Recently active topics

Customers are requesting native support for ingesting meeting summaries generated by Microsoft Facilitator directly into Gainsight Timeline. As Teams-based AI note-taking becomes more prevalent across our customer base, many enterprise customers restrict full call recordings due to privacy policies — making transcription-only tools like Facilitator the primary source of meeting intelligence. Without a direct integration path, CSMs are manually re-summarizing or copy-pasting Facilitator output into Timeline, creating friction and reducing logging consistency. Ideally, this would function similarly to the existing AI Follow-Up integration, where a Facilitator summary could be mapped to a Timeline activity (with the ability to associate it to a CTA or Success Plan objective), either automatically post-meeting or via a CSM-triggered action. This would meaningfully reduce post-call admin burden and improve Timeline completeness across accounts where recording is not permitted.

We’ve recently noticed that for our customers that double as vendors, we’re having a hard time keeping the Timeline clean because vendor-related communication and customer-related communication both get posted automatically. There’s no perfect way to handle this, but a start would be to label all auto-generated activities like this as either “outgoing” or “incoming.” This needs to be a field so that we can filter if necessary. Thanks for considering.

Hi Team, Posting on behalf of John Cowles for Appian. If you are importing date/time fields into Gainsight and getting null values, there are two separate things going on that are worth understanding.First, any date/time field that carries timezone information, such as EDT or EST, will not ingest directly. This is expected behavior. Ingesting date/time values with timezone info is unsupported by design, so those fields come through as null whenever a timezone is present. To bring these values in, the timezone component needs to be removed from the source data before import.Second, the common workaround of importing the value as a string and converting it with the To Date function has recently stopped working for some files. When a CSV contains mixed date formats, meaning months and days that appear with both one and two digits, the To Date formula fails to convert the string into a date. Gainsight has identified this as a product bug in the logic that parses strings into dates. Enginee

Hi Team,I would like to submit a feature request based on a limitation that has been reported by multiple customers and is impacting their ability to use Health Score effectively within Gainsight PX.BackgroundThe Health Score (also referred to as Product Score) is available under Administration > Attributes and can also be viewed in Account Explorer. However, this attribute is not available as a filter or targeting option in several important areas of the product.Current LimitationAt present, customers cannot use Health Score or Product Score in the following areas: Audience Explorer for creating user or account segments Engagement Audience Rules at the account level Analytics dashboards and reports Email engagement triggers or automation rules Although the score is available in the platform, customers are unable to use it to build audiences, target engagements, or automate workflows.Business ImpactHealth Score is one of the most important indicators customers use to identify

Members of my community frequently share private messages with community managers containing screenshots of error messages or other related things. But the PM system does not support this. I would like to see this functionality enabled. 

I find myself spending a lot of time architecting our Company Person model in such a way that will optimize how our Salesforce contact architecture is setup. The problem, though, is there has never really been a perfect - or even decent - blueprint as to how to do this, especially for customers like us (and my previous org) who use the Account Contact Relationship object. Plus, Gainsight’s arcane “Load to People” action makes updating/upserting to Company Person even harder than it already is, as I’ve already outlined below.  Here are just a few of the common issues I’m constantly playing whack-a-mole with: Duplicate and orphaned records: Contacts that exist in Salesforce but don't cleanly map to a Company Person, or Person records that linger in Gainsight long after they've been deactivated or deleted in Salesforce. Sync headaches: Field mapping mismatches, sync failures, and contacts that show up in one system but not the other. Admin overhead: Time spent building and maintaining rul

Ref ticket 379476. Gainsight intentionally creates Person records with no identifier for every email that is sent from a Program.  These do not have identifiers and cannot be matched with the same load criteria in Rules.  Therefore, Gainsight creates unnecessary duplicate Person records via an automated internal process.  Please stop doing this.

