08-18-2015 05:25 AM
Version ; Sage ACT! Pro 2013 Version 15.0.301.0
Currently we have a database held an a server, with 3 users based in the office and 2 remote users.
The remote users have a sync set "all available contacts for all users"
Within the office network we have no issues.
With the remote users, we have issues with not all contacts being listed in particular groups or sub groups.
As an example, in one group the network database has 5225 contacts, yet in one of the remote users there are 78 listed in that group.
On the remote user database all the contacts are listed when looking up all contacts, but if you look at the groups/comapnies tab in a contact detail view it shows no group membership.
If we set up a new contact, either on the network database or the remote user and add them to a group and then sync, these new contacts sync correclty and are included in the groups at both sides.
Our IT support are baffled, albeit thei ACT guy has retired.
It feels like theres a simple obvious solution, that we are just not seeing.
What we cant understand is why 78 of these contacts would be included in the group but the others are not.
Hope someone can offer some suggestions, (maybe in an "*" guide explanation too.
Thanks in anticipation.
08-21-2015 01:30 PM - edited 08-21-2015 01:31 PM
Thank you for submitting your post. The issue you are having may be resolved by checking out our Knowledgebase at http://kb.act.com .
With Sage Act! Pro 2013 Version 15.0.301.0, there is a known issue with static contacts not appearing in the remote databases. Below is the Knowledgebase Article that will cover how to fix this issue.
08-24-2015 01:00 AM
thansk for taking the time to reply and for your help, I had searched but couldnt find anything which seemed to fit the problem.
I had found that by deleting a few members in the group in the remote database then syncing, and then adding them back again, and then when syncing again it included the other 5000+ group members.
which, whilst sorting it, we have a lot of groups and subgroups so would have probably taken a week to do, per remote database.
So hopefully your link will resolve it.