Archive

Hi all! I like the option to send PM's to a large group. But without typing al of their names manually. So i see some other options: 1: add by Ctrl V, just paste a list of names from the export. 2: add by uploading CSV/Excel vile of the names 3: add by selecting criteria: Rank, activity, registration date's etc. (and combination of these) For example: sending a mass PB to alle users who registered last month, but have 0 activity ( topics or reactions) - this would help with activating them to come back to the community and directly lead them to a specific topic or categorie. What do you think? 😃

Posting on behalf of a customer. It would be nice to filter rules about a certain field being used in the setup or action. It would help to determine impact if a used field is to be modified via MDA or SFDC.

If you navigate to Admin > Dashboards >  Three Dots > View As > Assume User You are greeted with the list of Dashboards that user has permissions to. It also appears that because you are in a "view" mode, the option to remove dashboard permissions is "greyed" out and you cannot remove permissions.  I have a request from a customer to allow the super admin the ability from the "view as" mode to remove dashboards like you can when in regular mode. 

Using Sally I should be able to search account assigned to a CSM For eg: ABC relationships for XYZ CSM

Currently, both C360 and R360 timeline activities get synced to the Account object in Salesforce.  We have a separate object in Salesforce that we actually keep all our 'Relationship' level information in and would like to be able to map the R360 activity to the corresponding object in Salesforce.

Right now in CoPilot it is not possible to log emails to Salesforce if the power list is sourced from MDA data. Is this something that is on the roadmap? Is there a reason why this is not possible? 

When creating a CTA action, I find that the "Include in Identifiers" checkbox next to the CTA name field is often overlooked. What this causes is confusion when CTA rules fire and customers either don't see any action taken, or they notice that an already existing CTA with the same "Type" and "Reason" is updated with the details from the most recently executed CTA. Is there any future plan to have the CTA name identifier selected by default, as I almost never see a use case where a customer would not want this selected? Thanks

I'm trying to create a report on our Google Analytics data that excludes the 'system users', where our product is accessing the product on our customer's behalf to do nightly automated tasks. I like having those pageviews in the data, but I don't want them in this particular report. Those users are identifiable because their username begins with "ss-". I can filter a report for "contains", "does not contain", or "starts with", but I can't filter it for "does not start with". I tried to add the "starts with" filter and then change the advanced filtering logic ("A AND B") to "A NOT B", but I got an error that that expression was invalid. So perhaps this feature request is really to support "NOT" logic in those advanced filtering logic, which of course could also be useful in Rules, Power Lists, etc.

This request is to be able to change what time the job that moves people from partial save to submit when using partial completes in surveys. Right now, this job runs overnight. This is usually fine but a use case came up that kind of causes an issue. Say you have an AO built like the one below https://cl.ly/2p2Q0Z2T3A1F This AO along with the second conditional wait would send a thank you to NPS promoters. However, if they partially respond(but answer the NPS) they would go into the survey completion wait period. The time this job runs is 1 am CT. If you have a personalized email that is coming from the CSM, that means it would be sending shortly after this time. The request is to be able to change this.  Or another idea would be to set some sort of safe sending times within AOs that would only send between certain hours. The latter may be hard to troubleshoot though 🙂

Can we have an option to choose Advance outreach model while creating a survey in Survey 2.0. Currently if we use a NPS question in our Survey by default it selects NPS survey model and creates an Advance outreach. If i want to use Generic survey for the same then i have to create a new advance outreach and select this model

Love the text analytics but we have a perpetual survey that runs and there is no way for me to look at the text analytics Q over Q or M over M. Please add the ability to filter the date range of the text analytics by response date. 

Some of our active community members suggested that the start new discussion button that hovers over the screen on mobile version of the community could be hidden when user is writing or editing a post or a comment. Especially on certain phone models this button seems to a bit on the way when trying to post something on mobile which is off annoying for the people using the community actively on mobile. Below example is from Samsung Galaxy S9 and Chrome (67.0.3396.87).

Currently, our inline survey functionality in AO gives us the ability to post a single question in the body of an outreach. Despite the fact that the question is present in the template, we are still redirected to a link when we try to answer the question. I'm wondering if there is any planned functionality to allow this question to simply be answered within the body of the email versus being redirected?

