Archived ideas

Webcare agents can't be at the forum 24/7, but our superusers are there a lot more often than we are. It would be nice if they could mark spam, causing it to be trashed automatically when multiple trusted users mark the topic as spam. Or to give a certain custom role the possibility to remove spam topics at the front end.

Troubleshooting a bionic Rule, or just confirming that it's working as you want it to, is a real bother. The Excel sheet that I receive as a result of running the Rule does not include the outputs of each individual Task. Custom Rules do include the data set that comes out of the Setup Rule step and gets handed to the Setup Action step. For the Fetch Tasks, I can view equivalent results by creating separate Reports that match the logic. However, that's time-consuming, especially if I'm tweaking the Fetch Tasks over and over to get them just right. And then, the results of the Transform/Pivot/Merge Tasks are completely invisible. For example, I'm using a Bionic Rule to filter MDA data and join it to Account data. It would help me to confirm that the MDA data is being fetched accurately if I could add a few Show Fields from the Account data in the Merge Task, to see them next to the MDA data, even though those Show Fields will not ultimately be used in the "Set

While tweaking a Bionic Rules that powers our NameDrop config, I ran into a need to merge datasets based on the first 15 characters of a field value. A lot of our Telecom companies have Account::Industry values that different suffixes.... for example: Telecommunications - IT Services Telecommunications - IT Telecommunications Telecommunications - Corporate I wanted to do a merge on companies where the industry field simply starts with "Telecommunications", regardless of what the suffix was.  I did this by creating a formula field on Customer Info that was "Left(Account::Industry,15)" which just grabs the first 15 characters of the field value. I was then able to do my desired merge on this formula field and achieve my desired result. Is there a way I can do this in bionic rules or MDA without making a Salesforce formula field? I anticipate this will be a common scenario in customers that adopt the N

Would love to have the ability to schedule bionic rules in a rule chain as well as have the option to use the migration tool to move bionic rules from test to production. 

I just ran into a scenario where I had to change a field that was selected in a bionic rule after the rule had already been created. All I needed to do was remove a field and add a different one. This required me to: Remove field from action. Remove field from 2 Merges. Remove field from 'Show field' from original dataset. Add new field to 'Show Field'. Add new field to 2 merges. Add new field to action. This seems like a LOT of work just to change one field. I understand that I would be required to add the new field throughout, but could we allow a user to remove a field from the 'Show Field' section and then state ' This field will be removed from the following sections'? This would drastically reduce the number of steps needed to complete this action.  Open to other suggestions but this seemed very cumbersome/confusing. Thanks!

When a Contact is added to a Gainsight task, and the task is synced with a Salesforce task, the Salesforce task in not updated to show the linked Contact. This is important so users viewing the tasks from Salesforce can see which Contact the interaction was with. 

Can't we have a Bionic rule to be part of rule chain?

One of the goals for bionic rules is to cut down on the amount of rules needed to run actions. I am attempting to set multiple scorecard measures from the same data source but running into an issue. Setup: The same source will be used to set scores for three different measures. Each scorecard measure is based off different Data fields. In one bionic rule fetch I have 16 different possible filters, utilizing advance logic such as, (A or B or C) AND (D or E or F) AND etc. My goal was to source the same object twice and then merge. However, I would need to retain records from both in order to get the result I need. This would effectively set the score wrong for one of the other scorecard measures as the 'relationship id' will exist for all the actions and I do not have the ability to apply action criteria's as there is the case of 'OR' logic. This sparked an idea, the ability to be able to flag a record in a fetch job. Essen

It would be nice to have the ability to retain multiple CTAs if accounts are merged in SFDC.  Also the ability to transition CTAs from account to account would be helpful too.

So I saw this announcement: https://support.gainsight.com/Product_Documentation/Customers_and_Relationships/User_Guides/Shared_3... Lets say sales is trying to sell into a direct competitor of company a. Company A is crushing it on the platform.  Is a usecase for this to provide Shared 360 to this potential customer? 

For HPE, they would like to see Child Account data rolled up to the R360. I see two ways to achieve this: 1. Allow for a checkbox on the R360 sections to allow the end user to rollup this data like we have on the c360. 2. Allow for some way to change the account lookup on a section by section basis in the R360 config. Right now, we rely on the linked object setup in the relationship configuration and cannot customize it on a report by report basis. If we were to change this in the linked object setup for a certain object to solve for reporting, this will break the rule setup which we don't want to rollup.  Do we have any plans to support this in the near future? HPE is a use case where the relationships are account level, just have different teams use different relationship types, so this rollup is as important as it would be at c360 level.

