We've Added Some New Categories

Currently you can set a transaction as a “Repeating payment”. I’m suggesting that this should be replaced with a toggle in the category selection screen to help declutter the transaction information pages.

1 Like

Ah ok!
Yeah from a declutter perspective that would be good. I would worry a bit about the discoverability of it though for people who never bother changing categories on things, but who would still benefit from it being in committed spending.

Hopefully, the upcoming Your Monzo section of the app will help with stuff like that.

1 Like

Oh yeah forgot about that little sneak peak!

1 Like

I think a work category should be added :grin::ok_hand:t3:

Please could Monzo provide some explanation/justification of what is frankly some very perverse decision making on this?

It would really help to know what sort of category model are you aiming for and based upon what theoretical models (and why?) Because from an outside perspective it just looks arbitrary, confused and nonsensical. I’m sure I’m wrong but I’d like to be able to understand the rationale here…

c.f. Simplify and consolidate categories

Not sure how you can justify describing the current choice of categories as “very perverse” - don’t think anyone at Monzo is going out of their way to make the categories difficult to use or understand.


You’ve asked this question in all sorts of topics and even created your own. It has been discussed to death and you even said that you’ve found a solution using tags?

Some people want custom categories and subcategories etc but you want something that is very niche. If you want people to support your idea then you need to get them to vote on the topic you created :slight_smile:

Exactly why I’m asking for their reasoning here because at the moment having the categories they have set up goes against every theoretical understanding of how categories should work. It’s clear that they have chosen their method for a reason so unless it is purposely difficult to use they must have a reason for doing it in such an odd and non-standard way.

Either way, some explanation would be very helpful to get an idea of what exactly it is they are aiming at.

I thought it’s pretty obvious I’m trying to understand what the motivation is from Monzo and the type of classification they are aiming for (if there is one).

If you read my posts again, this is far from solved.

If you’re really concerned and must have an answer perhaps you could email them or ask in app?

Not all the teams comment on here so you could be waiting a long time. This will save you having to repeat yourself constantly too :slight_smile:

Other than that, as mentioned. Now you’ve suggested your idea, the place for discussion is in the topic you created so you can get people to agree with you. Currently 3 other people see the same issue as you so you’ll need to get quite a few more in order to get in on Monzos radar :slight_smile:

I didn’t realise replying you’re supposed to email rather than reply to public news posts. I found a customer support email, will see if they think that’s the right place to ask.

1 Like

You’re not “supposed” to email but you seem adamant that you must have an immediate response direct from Monzo, so to me that would be the best route to go since you’re not getting one on here.

You may also find that there is no response because no team is currently assigned to this area. Either way, repeating yourself and derailing multiple topics doesn’t help anyone.

Hopefully you get some form of an answer one way or the other :crossed_fingers:

1 Like

The categories haven’t been touched, apart from an addition or two, since the early pre-paid days when the spending profile was very different.

Rather than creating a new set of arbitrary categories that 75% of people will disagree with, I believe, as others have said, they’re going to be looking at custom categories so we can create our own, more suitable groupings.

I wouldn’t worry too much about them until that work has been revealed.

(Edit) custom categories briefly mentioned by Bruno here:


I didn’t think there was much more to it than a list someone came up with when they were 10 people in a room, to be honest.

But I’m intrigued about formal theories of categorisation. Could you expand a bit on the most common ones?


Wow this is still going (on this thread now). Gosh, I wish I had such an over-inflated sense of ego that I could demand answers in such a fashion.

I don’t like the shade of Hot Coral in the cards, I think it should be a different one and I want to know who decided and I want it now!! :roll_eyes:

And now, I mute THIS thread too (I can’t actually read all the replies here too as I’ve blocked a certain person who seems to want to bang this drum until he gets what he wants (I imagine some stomping of feet too).

Anyway, I’m sure this post will be flagged but dear goodness, some people do love a forum, eh!! :smiley:

Peace and love everyone, peace and love.


It would really help to know

I’m sure I’m wrong but I’d like to be able to understand

Yep, definitely egotistical and demanding/requiring an immediate answer… :thinking:

That makes sense. If that’s the case though I’m surprised it hasn’t been refined at all since as there are many complaints about the current system from browsing the forums.

There’s plenty of introductory reading but I think I already mentioned some of the best places to start.

The classic and most common is Classical Categorisation which understands that categories need to be well defined, mutually exclusive and, together exhaustive. The first two are harder than the last especially when dealing with data. But the end result is that if you want to use it for statistics such as in the Summary page, you must follow this schema as it ensures that any transaction in the given classification space belongs unequivocally to one, and only one, category.

Going against this model would, I submit, be a little perverse without an explanation of the intended benefits and how they arise.

There’s also a lot of crossover with literature from library science, taxonomy and set theory. Other useful search terms include “information architecture” and mathematical “set theory”.

Classification theory references

classification theory | Britannica
Aristotle - Categories
Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science - 2nd Edition
Classification in Theory and Practice | ScienceDirect
Library Classification Trends in the 21st Century | ScienceDirect

Classification Theory, Volume 92 - 2nd Edition

1 Like

I do agree with those that suggest that custom is the way forward.

People might consider the exact same card transaction under different categories


I understand where you’re coming from here but I think there’s a big difference between a page of analytics which it seems you want and a simple Summary that can encompass most things in more broad, general categoriewgich my mum can understand and follow.

Also perverse is a very strong word and I feel like you are either trying to provoke a reaction or you don’t know what it means.


I don’t want a page of analytics (though, technically, I don’t see it being a challenge to make that possible as well as provide the same usage 95% of users currently enjoy).

What I want? Well, for a start, simply for the Summary page - which is already a major feature of the app - to work as intended. With equivocal/ambiguous categorisation, it’s misleading at best and meaningless at worst.

There are endless reasons why following well-defined standards is a good idea, especially ones so well underpinned. However, outside of generalisations, I think there are enough good specific reasons here too.

I don’t think I agree. Google says:

contrary to the accepted or expected standard or practice

That’s actually more precise than I thought.

Just because you find it useless does not make it useless. This seems to be a running theme in your comments, you are right and everyone else is stupid.

Myself and many other people find the summary page very useful as it currently is, definitely not meaningless or misleading. Please open yourself up to other opinions.