I am trying to export a report in report builder. It shows the first N number of rows with data in the table. When I export, it appears it will work, but then the email that arrives saying something like this: Subject: Gainsight Report Export failed Your request to export [NAMED OF THE REPORT] report failed due to the following reason(s)  : Invalid report details to export <EOM> It will be good if reason or error code is mentioned which causes the failure of report. For E.g.- Due to exported CSV size, Data Corruption or any other reason. which will be helpful to know failure reason and on immediate basis end user/customer can use alternate option (like Use Bionic Rule to export report in S3 Bucket, etc..) Let me know if you need more information.

I've actually had this scenario come up with two different customers today oddly enough, so I figured it's worth posting: It would be nice to be able to manually add time to a date field in the transformation functionality within Bionic Rules. The use case for both my customers is they wanted to add one day to the subscription end date on their Opportunity object and then map that field to the Renewal Date field in Customer info. So if the sub end date was 12/31/18, the Renewal Date would be 1/1/19. I'm sure there are plenty of other potential use cases out there too.

I think it would be cool to change the experience for seeing joins in the Rules Engine.  Right now, especially with standard objects, there are some many fields that have the same name.  I think one of the following options would make it visually better: Add colors to the layers First is black Second is black Third is green etcAdd lines to the layers So you can see which fields line up to which joins

With the old custom rules, it was easy to do a "null" value rule, because I could just click the slider bar at the top.  With bionic rules, its still doable, but there are more steps and clicks. One thing that would make my life easier is a new task type called "Customer data".  By clicking this task type, I could see it creating an dataset of your customers, based on stored settings somewhere in administration.   Administration- set up source object and fields to be used in new task type "Customer Data" (almost like a stored template dataset task) Bionic Rule- under "+ Task", new type called "Customer data" that can be used to generate a dataset having all your active customersThis might only save me 60-180 seconds, but its 60-180 seconds I would love to have back and ease my frustration with creating these types of rules.

It will be good if there is a report which tells that how many rules have failed with the reason.

When creating a Timeline post from a CTA, it would be great if the CTA Name would autopopulate in the Timeline subject.  For example, I get a EBR CTA, and I want to include my notes from the EBR in the Timeline of that CTA, I'd like the subject to go ahead and populate as EBR and then maybe add Notes at the end? 

Currently when you search for a customer in the search bar, after you click on the customer that you're searching for the name of the customer stays in the search bar. In order to search again you have to backspace and then type again. It might be nice to have that search area clear after clicking on the customer that you were searching for.

When entering comments in the Scorecard, the box on the right hand side of the scorecard is used by our CSMs to capture contextual data supporting the manual score. The box's height, however, is not tall and it is very tedious to see what has been written or to make changes where there is a significant amount of text. Is it possible to make the box taller?

Currently when creating a CTA with a rule we have the option of checking the "Include name in identifiers" checkbox to have an additional identifier.  In the future it would be nice to have the ability to include additional optional identifiers when creating a rule to fire a CTA when the name is not enough.

Is it possible to export list of contacts with their Survey link.

When configuring a scorecard as a Red-Yellow-Green (or other colors) or a Grade schema, Gainsight requires that a range in the 0-100 scale be assigned to each level. When a measure is set to that score by the rules engine or a user, Gainsight sets the score to the midpoint of the range (if Red is 0-20, the score in the background is stored as 10). In other words, every "Red" has exactly the same score. The Issue: When users are looking at the scorecard and the mouseover text pops up, the score is always shown along with the label.   This can be confusing, as it implies that the numeric score 'means' something, even though the user will see the same score for every measure set to Red, or Green, etc. More, for many simpler scorecard schemes, the numeric ranges set by the admin are arbitrary - it's the 'buckets' with the labels that matter - so the admin will split the numeric ranges into even thirds for RYG, for instance. The request: Can the numeric score b

Global sections for 360 config are nice.  It is a bit odd that sections like Scorecard or Cockpit, for which no configurations are possible, are considered Local sections instead of Global ones.