account has checks and other 
transactions going back 16 years. While I don't have a count of 
transactions, I know that continuing up has not been an option.

At 6/30/2009 09:59 PM -0400, Sean Reilly wrote:
>The next-check-number function in Moneydance will look at the highest
>check number for the last 10 checks entered (but only in the last 180
>days) and add one to it.

I was surprised to read this, as I'd never noticed it. I thought that 
MD already looked at all transactions and used the next higher 
number. I'll have to pay more attention.

>I have adjusted
>the algorithm in MD2010 to look at all transactions, no matter how
>old, when calculating the next check number.

This seems to me to be going in the wrong direction, since as 
explained above, wrapping around is a fact of life for those of us 
with bifocals.

However, neither of these algorithms works worth a darn for me, and 
the only reason I haven't complained vociferously is that I write so 
few checks nowadays, probably less than 1/10 of what I wrote ten 
years ago. The reason these don't work is that I'm using checks from 
three different series: the checkbook in my pocket, the checkbook in 
my wife's purse, and the checks my bank writes for me. The software 
can't know which series I'm entering from at any given time, but it 
can make a decent guess, since I'm likely to enter multiple checks 
from a series at one time.

Therefore I wish MD would give me a simpler option: the next check 
number is one more than the last numbered check entered. This is the 
way Quicken worked all the years I used it, and it worked much better 
than MD's attempt to be more sophisticated. This is one time that 
Quicken got it right. Of course, I don't mind other schemes being 
available by option, but this is the one I'd choose.

As I say, it doesn't make nearly as much difference as it would have 
ten or even five years ago. But having the basic version available 
would be a distinct improvement over the current situation, in which 
I *always* have to enter the check number manually.

Edward
-- 
Art works by Melynda Reid: http://paleo.org