Community Discussion: One Step Update Summary no longer show transaction download summary

I use Premier Version R37.67 Build 27.1.37.67 on Windows 10 Pro 64 bit

One Step Update Summary is a selection under Update Icon and at the bottom of summary is selector to show only on error.

I tested in exactly that environment (as well as a couple of other Quicken releases).

I know of that option, but I don't think it applies to this particular Community/Newsgroup discussion.

If you look at the original post in the linked Community Discussion, you'll see that the original poster (also using R37.67) did not have the "Show this window only when there are errors" checked.

However, after reading your post I did some more testing. Sadly, I found inconsistent results, which I have not been able to explain.

A couple of my test files did seem to include Express Web Connect download results in the One Step Update Summary window ... while other files did not.

So at this point, I am not as sure of my original claim as I was when I initiated this thread.

I will attempt to follow the linked Community Discussion, and to keep track of my own results, regarding the problem. If I can provide any additional details or clarifications here, I will do so.

I disagree us> > > One Step Update Summary no longer show transaction download summary > >

I tested in exactly that environment (as well as a couple of other Quicken releases).

I know of that option, but I don't think it applies to this particular Community/Newsgroup discussion.

If you look at the original post in the linked Community Discussion, you'll see that the original poster (also using R37.67) did not have the "Show this window only when there are errors" checked.

However, after reading your post I did some more testing. Sadly, I found inconsistent results, which I have not been able to explain.

A couple of my test files did seem to include Express Web Connect download results in the One Step Update Summary window ... while other files did not.

So at this point, I am not as sure of my original claim as I was when I initiated this thread.

I will attempt to follow the linked Community Discussion, and to keep track of my own results, regarding the problem. If I can provide any additional details or clarifications here, I will do so.

And your particular definition of a bug would be ....?

That was a rhetorical question.

Here is the definition of a bug: A bug only exists when the product does not do what the developers intended it to do. If what you are seeing was intended by Quicken: it is NOT A BUG.

Wrong.

Sensible software developers (such as Quicken) make it clear when you install their product, that you are NOT forever entitled to software that works as it worked when you purchased it. The fact that you do not like any intended change to the software does not make that change a "bug".

If the software changes after you purchase it, that is not - in itself - a bug. But if the Help information then becomes incorrect because the developer did not update the Help information; then the only "bug" you can possibly claim is that the Help is wrong. And that is nowhere near what the referenced Community discussion is about.

If you can demonstrate, objectively and verifiably, that what you are experiencing was caused by Quicken, and NOT intended to work as it does by Quicken; then, and only then, can you claim it is a bug.

Sadly - for those so anxious to rush to claim what they dislike is a bug - there is little likelihood that such claims will have any effect on the ultimate result. Quicken, just like an good software developer, will analyze ALL the problems they are faced with, and they will address those problems in the same manner as they would have no matter what claims any users made.

A software developer must take into account all their customers, and that includes the developer having a good idea of the impact of each correctable software problem on those users who experience the problem and the number of users who experience the problem.

Individual users have no way to know how the developer should address any software problem. Individual users should limit themselves to viewing their issue as a problem to be solved. And that means not jumping to conclusions; but instead being willing to supply complete and accurate information about their product and the problem they are experiencing for those willing to help - especially the information asked for by others (typically that would be Quicken moderators and/or Superusers in the Quicken Community).

As I clearly stated:

Not sure what you mean other than you don't care what definition I'm using.

Red herring - I never said a bug had anything to do with software working as when purchased. I said if the program is saying it is doing one thing (advertising one action) while actually doing another, that is a bug. For example, if it says in a requestor that it has downloaded transactions from a FI but never actually even opens a connection, that is a bug. It the developer had decided not to download transactions when someone asks for an update, the corresponding requestor should have been updated. Saying in a message to the user that the following Financial Institutions have been updated and then not including any of them in the report is a bug.

I'm confident that I did by their own English messages from the program.

And your particular definition of a bug would be ....?

That was a rhetorical question.

Here is the definition of a bug: A bug only exists when the product does not do what the developers intended it to do. If what you are seeing was intended by Quicken: it is NOT A BUG.

Wrong.

Sensible software developers (such as Quicken) make it clear when you install their product, that you are NOT forever entitled to software that works as it worked when you purchased it. The fact that you do not like any intended change to the software does not make that change a "bug".