Problem:The AI-generated company background/description feature works by prompting an LLM directly rather than pulling from a verified source like the company's website URL on the account record. When a company name is shared by multiple organizations, the AI can generate a description for the wrong company entirely — and today there is no way for admins or CSMs to correct it.Real example:For our Account A Gainsight support confirmed the AI generated a description for Account B a UK-based job-matching platform - a completely different company that happens to share part of the name. Support confirmed via Engineering that:The description is generated from general AI/web knowledge, not from the company URL or internal timeline/account data already stored in Gainsight. There is currently no way to manually edit or correct a generated description. No way exists to feed the AI the correct company URL to ground its answer.Why this matters:CSMs & leadership rely on this field for quick con

Hi all, I'd like all users to be able to edit the title of their topics. This is currently not possible, so a moderator will have to edit it on behalf of the user. Best, Ditte

We often get the question from our community members if they can subscribe to products (product areas) since we have multiple products. Some customers want to follow specific topics about 1 or more products. In my opinion, this is a very important community b2b functionality.

While non-admin Staff user roles can be somewhat accomplished with custom user roles, it’s not a perfect solution for segmenting the analytics or filtering topics/users by role in Control. The reason? All custom user roles also have to have a primary user role and the primary role is “leading.” Therefore, your custom “staff” or “employee” user role is likely to also be either a “registered user” or “superuser” primary role. This gets in the way of the utility for analytics and filtering in control. You might want to filter by posts from non-staff registered users or non-staff super-users. In particular, the helpful “answered by peer” metric in the Success Dashboard would be more valuable if peer could mean “non-staff.” That would really indicate the self-service value of community members answering each other’s questions, versus staff. Given that Moderator and Community Manager roles count against seats on the licenses (and that all staff do not need this admin access), we’re left with

Most of the time we are looking to backfill data for 30 days. We don’t need a whole year’s worth; yet that is the only option. We have exceeded our quote of backfilling due to this constraint. Please allow the user to specify how much backfill data is required.1 day 7 days 30 days 180 days 1 year 

We utilize a pooled support model and while it’s great that User Groups can now be used via Rules Engine and Mass Edit, it would be great if our team could manually assign CTAs to the User Group when creating them in the Cockpit or C360. In this way, our team could set this CTA to be entered into the pooled support system right from the creation. No need for anyone to mass edit these into the user group or create another rule to do so. 

Only being able to use Text Input fields for mapping between Gainsight CS and Gainsight Community (CC) is very limiting.Since we only have access to the Person and Company Person objects without lookups it’s likely we’ll need to use GS rules to import data points to those objects as text fields to facilitate a sync. In some cases that may not be possible due to nature of the data point.

Would it be possible to handle failed Gong posts to Timeline via the integration similarly to failed email sends and create a DRAFT queue for these? It seems to be a big of a challenge to get get historical Gong meetings that were unsuccessful to appear on the timeline. Since there was a failure last week of this integration, we have users requesting that previous meetings get posted and this is currently not possible.  

Hi Team,Currently, Gainsight retrieves object and field metadata by making sys_dictionary (metadata/attributes) API calls to the ServiceNow instance. Due to their internal API consumption constraints, the customer would like to avoid these sys_dictionary calls.Instead, they have proposed providing the required object and field metadata as a CSV file (or equivalent metadata export) that contains all necessary object and field definitions. They would like Gainsight to support importing this metadata and configuring it within the connector so that both standard and custom ServiceNow objects can be discovered and used without requiring metadata API calls to ServiceNow.Business NeedEliminate sys_dictionary API consumption for metadata retrieval. Allow customers to provide object and field metadata through a CSV import (or similar mechanism). Enable configuration and visibility of custom ServiceNow objects in Gainsight using the imported metadata.The customer is looking to understand whether

A recent Gong outage caused synchronization to stop for several days without any proactive notification to administrators. The connector remained in an "active" state even though meeting data was no longer being ingested. The root cause was eventually determined to be invalidated Gong credentials following the outage, but there was no visibility into this condition from within Gainsight.As a result:• Admins were unaware that synchronization had stopped.• The connection appeared healthy despite being unable to retrieve data.• There was no proactive alerting mechanism for systemic failures.• Recovery required manual reauthentication even though the connection status never indicated a problem.• Validation of missed records required manual reconciliation between Gong and Gainsight.These gaps create operational risk and erode trust in the platform because customer-facing teams may unknowingly operate on incomplete conversation data.Even though we are currently still on the “old” Gong connec