My Citibank accounts have in the past always worked fine with money until
that that unholy abomination of an update that they did in setember or so.

The latest issue that was not fixed by throwing out years of data and
starting from scrach is the data consistancy in from checking/savings/credit
cards. Every time any transaction is made the date and name of the
transaction changes like 5 + times making a new entry each time. as you can
imagine this is a pain in the ass to keep deleting or matchine them up to
others and eventualy something gets messed up . In addition to that
wonderfull feature the name changes to include the the reffrence # number
making each entry unique severly screwing automaticaly asigning catagories or
just plain having anything to do with the payee list as every new transaction
makes a "new" payee.

Is there no gurenty of some form of quality data or hadeling of data? I mean
this is a Microsoft product and this Citibank and supposedly some type of
open standard! These are not exactly fly by night companies and they should
have more than enough resources to fix this issue. I lean twords this being a
microsoft issue as I have given my money to them for many years to have a
product that works . If Microsoft tells citibank hey your format is crap
...fix it I would hope they would. If they don't then remove them from the
list of banks....

Who's problem is this? Why does it exist? Why does it still exist? Who is
going to fix it?

RE: Citibank data continuously changing by DisplayName

DisplayName
Wed Feb 20 21:30:03 CST 2008

Man wish I could edit, my spelling is even worse when I am pissed.

"Display_Name" wrote:

> My Citibank accounts have in the past always worked fine with money until
> that that unholy abomination of an update that they did in setember or so.
>
> The latest issue that was not fixed by throwing out years of data and
> starting from scrach is the data consistancy in from checking/savings/credit
> cards. Every time any transaction is made the date and name of the
> transaction changes like 5 + times making a new entry each time. as you can
> imagine this is a pain in the ass to keep deleting or matchine them up to
> others and eventualy something gets messed up . In addition to that
> wonderfull feature the name changes to include the the reffrence # number
> making each entry unique severly screwing automaticaly asigning catagories or
> just plain having anything to do with the payee list as every new transaction
> makes a "new" payee.
>
> Is there no gurenty of some form of quality data or hadeling of data? I mean
> this is a Microsoft product and this Citibank and supposedly some type of
> open standard! These are not exactly fly by night companies and they should
> have more than enough resources to fix this issue. I lean twords this being a
> microsoft issue as I have given my money to them for many years to have a
> product that works . If Microsoft tells citibank hey your format is crap
> ...fix it I would hope they would. If they don't then remove them from the
> list of banks....
>
> Who's problem is this? Why does it exist? Why does it still exist? Who is
> going to fix it?

Re: Citibank data continuously changing by Zoli

Zoli
Sat Apr 12 16:26:43 CDT 2008

I'm experiencing similar, but it gets a lot worse then just messing up
categories and payees. I get a lot of of duplicates in fact
triplicates of the same transaction. I found newly downloaded
transactions several months in the past. This is utter crap.

Re: Citibank data continuously changing by DisplayName

DisplayName
Sat Apr 12 16:59:00 CDT 2008

Roger that, in march sometime I got 3 months of previous transactions as new
transactions.. how in the hell am I suposed to keep up with new transactions
and tasks when I have to constantly redo evereyhing? probably why I gave
up....


"Zoli" wrote:

> I'm experiencing similar, but it gets a lot worse then just messing up
> categories and payees. I get a lot of of duplicates in fact
> triplicates of the same transaction. I found newly downloaded
> transactions several months in the past. This is utter crap.
>