If the software changes after you purchase it, that is not - in itself - a bug. But if the Help information then becomes incorrect because the developer did not update the Help information; then the only "bug" you can possibly claim is that the Help is wrong. And that is nowhere near what the referenced Community discussion is about.

If you can demonstrate, objectively and verifiably, that what you are experiencing was caused by Quicken, and NOT intended to work as it does by Quicken; then, and only then, can you claim it is a bug.

Sadly - for those so anxious to rush to claim what they dislike is a bug - there is little likelihood that such claims will have any effect on the ultimate result. Quicken, just like an good software developer, will analyze ALL the problems they are faced with, and they will address those problems in the same manner as they would have no matter what claims any users made.

A software developer must take into account all their customers, and that includes the developer having a good idea of the impact of each correctable software problem on those users who experience the problem and the number of users who experience the problem.

Individual users have no way to know how the developer should address any software problem. Individual users should limit themselves to viewing their issue as a problem to be solved. And that means not jumping to conclusions; but instead being willing to supply complete and accurate information about their product and the problem they are experiencing for those willing to help - especially the information asked for by others (typically that would be Quicken moderators and/or Superusers in the Quicken Community).

Not a red herring; just because you did not understand, doesn't make it inappropriate.

When a change is intentionally made to software after users have become accustomed to the way the software used to work, but some users believe that the software should continue to work work as it has in the past; that does not make the software change a bug. It's easy for a user to get accustomed to something that's been around for a long time - sometimes as far back as when the user first began using the software. One may wish the software continued to work as it always had, and one can request that the previous treatment be restored. But such a change, by itself, is not a bug.

Here's a portion of the original post in the Community discussion: "When I used One Step Update and see the summary dialog I used to see each of the accounts that had information downloaded; transactions and online balance. I no longer see any of this, just the services updated."

In other words: the complaint is that the software is not working as it previously did, and the original poster asked if that was a bug.

To which I replied here: I don't "think" it's a bug.

Not relevant to the Community discussion. The complaint (as noted above) is that some information that used to be in the OSU Summary, is no longer there.

I see nothing like that in the referenced discussion. See my quote from the op and my comment about that quote, earlier in this post.

But; if, as you say hypothetically, the software was intentionally changed not to download transactions under certain conditions, then that - by itself - would not be a bug. If, however, a user tried to download under those conditions and was not told that no download would occur; that (not informing the user) would be a bug. But that is NOT what this discussion and the Community discussion is about: This discussion and the Community discussion have nothing to do with any failure to download, it has to do with failing to present some of the summary of the results of the download.

No it is not. Where do you see it written that the contents of the One Step Update Summary must be as you state? Inferences you draw do not count here.

For example: None of the posters in the referenced discussion were asked, and none reported, what Connection Method they were using. But there have been some relatively recent changes to Quicken's handling of Express Web Connect downloads (I'm not referring to the new "Express Web Connect +" Connection Method).

Quicken has stopped storing the financial institution passwords for EWC accounts in the Password Vault. Many users thought that to be a bug: it is not, it is intentional.

Quicken has stopped recording the contents of Express Web Connect downloads in the Quicken "OFX Log" - without making that raw downloaded data available anywhere in a usable form to users (it's now in the Cloud Sync Log, where it is virtually incomprehensible). Many users appear not to realize that. It's a user-unfriendly change, but it is not an accident: it's intentional - so not a bug. And users who discover that there is no longer any EWC data in the OFX log may well think that since EWC downloads (NOT EWC+ downloads) used to contain OFX data, that removing the contents of EWC downloads from the OFX log is a bug ... but it's not, it's intentional.

Not a word you have posted demonstrates that Quicken did NOT intend the change complained about in the Community discussion. Nothing you posted provided any statement(s) defining what the One Step Update Summary should contain. But even if you provided verifiably information defining the intended contents of the One Step Update summary, the change could still not be a bug; the bug could then be not providing an updated definition of what the One Step Update should contain.

Apparently, you aren't using the software in the manner the original poster did and so don't understand what someone meant when they say it doesn't work the way it did. What this means is that the Summary used to convey clearly what it did during the OSU and now it fails to convey anything it did even expressing misleading information that it did not do something it really did.

So yes, this is a bug - it might be a transitory bug fixed > >> And your particular definition of a bug would be ....?

Not a red herring; just because you did not understand, doesn't make it inappropriate.

When a change is intentionally made to software after users have become accustomed to the way the software used to work, but some users believe that the software should continue to work work as it has in the past; that does not make the software change a bug. It's easy for a user to get accustomed to something that's been around for a long time - sometimes as far back as when the user first began using the software. One may wish the software continued to work as it always had, and one can request that the previous treatment be restored. But such a change, by itself, is not a bug.

