Appeal Package Trumps Response

JoAnn Strommen:

We haven't utilized the package options yet so have not run into this.  But that just seems....wrong.  Another RE glitch.  One would certainly expect it to update the response. 

Don't know what one could do.  I'd be real careful about trying to change it globally as it may change all appeal responses on the record.  Be sure to test first.

You may want to post it as an idea on discovery / idea site: https://community.blackbaud.com/products/raisersedge7/ideas

May get more response there than through KB.

Thanks, JoAnn, it's so nice to hear someone else thinks it is a problem!  RE suggested setting up a business rule to remind data entry to manually change the field on the appeal tab.    Yes, I'll post it in discovery. 

And, if anyone out there uses packages, I'd love to hear what you do about this situation!

Shannon Stepanek:
Shawnalis, I guess I don't understand the dilemma, if the amount is updated on the appeal doesn't that lead one to know the response is 'yes'? The only thing that would need to be updated is if the response were 'no', in which case there would not be a gift therefore no amount on the Appeal for the constituent. Please explain why having an amount equates to having a response of 'yes'. Thanks.

That's a very good question.  It matters because of queries/reports.  The response field is available to be queried on, the amount given isn't.  So, you say just use queries/reports based on the gift itself--again, a good point and definitely doable.  However, using the appeal tab is more direct and has less room for error because there are fewer options.  For example, fund is usually a consideration when querying on gifts.  Also, I wonder if the thermometer report is accurate without that response field?  I haven't tested it, so that's only a guess.  Finally, it matters because the gifts without packages have a response of "Gave" which makes the appeal tab inconsistent and difficult to read for users.  And, again, we could stop using the "Gave" response entirely, but not using functions in order to accommodate system flaws seems backwards.

There may be other reasons I haven't had reason to find, yet.  You are correct it is possible to work around it, but as JoAnn so neatly put it, "It just seems. . .wrong."