This post has been closed and is not open for comments or answers.
Quicken Community Home Page

When will quicken products have the scanning of receipts capability like neat?

I don't want to attach something to a transaction I want to scan the whole transaction into quicken.
Suggestions and enhancement requests are taken at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/quicken
  • Intuit should buy Neat and incorporate it into one office solution that actually works
  • Hard to take a suggestion seriously from someone who can't find the "suggestion department" ... when it's staring them right in the face.
  • Sounds like Intuit would just buy a whole lot more problems, then solutions.
  • Actually I was just venting my frustrations.  Never expected this comment to actually be reviewed by anyone since it was submitted 3 months ago.  I have seen your name a lot here and you are apparently very knowledgeable.  I understand that it was you who supplied Neat with the solution that enabled Neat to reenable qif exports to quicken when they were disabled.  Neat support is absurd at best.  They are unable to answer questions as posed.  Are you aware of any way to have receipt images from neat carried over as attachments in quicken with the qif file?  Is there something I can use to press the Neat support people with to make this happen.  Do they need to support a different export format that will make this happen?  Are you aware of a work around that will avaiod eporting each receipt image from Neat to a jpg file that must be named, saved to disk and either imported from file or coped to clipboard and attached to transaction then revisted to be deleted.  Can you use your clout as a superuser & relationship with Neat to further a solution.  I also made comments on an unanswered question submitted 4 days ago by rjj123,  To be honest with you, I would and I'm sure Connie21 & rjj123 would appreciate your help and suggestions toward how best to proceed toward a solution alot more than what could be considered a comment calling me an idiot for not submitting my comment into what must be a black hole of a suggestion department when searches for this functionality return only 4 results on this site.  Something tells me there have been a few more requests for assistance than this. on this particular issue.  Keep in mind my issues are primarily with Neat as they are advertising the functionality.  Both companies need to recognize the need for a solution though.  Appreciate any productive solutions you may offer.  Thanks for your help in advance.
  • I don't use Neat (I don't scan things in the first place).  My role in this is actually sort of a middle man.
    NoWayJose posted the way to bypass Quicken's GUI to allow a QIF to be imported into accounts other then asset or liability accounts.  And I have used that for a program I have written to help automate that process, so when people posted on here by about the Neat products I went over to their forum and noticed that they basically said that QIFs couldn't be imported any more, and I simply posted the way that it can be done.  It was Neat that took that and worked up a system to get the account names and types into the Neat software so that they could then generate the proper QIF file to be imported.  So they get all the credit for that.

    On the images.  I have no fix for that.  First off QIF has no concept of an attachment.  In theory the OFX protocol that Quicken uses for downloading (QFX is their version of it) could have images attached and all, but Quicken has never implemented that.  And the main use for it would be to get check images/statements from the financial institutions, which would be a far bigger customer base, but the financial institutions would have to support it too.  If that was to happen then maybe Neat could piggyback on that, but without Quicken supporting it, they can't do anything.

    The clipboard can only be used for one image/attachment at a time, so it isn't like Neat could just put them on the clipboard and you press some key in Quicken and they magically go to the right places.  The two companies would have to work out completely new system between each other for that or maybe some kind of system using the OFX/QFX, but frankly given the number of people even do scanning, it is a lot of work for very little return.
  • My last comment was directed to NoWayJose now I am replying to Quick'NPerlWiz.  I agree that Intuit would need to clean the house over at neat especially in customer service (not that Intuit customer service is wonderful) but I think Neat has a lot going for it.  Thier scanners aren't bad and they do offer a respectable way to digitally file documents and other paper clutter for quick access.  Their ocr software is buggy as hell, but passable enough to recognize the vendor and populate fields with something close to passable information that you can edit to proper input when you have time. It has the ability to save manual users of quicken a crapload of time inputting transactions.  I realize that quicken is going the route of having the banks do that but it eliminates the ability to catch bank errors (which I catch all the time by doing it manually). Both companies have their pluses and minuses, but if they ever truely collaborated instead of viewing each other as competetors, they could create something wonderful for all of us.  Also appreciate any workaround suggestions you may have or give toward solving rjj123, Connie21 or my own issues besides making what may be considered as comments that are not so.
  • Quick'NPerlWiz,