Here's a portion of the original post in the Community discussion: "When I used One Step Update and see the summary dialog I used to see each of the accounts that had information downloaded; transactions and online balance. I no longer see any of this, just the services updated."

In other words: the complaint is that the software is not working as it previously did, and the original poster asked if that was a bug.

To which I replied here: I don't "think" it's a bug.

Not relevant to the Community discussion. The complaint (as noted above) is that some information that used to be in the OSU Summary, is no longer there.

I see nothing like that in the referenced discussion. See my quote from the op and my comment about that quote, earlier in this post.

But; if, as you say hypothetically, the software was intentionally changed not to download transactions under certain conditions, then that - by itself - would not be a bug. If, however, a user tried to download under those conditions and was not told that no download would occur; that (not informing the user) would be a bug. But that is NOT what this discussion and the Community discussion is about: This discussion and the Community discussion have nothing to do with any failure to download, it has to do with failing to present some of the summary of the results of the download.

No it is not. Where do you see it written that the contents of the One Step Update Summary must be as you state? Inferences you draw do not count here.

For example: None of the posters in the referenced discussion were asked, and none reported, what Connection Method they were using. But there have been some relatively recent changes to Quicken's handling of Express Web Connect downloads (I'm not referring to the new "Express Web Connect +" Connection Method).

Quicken has stopped storing the financial institution passwords for EWC accounts in the Password Vault. Many users thought that to be a bug: it is not, it is intentional.

Quicken has stopped recording the contents of Express Web Connect downloads in the Quicken "OFX Log" - without making that raw downloaded data available anywhere in a usable form to users (it's now in the Cloud Sync Log, where it is virtually incomprehensible). Many users appear not to realize that. It's a user-unfriendly change, but it is not an accident: it's intentional - so not a bug. And users who discover that there is no longer any EWC data in the OFX log may well think that since EWC downloads (NOT EWC+ downloads) used to contain OFX data, that removing the contents of EWC downloads from the OFX log is a bug ... but it's not, it's intentional.

Not a word you have posted demonstrates that Quicken did NOT intend the change complained about in the Community discussion. Nothing you posted provided any statement(s) defining what the One Step Update Summary should contain. But even if you provided verifiably information defining the intended contents of the One Step Update summary, the change could still not be a bug; the bug could then be not providing an updated definition of what the One Step Update should contain.

So, you have wasted everyone's time making claims you can not support. Culminating in your absurd, self-serving, wild-ass-guess that I do not understand what the One Step Update Summary might mean to other users.

While I have always "looked" at the OSU Summary after every OSU (though it provides limited and uncritical information to me), that does not mean that I have any reason to support removing it (unless it is replaced with something at least as "useful" to users).

Apparently you just needed to pretend that I didn't "get it", in a feeble attempt to make it appear you had made meaningful comments in this discussion. Your attempt failed.

Having backed yourself into a corner, you have gotten desperate. I already made clear, what should have been clear from my initial post: I did not say that the reported problem was not a bug.

Since you appear to need special effects to grasp simple facts: I DID NOT SAY THERE WAS NO BUG. That means, that since all you have to say is that it IS a bug; you have not addressed my position.

But since you appear to be posting in this newsgroup primarily to argue with me - even, or especially, when there is nothing useful to argue about: I'm not surprised that you finally defaulted to something which you can not prove, here and now; and something which amounts to a guess about a simple binary choice.

At the end of the day, the issue is almost certainly going to be a TRUE/FALSE issue. Which gives you a 50% chance of having guessed the correct answer. Something which 50% of the population of the world could get right ... even if they knew nothing about software in general, much less anything about Quicken.

Still, as I also already noted: I prefer that your uninformed guess is correct.

So you have made it conclusive: you have no legitimate argument with my original post in this discussion. Hence, no legitimate reason to have made your posts in this discussion.

Actually you did. Go back and read your post.

This gaslighting is getting old. I read the Community Discussion post carefully and it is being treated there by Quicken and other participants as a bug (using terms like "broken", "fixes", etc. I also noticed that you didn't post there where the OP could see it, I wonder why.

I'm no l> Apparently, you aren't using the software in the manner the original > poster

So, you have wasted everyone's time making claims you can not support. Culminating in your absurd, self-serving, wild-ass-guess that I do not understand what the One Step Update Summary might mean to other users.

