Without an online transaction FLAG I have to keep offline manual record of entries needing further review. The workaround is to leave property or category BLANK, but that causes entries to be mis-categorized in any reports.
@michael You’re right that there’s currently no way to manually flag or move a transaction to the “Needs Review” bucket. This designation is only applied automatically when either the property or category has not been assigned.
When you say “further review,” what exactly are you doing with these transactions in the future? Are you adding notes or re-categorizing, or something else perhaps?
Adding my vote to this one, was just about to post a new wishlist request for this.
@devin The reasons for review obviously vary, but as an example: I see a large amount deposited as a single transfer from my PM, and then I can “flag” that transaction to review later after all of the individual incomes and expenses are published in the monthly statement. One other example is that I see the debt service come out as a single payment, and then I manually split it into principal/interest/insurance/proptax; if I can’t do that split right away, would be nice to leave it flagged as a reminder to go back and do that later. Or really, for any reason, I just want to be reminded of a specific charge at a later time.
Agreed. Would be nice to flag something for review later. Or, if you could delete a category or Uncatagorize then at least you could see that it needs attention
Agreed. Since a lot of transactions come in without a property attached, I leave them un-categorized or not applied to a portfolio/property as a way of pseudo-flagging them. However, I can’t un-categorize or un-apply them to a portfolio/property, which would be nice. The more direct option would be to simply have a way of manually flagging transactions for later review.
I would use this function frequently!
@devin Chiming in on this one. I am fairly new to Stessa but immediately have a need for this. It would be nice to have a flag feature that could mark transactions…for me it could be as simple as having to flags: reviewed/reconciled/cleared, review or need more info (like needs a receipt).
This is my biggest complaint that needs fixed. Somethings are auto categorized which I like but somethimes they are wrong and I would like a check box to state that I have reviewed and everything is correct.
Absolutely! This should be a super simple feature to implement and an easy win for Stessa on the wishlist. Without the ability to mark a transaction as “reviewed,” I find myself constantly going back and reviewing the same transactions over and over again. I’ve created a system for myself where I put “#R” in the description to make it a little easier to scan the list of transactions and see which ones don’t have this “#R” designation and thus must be reviewed, but there’s no way to filter by this. We need a way where we can come into the system and filter by everything that hasn’t been reviewed, so we can easily work through them without the noise of all the other transactions.
@devin I think this is a critically needed feature, and/or allowing for categories/properties to be removed from a transaction, for 4 reasons.
- Transactions are often shared with bookkeeping or accountants - and you dont always know the right transaction, so you need them to review
- You do not allow us to DELETE/REMOVE categorizations, so if a mistake is made, there is no other way to have something highlighted as “NEEDS REVIEW”
- rent collection isn’t always clean. Sometimes it involves manual bank deposits and non-uniform account-to-account transfers - this is a nightmare to correct and you dont want to forget about a transaction that needs review. DRASTICALLY changing profit/loss incorrectly in some months.
- Stessa doesn’t have an “extensive” set of PM connections which would help alleviate this problem.
I really like Stessa - one of the best platforms I’ve used across industries. But, the 10% quirks are causing 90% of the work. I have 12 properties and doing recategorizations and tracking transfers is already daunting. We are trying to grow our portfolio aggressively - and I am worried this will no longer be manageable at 50 much less 300 doors.
indeed, same as Pete and the others, I add “ok” in the Description if checked and correct or add “>>>” if, at a later stage, I need to review the transaction e.g. splitting repairs, service debt, …
When I have time to take care of those transactions, I filter by “>>>”. Not very 2022.
@devin I’d also like a feature where you can flag, but also UNFLAG a transaction that needs review. For example, when I transfer money from my Stessa cash management account into my external business checking account, it generates two transactions (1 for the outgoing transfer from Stessa and 1 for the incoming receipt of funds at the external bank). I don’t want to categorize either of these transactions, but Stessa forces me to. I want to tell Stessa that it’s ok that these transactions are uncategorized and not assigned to a property by manually UNCHECKING a “needs review” checkbox.
I’d like to add another “please add this feature” to the thread.
The use case I’m hitting right now is going back and auditing all of my transactions and making sure they all have a receipt attached. Being able to quickly mark them as “needs review” when they’re missing a receipt would be a much more efficient process and it would be easier to pick back up where I left off.
Adding my vote to this wishlist!
It easily overlooks transactions when most of them are auto-categorized. It would be great if there could be a ‘review’ function to make sure every transaction is reviewed and mark any transactions that need further review!
This function is really important for an accounting system to guarantee accuracy.
adding my vote too but I see it has been requested (also in several threads) since 2019…
does that mean it won’t happen?
the workaround for this is to delete the amount of the transaction BUT note it in the comment box.save it and it will be sent to NEEDS to review list.
I would also add my vote for this feature for all of the same reasons that have been stated already. I don’t mind that there are now subscription fees for this software, but it would be great to add value with a solution for transactions that need further review.