    Thank You sincerely for taking the time to reply, I had not yet realized your had done so when I was composing my last comments so I do appologise for the last line contained therein as I had not realized you took your valuable time to do just that.  I am greatly appreciative that you took your valuable time to have done so.  Considering that after 3 days of dealing with Neat "Support" with no realistic answers what so ever, I cannot tell you what it means to have some give me some realistic and sincere answers to some of my questions.  I was trying the copy a receipt image to clipboard from Neat thinking I could have both programs open at same time and paste the attachment into quicken as an attachment as a last ditch workaround from but Neat can't even do that.  You are right, Intuit would inherit a real mess if they ever bought them out, but they could do an awful lot with it if they chose to.  My vision for the way it should work is itereated in the thread here:

     https://qlc.intuit.com/questions/161556-just-picked-up-a-neat-desk-and-want-to-send-scanned-receipts-to-quicken-is-that-possible-i-do-not-have-my-quicken-info-at-my-bank-prefer-to-handle-this-tax-stuff-myself-if-there-is-a-way-let-me-know

    When your are there rjj123 might appreciate a reply from someone knowledgeable (superuser) as well, as a courtesy after 4 days unanswered.

    Do you know if Quicken supports the OFX protocol in 2012 or 2013?  I don't see it in 2011.  Could have sworn I saw someone raving about how good neat desk was but complaining that they could only scan in 1 image to a quicken transaction so something must be going on somewhere as I have been able to scan multiple receipt images into quicken for quite some time.  As far as the export from Neat containing only 1 image in QXF, I could deal with that very easily as I only deal with multiple receipt images in abot 20% of my transactions.  In the mean time I will get on Neat toward supporting QXF.

    Thank you so much for your time and effort!  Just having some type of sincere & helpful response after 3 days of effort is cathartic and greatly appreciated!
  • QXF is OFX, sort of.  OFX was created when Intuit/Microsoft/CheckFree and some financial institutions got together.  It describes everything from how to connect, and what format the requests and responses should be in.  And it has have several versions of it.
    This is a standard and it is open to the public.  Now that is not to say every financial institution would support it, or all parts of it.

    Now Intuit took the stance that they needed to get paid to support the financial institutions and such for this service.  And as such they created QFX, which is nothing more then adding in a few more fields to the OFX request/response, which has information that allows Quicken to contact the financial institution and verify that it a "participating partner" (not to mention turn off downloading after 3 years).  Now lots of people complain that Intuit does this and some how think the downloading service they provide should be free forever, but lets face it Microsoft went with the free open OFX (what people call MS Money format), only blocking on one part of the downloading, and allowed users to always download OFX files.  Well they don't make MS Money any more so you figure out what model is best.

    Anyways "Direct Connect" is the full (two way) OFX protocol.
    Web Connect/Manual is downloading the QFX file, well that is the "response" part of the OFX protocol in file form.
    Express Web Connect is Intuit's servers trying to act as you to get the same QFX file, and if not available they sometimes will read the website and generate a QFX file for Quicken's use.

    So in reality all versions of Quicken support OFX.  But with the exception of Quicken Essentials for Mac they will not allow you to import any the "straight" OFX file you have to get it in the QFX format, and they check the downloading requirements and such.

    Now just because a group of people got in a room and said, "we should allow downloading of images" and here is how the request and the response will look like,  that doesn't mean that all the parties will agree to actually implementing that part of the specification.
    And as far as I know, no one has done that for image downloading.  So a nice thought, with nothing behind it.

    The people that do bank online would of course love for this to work too as in they could have their check images downloaded automatically.  And there is a lot more of these kind of people then the ones that scan receipts, but yet it would be a lot of work, and the financial institutions might not even go for it and such.

    Here are a few interesting numbers.  The financial institutions that support Direct Connect (full OFX) are about 2,400, and some of them charge their customers for this service, and the number has been declining.  The number of financial institutions that are supported through Express Web Connect/Web Connect is 15,000+.  The number of financial institutions in the US is more then 22,000.  Clearly most financial institutions (and the customers that refuse to pay for it) are going away from the one standard in all of this, making just getting transactions let alone images harder and harder.
  • Very nice NON-answer