In Reports -> Donation -> One Date Details with Member / Envelope #, at the bottom below the totals there is a line like:
Member / Envelope # Checksum: 259
I added this in version 3.05, in response to earlier requests, as some churches who start their counting of a day’s donations by writing them onto an entry sheet also add up the envelope numbers, which gives them another cross-check that everything was entered correctly when they compare it to this report in the program.
However, I have just had a request from a user that shows me that there are two ways this can be done. The way I did it is to add up only the distinct envelope numbers displayed on the report. So, if someone contributed in two categories, and their donation was thus split, their envelope number was only added in to the displayed checksum once. (I think of this as adding up only the unique envelope numbers.)
But what this user’s church does, and thus what they would like to see on this report, is add in the same envelope number once for each split line / category they donated to on that date.
As an example, say only two donors donated, envelope # 10 donated to both General and Building Fund, and envelope # 3 donated to General only. The current way, the checksum would be 13. The way this user wants it the checksum would be 23, adding in the 10 twice.
My question to you (especially any of you who are in churches with similar procedures!) is did I just get this wrong? Or do some churches do it one way, and some the other? Should I add the 2nd checksum to this report, or should I change the existing checksum to work the other way (not adding only unique envelope numbers)? I’m guessing that since I added in this feature in response to requests, and nobody complained it was wrong, some users do want it the way I have it now.
If I did include both checksums, I’d have to think of clear wording to distinguish them. Perhaps something like “Checksum of Unique Member / Envelope #s” (or maybe “Distinct” instead of “Unique”?) and “Checksum of Member / Envelope #s, including splits”?
Please post any thoughts that you have as replies to this blog, if possible. Thank you!