While I have always "looked" at the OSU Summary after every OSU (though it provides limited and uncritical information to me), that does not mean that I have any reason to support removing it (unless it is replaced with something at least as "useful" to users).

Apparently you just needed to pretend that I didn't "get it", in a feeble attempt to make it appear you had made meaningful comments in this discussion. Your attempt failed.

Having backed yourself into a corner, you have gotten desperate. I already made clear, what should have been clear from my initial post: I did not say that the reported problem was not a bug.

Since you appear to need special effects to grasp simple facts: I DID NOT SAY THERE WAS NO BUG. That means, that since all you have to say is that it IS a bug; you have not addressed my position.

But since you appear to be posting in this newsgroup primarily to argue with me - even, or especially, when there is nothing useful to argue about: I'm not surprised that you finally defaulted to something which you can not prove, here and now; and something which amounts to a guess about a simple binary choice.

At the end of the day, the issue is almost certainly going to be a TRUE/FALSE issue. Which gives you a 50% chance of having guessed the correct answer. Something which 50% of the population of the world could get right ... even if they knew nothing about software in general, much less anything about Quicken.

Still, as I also already noted: I prefer that your uninformed guess is correct.

So you have made it conclusive: you have no legitimate argument with my original post in this discussion. Hence, no legitimate reason to have made your posts in this discussion.

Thank you for posting what I actually did say - though it's astonishing that you have the gall to claim what you posted meant what you say it meant. If I had intended to say "it's not a bug", that is what I would have said.

Instead I offered an "opinion", my opinion being that "I THINK it's UNLIKELY" that the reported problem is a bug.

If you are incapable of understanding the language, you should refrain from posting - here, or anywhere.

The best that can be said for your "interpretation" of what I said is that you have very poor grasp of the language.

But I think it's much worse than that: even when I specifically stated that I only offered an "opinion" that is was a bug, you had the gall to tell me that I did not say what I said. And that was only to protect yourself from the humiliation of having to admit you spent all that time arguing against something that I never said.

Instead of jumping to incorrect conclusions about what another's words mean, you should try asking them.

I have no idea what that means, but it sounds like another of your uninformed claims.

There are no restrictions on Quicken Community users reading discussions here. It's not my responsibility to point them here.

I posted in the Quicken Community for probably a decade or so; but I choose to no longer post there.

That information shrunk to zero as soon as you made your first post here - a mistake you made all the worse by you continuing to post.

You wasted all that time try to "prove" that it was a bug when you don't know what a bug is, had no verifiable evidence for your claims and used terms for which you failed to provide any definition or clarification. Despite the fact that your target - me - never claimed it was a bug.

Your efforts were a total waste (certainly of my time and yours) - and would have been a waste even if the problem were a bug.

You appear to have seriously false beliefs about the value of claiming (or even proving) that something is a bug. It's not an uncommon flaw; but it does get tiresome.

There is no such thing as bug-free software: finding a bug in software does not prove you have any accomplished anything special, nor does it prove the developer of the software lacks talent.

Bugs are "mistakes" that create "problems": bugs should be addressed as problems to be solved, not as cudgels to wield to force those bugs to get fixed. Every software developer wants to know when there is a bug in their software ... because they want to fix those bugs.

But you should also understand that all bugs are not equal in importance, so not all bugs will be addressed with the same speed. The bugs that create the most serious problems for the most users will be addressed before those bugs that create minimal problems for a few users. Software development resources are limited - as are ALL resources. Human resources, time, and money are in limited supply, to issues must be queued and addressed in most reasonable and economically feasible order.

Bug fixes also have to fit into the development schedule for new and modified features.

It is managers at the developer that ultimately decide what items go in the queue and where they go in that queue relative to other items - based on the policies and inputs from top management.

The developers are not going to give users regular status reports about their development schedules and how far along various software fixes are on their schedule. That would be a waste of their time, which is better spent actually writing the code - that they're paid to write.

Occasionally an issue is of such importance that some indication that it is being worked on is provided to users; and even more rarely, users are informed that a specific change is "intended" for an upcoming release. Even then, sometimes those notices to users can't be fulfilled - life just doesn't allow that sort of specificity on a regular basis - one of the reasons why there is so little status info published.

If you post in the Community, you won't have any impact whatsoever on how the issue ultimately plays out, if your only contribution is to post some additional "me too" garbage trying to prove there's a bug.

Cut THE BULL S*IT

KenW