Skip to content

Renan

My feedback

3 results found

  1. 501 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    114 comments  ·  General  ·  Admin →

    Splitwise has some basic support for this now, depending on what you’re looking for. We now support multiple email addresses for a single account, so you can more easily share one account with multiple people.

    However, we won’t automatically adjust how much you should owe as a “couple”. For example, if “Bob” adds an expense with “Sue and John’s Couple Account”, then the bill will be split 50/50 between those two Splitwise accounts. I can definitely see how it would be useful to automatically make Sue and John pay for 2 shares, but we’re unlikely to add that feature in the near future. For now, you can still work around this by manually using the “Split by shares” option when adding a bill, and assigning 2 shares to the relevant account.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Renan commented  · 

    I have a suggestion for the simplification prioritization algorithm.
    Imagine the couples AB, CD, and EF.
    A, C, and E buy groceries for a reunion.

    When applied the current simplification, Spliwise will suggest something like B pays C, D pays E, and F pays A for a debt simplification.

    It would be much easier - in real life - to settle up a debt like B->A, D->C, and F->E, but right now there is no way to tell Splitwise about that organization.

    My suggestion is that persons on a group can have tags added to them. Like "couple1". So you could do this:

    A "couple1", B "couple1", C "couple2", D "couple2", E "bf", and F "bf".

    With that, Splitwise would try to simplify the debts within the microgroups (defined by the arbitrary tags) first. One tag per person would be sufficient for most cases.

    If you guys like to be challenged, this could go deeper. A family gathering group could be organized like this. Ex:

    A couple1 fatherside cityA
    B couple1 cityB
    C couple2 fatherside cityB
    D couple2 cityB
    E bf motherside cityA
    F bf fatherside motherside cityA
    G fatherside
    H fatherside
    I fatherside
    J

    Splitwise would clusterize the expenses and try to simplify debts within the implicits microgroups.
    So [couple1, couple2, bf, fathersize], then [cityB, motherside] then [cityA], then the non-taggeds ("J").

    Renan supported this idea  · 
  2. 24 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  General » Web app  ·  Admin →
    Renan supported this idea  · 
  3. 985 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    273 comments  ·  General  ·  Admin →

    An update: we’re still not planning to add the concept of a payment for a specific bill or a specific expense. We’ve left this idea under review for many years, but we’re not convinced it’s the right idea for Splitwise. We think focusing on a total balance makes things simpler in most cases. This is also how a bank balance works.

    Here’s two potential work-arounds if you’re not satisfied:

    1. Let’s say you want to set things up so you can see if people have specifically paid for a certain bill, or for a certain month of expenses. You can create a group just for that bill or month – then, when viewing that group, you will only see balances owed from that specific bill or set of bills.

    2. Once you pay an amount and want to keep track of it being for a certain bill, you could use…

    Renan supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base