Settings and activity
11 results found
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment 
Peter Paglia
supported this idea
·
-
114 votesPeter Paglia
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesPeter Paglia
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesPeter Paglia
supported this idea
·
-
40 votesPeter Paglia
shared this idea
·
-
38 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Peter Paglia
commented
Agreed. Hiding irrelevant fields reduces clutter, making it easier to onboard new users and simplifies things for employees who use Dext only to file expense claims
Peter Paglia
supported this idea
·
-
1 votePeter Paglia
shared this idea
·
-
13 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Peter Paglia
commented
Agreed. Finance staff should be able to edit GL codes, Classes, taxes, etc. after approval. It's fine to lock the approved amount for reimbursement if necessary, but coding is often incorrect when left to the employee and their approver.
Peter Paglia
supported this idea
·
-
11 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Peter Paglia
commented
As an alternative to training the system to extract supplier names more accurately, allow the user to define or configure the system to select a specific supplier name based on a feature of the invoice document -- e.g., Dext can't read the logo, then map the address text, email, or phone number to a specific valid supplier in our list. Let the user/administrator control it if the system has trouble with it.
Peter Paglia
supported this idea
·
-
17 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Peter Paglia
commented
User should be able to correct the order of pages that were merged by Dext. Also should be able to delete/move extra pages that should not have been included when user originally submitted the document.
Peter Paglia
supported this idea
·
-
47 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Peter Paglia
commented
Agreed. This feature is especially helpful in situations where a supplier uses a logo that Dext struggles with for identifying the company name properly. If Dext consistently gets the supplier name wrong, it would be helpful to make the correction in bulk rather than by individual document.
Peter Paglia
supported this idea
·
When a Standard user uploads a bill that Dext flags as a potential duplicate, the user should still be able to see that their upload was successful.
Currently, the admin/advisor can see the flagged duplicate, but the Standard user may not see anything in their inbox. From the client’s perspective, it looks like the upload failed, so they may try uploading the same bill again and become frustrated.
Standard users do not need access to the other user’s document, and they do not necessarily need permission to resolve the duplicate. But they should see a simple status message such as:
“This document was uploaded successfully and has been flagged as a potential duplicate for review.”
This would improve client confidence, reduce repeated uploads, and make the duplicate review workflow much clearer for both clients and advisors.