Quicken's algorithm for detecting "Matches" vs. "New" transactions needs work
in [Quicken]
|
Prev: Only one User ID and Password allowed per FI for OSU in Quicken?
Next: Quicken's algorithm for detecting "Matches" vs. "New" transactions needs work
From: John Pollard on 8 Aug 2010 12:38 TomYoung wrote: > Writing facial recognition software vs. writing software for check > matching? I didn't say it was a direct or perfect analogy. But you were the one who insinuated that since a human could visually do it, a program could do it as easily. My point was that there are many things that humans can do much more easily than computers; it's not meaningful to note how easily humans can do it ... it only matters (to this discussion) how easily a computer can be programmed to do it. That's not so hard to understand, is it? >> I'm saying that if you make a claim - such as that it is economically >> feasible to provide a significantly better matching algorithm - you >> need to provide verifiable evidence of that claim. Pointing to some >> other product that does a better job would be one way to demonstrate >> your point. > OK, I've got it now. Before I suggest Quicken can improve in any way > - in ANY way - I have to find a better product in the market, one > selling at the same price point, that's doing what I want Quicken to > do. A high bar, indeed. You're straining so hard, you mis-state that which you quoted. I said "Pointing to some other product that does a better job would be *one way* to demonstrate your point". [Emphasis added.] "One way" is clearly not the same as the "only way". Apparently you want to make unsubstantiated claims ... which no one should disagree with ... and you're not to be expected to provide anything other than your personal opinion, which is to be taken as fact. It's trivial to state that some task you want performed is trivial (and cost effective). Anyone can say that about anything they want, anytime. Why not believe that all claims, not disproven, are true, even if they have no verifiable supporting evidence? Or is it just your claims that require no supporting evidence? Suppose that it was intellectully trivial and virtually cost free to provide the matching algorithm that you believe Quicken should have; in other words, suppose it is as good a business idea as you would have everyone believe. What would be your opinion as to why it wasn't done long ago? Quicken programmers are so incompetent that they can't even perform such a trivial exercise? Intuit doesn't know how to run their own business? [But you do?] Intuit doesn't care about, or listen to, their customers? Intuit is evil? -- John Pollard news://<YOUR-NNTP-NEWSERVER-HERE>/alt.comp.software.financial.quicken Your source of user-to-user Quicken help
From: Eric J. Holtman on 8 Aug 2010 14:47 "John Pollard" <8plus7isf(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:i3mmi8$uk6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > have everyone believe. What would be your opinion as to why it wasn't > done long ago? Quicken programmers are so incompetent that they can't > even perform such a trivial exercise? Yup. Have they fixed the "flashing bug" yet? > Intuit doesn't care about, or > listen to, their customers? Yup. > Intuit is evil? Nope. Never attribute to malice that which is easily explained as stupidity.
From: John Pollard on 8 Aug 2010 15:58 Eric J. Holtman wrote: > "John Pollard" <8plus7isf(a)gmail.com> wrote in > news:i3mmi8$uk6$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > >> have everyone believe. What would be your opinion as to why it >> wasn't done long ago? Quicken programmers are so incompetent that >> they can't even perform such a trivial exercise? > > Yup. Have they fixed the "flashing bug" yet? > >> Intuit doesn't care about, or >> listen to, their customers? > > Yup. > >> Intuit is evil? > > Nope. Never attribute to malice that which is > easily explained as stupidity. I'll apply that logic to your remarks. -- John Pollard news://<YOUR-NNTP-NEWSERVER-HERE>/alt.comp.software.financial.quicken Your source of user-to-user Quicken help
From: Eric J. Holtman on 8 Aug 2010 18:03 Jim H <jimh(a)invalid.com> wrote in news:o- 2dnZP4qI_okMLRnZ2dnUVZ5qqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com: > > I'm a big Quicken fan. I use it daily, but I don't have a problem seeing > that it has ugly warts. > Yup. I think I've used it daily since 1990 or 1991. > > They bought up or squeezed out their competition, using their > established position in the industry, until they have a virtual monopoly > on consumer financial software. Then, they sat on their laurels for a > decade, issuing new releases with little more than window dressing. > And I completely understand that. You've got people locked in, and the best way to maximize return for Intuit shareholders is to minimize expense. Doesn't mean it doens't suck though.
From: Eric J. Holtman on 8 Aug 2010 18:03
"John Pollard" <8plus7isf(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:i3n299$hk2$1 @news.eternal-september.org: > > I'll apply that logic to your remarks. > Dance, John, dance!!! |