Genesys is attempting to configure relationship fields on the global CTA types (risk, opp, lifecycle). Right now, it looks like in the relationship section of federated admin, you will only get custom relationship level CTA types.  Should we have the ability to have customer level and relationship level fields on the global CTA types if you have relationships enabled? Or what would be the best practice suggestion? You could create copies of the global types at the relationship level, but they cannot have the same name.  Thanks!

This is a small, silly thing, but in Gainsight's support site, when I comment on a Ticket I own, I get an email with my comment. That's only useful if someone [i]else has commented on it. In our own Zendesk instance, I have a Trigger set up that will only email a comment to the ticket requester if "Current User is not Requester"

I'd like to propose an idea that we have the ability to set a "default" Call to Action detail section. What I mean by this is that we by default have two sections in every detail view for every CTA type.  These sections are "Customer" and "Call to Action". Let's say that the customer has the CTA type linked to the "Contact" object, and has several editable fields in this detail section. Currently, the CTA details tabs will default to "Customer", whereas the customer would like the ability to set the section to default to "Contact" so that her CSMs do not get confused about which details section they need to look for.

Wondering how much support there is for being able to load certain Timeline activity types to the Events in SFDC?  So you could choose one activity type to load to Tasks, but others to Events.

In the Setup Rule UI, once the initial Dataset task is saved, to add one more task to the rule the user needs to click Cancel, which is weird. Cancel should generally be used to cancel an action rather than creating a new one. We should have a different UI label here. Can this behavior be changed for better usability?

Would be great to have an option to filter your C360 cockpit by CTA Type.  Similar to the dropdown on Timeline to filter by Activity type.  We have several different CTA types that the CSM may leave open for a while, and it would be great for them to be able to hide those from the C360 cockpit to see the others.

Right now we use Features to see which of our in app features are being used by our customers and the rules engine to populate this. Since Features are just yes/no we use comments to document the exact usage, ie 75% but our threshold for yes is 50%. Currently the comments system, replicates itself until the character limit is reach (ie. 75% 75% 75% 75%...). It would be lovely to have the choice to replace the existing comment.

There are many of our dashboards (esp. health score related) where users have to set the sort options every time they use the dashboard. It would be tremendously helpful to be able to 1) Have an admin configure the dashboard sort view as part of dashboard creation; and 2) have the user sort selections be sticky. First item is a fairly critical "miss" in the product; second would be very helpful.

We have been exploring the use of bionic rules to better slice and dice our data within Gainsight. However, we just created a rule and then noticed that you are not able to set scores within Scorecards 2.0 through the use of a bionic rule. This is a much-needed feature to be able to fully leverage the new scorecards set-up! 

Would be great if the customer tab bottom scroll option and headers stayed put so that our CSMs didnt have to scroll down to scroll over.  In a truly iedal world, a CSM would be able to customize their own Customer List to include what they wanted to see.  

Would love to be able to include Bionic Rules in Rule Chains. Also, FYI, it appears that that limitation is not listed in Getting Started with Bionic Rules > Known Limitations

One of the ways we are using email assist is for our on boarding emails.  It seems that there is a restriction and only one 1 name is allowed for the TO line, however multiple are allowed for the CC line.  We'd like the ability to send one email TO multiple people vs having to add the other recipients to the CC line or send the same email multiple times.  Is this restriction a bug or intended functionality?

Hi team, Bringing up an idea that was investigated through the support channel regarding the ability to add File Attachments via the C360. Currently, if users have an "Attachments" section on the C360 of a related list built off the Attachments object, they can click the "eye" icon to view the attachment within SFDC, but are unable to "Add" attachments when clicking the "Add" button at the top right corner of the C360 section. What I think is happening here is that Gainsight is trying to add a record to the object, but the attachments are not necessarily records, but more so add-ons to an Account, which is why we are seeing the error message when trying to Add.  Is there some form of technical limitation that would prevent this from happening or would we be able to handle this as an Enhancement Request? Any additional details would be greatly appreciated!

One challenge with email from Cockpit is that it creates a thread that the user cannot "ping" if the email goes unanswered. If I send an email from gmail and get no response, I can easily send a followup on the same thread. As far as I know, I can't do that with an email sent from Cockpit. If I could turn on the option to always BCC the User on Cockpit emails, that could address this problem. Then I would know when the email actually got sent (because sometimes I've noticed there's a bit of a delay) AND I could respond to the thread in the event of non-response.