Smart Rules [Testers needed + Feedback]

[edoardomoreni]

Thanks for the feedback.

[Omk298]

I’ve tried smart rules a bit now, with limited success. There are a few things I think would be good:

Ability to set up a smart rule from a transaction, ie go into a transaction, select “make smart rule” and you could then set which accounts to use and transaction amount limits.

Ability to edit smart rules - it’s not a particularly quick process setting them up, so being able to change account/amount/etc, rather than delete and start again would be good.

Probably harder to implement, but some means of seeing why a transaction didn’t trigger a smart rule would be useful. As an example I’m tracking 2 loans, each with monthly repayments. I set up a smart rule for each, it didn’t work. I tried again the next month and failed again - there’s a limit to how many months I’ll bother trying! Equally I had 2 smart rules that worked one month, then didn’t the next - who knows why!?

Until/unless loans and savings accounts appear on open banking then smart rules would be great, but they need to be easier to set up and use.

[edoardomoreni]

@Omk298

Ability to set up a smart rule from a transaction, ie go into a transaction, select “make smart rule” and you could then set which accounts to use and transaction amount limits.

This is super nice.

@Omk298

Ability to edit smart rules - it’s not a particularly quick process setting them up, so being able to change account/amount/etc, rather than delete and start again would be good.

This is coming.

@Omk298

Probably harder to implement, but some means of seeing why a transaction didn’t trigger a smart rule would be useful. As an example I’m tracking 2 loans, each with monthly repayments. I set up a smart rule for each, it didn’t work. I tried again the next month and failed again - there’s a limit to how many months I’ll bother trying! Equally I had 2 smart rules that worked one month, then didn’t the next - who knows why!?

We are going to add the number or the transactions “detected” once setting the filter.

[Omk298]

@edoardomoreni

We are going to add the number or the transactions “detected” once setting the filter.

That would be good - so if you set a filter you can see that it catches the past transactions, and correct it if not?

[edoardomoreni]

Yes, we are definitely adding this before launching the feature.

[Gaoler]

Another nice improvement would be a way to set the transaction category when you create the rule. Perhaps even just an Exclude toggle.

For example, I want all transactions in a manual savings account to be excluded - I just want the smart transaction to keep the balance up to date.

[jamesb]

Does the reference have to exactly match or is it more of a contains rule?

[MarkJW]

I’d like to test Smart Rules on iOS

Mark has invited you to join Emma!

Thanks!

[rebekah]

Hey @jamesb

The way it’s currently set up is that the reference is more of a “contains rule”

@VaradhK

So if the ‘reference’ (the grey text at the very bottom of the transaction) reads Fidelity Investements - abc123ghkd , then a rule with the reference set to FIDELITY should still capture that transaction.

[Gaoler]

It does create problems.

For example, I have the following two references for Vanguard

“Vanguard” - ISA
“Vanguard Pension Trust” - SIPP

Setting up a rule for the ISA catches all the pension payments too.

How are conflicts managed?

[VaradhK]

Hey @Gaoler,
This is a good point, and you’re correct it isn’t a perfect system. At the moment we do not manage conflicts in any specially way. If it matches with 2 rules it will create 2 transactions.
There is a couple of additions we are planning to add in the next week or so to help with this issue and add some more functionality:

1. We are planning on adding another field so you can set a rule for not only the references but also the transaction description. This may help in your example if additional information is in the transaction descriptions (e.g. one of the descriptions is “ISA”). Also some banks like Starling seem to put the reference set by the sender here, which is another reason we are adding it.

2. We are going to add an “Exact match” button, so it only matches with exact matches rather than it being the default “contains” rule.

BUT… I think for most users the currently available additional options that allow users to set, max day of month, min day of month, max amount and min amount, should be enough to discriminate between different standing orders with similar references.

[Gaoler]

Sounds like there are some great developments in the pipeline!

@VaradhK

set a rule for not only the references but also the transaction description

Yes, in my Vanguard example, the description is the unique account reference number [edit: I think it’s actually a payment reference number]. It would actually be possible in these cases just to use the description and ignore the reference. I think generally what Emma calls the description is what most people call the reference anyway

@VaradhK

“Exact match” button

This would work too, and a good addition. I’d actually want this as the default…

Looking forward to the next iteration

[Darius]

Check out this free app —— it Pays to Save Money https://emma.to/dariusfahimifar

[geoff80uk]

I don’t know if I can still be part of this?

Geoff has invited you to join Emma!

[grant.m]

Some rules are working great.

Some don’t work whatsoever.

[rebekah]

Which aren’t working for you? I know the team have been working on a few things so it might be something that’s being fixed already

[grant.m]

Would be delighted to help but my sync has frozen.

Already reached out via live chat

[Benelio]

Ben has invited you to join Emma!

[grant.m]

Just out of interest - is anyone available on live chat?

[rebekah]

Someone should be available in about 10 mins