Archived ideas

[Customer Request]: Hi Team,As per the current functionality, in case of any lookup got updated or deleted, the rule execution is failing and in the execution history View logs section, an SQL query with error is printing which customers are unable to understand.We got a feedback from customer, to improve the error message, saying for which all fields updated/deleted causing the rule failure so that they can aware of it.

When a tenant is moved to hybrid, the Gainsight package is uninstalled and all existing data from jbcxm objects moved to NXT objects. In the rules, we are hiding all jbcxm objects but we are able to build a report on these objects (example: Call to Action, Customer Info) on hybrid org, user requested if the JBCXM objects can be hide from report builder as well.This has been discussed internally and has been considered as an enhancement request.

I know this was delivered recently: Would be great to be able to choose multiple authors to list all involved in the creation of a piece. Example:We have volunteer co-collaborators for some events we host, for which we publish key takeaways to our Product Updates. The volunteers also co-collaborate on writing those takeaway publications and we would like to be able to credit these publications to all involved, and there are potentially up to three authors in one go.Would love to credit these to each of them and have these publications work as credit toward the badging system we have set up related to Product Updates publications.

Idea: Add support for private attachments to an articleJustification: We often export an MS Office or exported Google Docs document to PDF and then attach the PDF to an article. When it is necessary to edit the content of that PDF later, the source article is often hard to find or even erased after the original author left, requiring that we recreate the article from scratch.It would be so much easier if we had the option to save the source document in its original form as a private attachment to the article so we don't have to go on a hunting expedition to find it. Using the "Team notes" field to identify the source is helpful, but depending on account changes to the original repository, sometimes the source is gone.

We would like the ability to restrict viewing/interacting with a piece of content by role. We realize this can be done by category. The business feels there are times they wish to have a piece of content posted in a more general open category but only visible to certain roles. We would like this to apply to Discussions, Questions and Articles.

If I click on someone’s username, I’d like to see what groups that person is in. It can be customizable so we only show public and private groups, but suppress hidden groups.As of now, there’s no way to accurately see what groups of which a user is a member.

As the number of integrations and their complexity grows it is important to have an overview of the integration activity.Just as an example not exhaustive, for the SFDC integration a dashboard that tracks​​​​How many contacts were linked to community members, and how many were not

Hi, Is it possible to set up ''advanced'' automated emails within the community? For example: I would really like to send an automated email/ message a week after a customer has created an account. Why has he joined the community? What are his expectations? Is there something that I can do to help him out etc. etc. This data is valuable and gives us insides into what our customers want and need ... Ofcourse there are more cases, in which automated emails would be valuable ... Currently, we are able to set up emails within the ranks, but there is no possibility to set up the case as described above ... (right?) What do you guys think about this?

Currently Gainsight limits Tableau to records created within the past 6 months (instead of the full data). This makes reporting on Gainsight adoption extremely limited when you can only view Success Plans and Activities created within the last 6 months.

We are increasingly depend on JO to contact our customers and it would be super useful to create and share Booking Review Form from GS where customers could indicate dates and times that suits them to have their term/yearly review. This would be useful to minimise the email ping-pong when trying to arrange a time slot that suits all parties.We are trialling using surveys for this, however there are some limitations such as:survey can’t be sent via email chain time limitation in the conditional wait field are free text, harder to map it to C360 and produce meaningful reportsWe could use Calendly, but we are trying to have information about our customers all in one place.Or does anyone have any other suggestions?Thank you

Can we make “Reason” field mandatory in CTA Layout? The asterisk mark next it. 

I have come across customers who want to Personalise their Home experience by updating ‘Summary’ ribbon. For now, the functionality is that either we remove entire section or add it. However, there are customers that have different teams using GS Home. They would like to have the flexibility to edit the standard ribbons. Any plans to have this functionality?

Hi Team, In HA report builder as of now we have an option to search email with name, Can we provide an ability to search with email id.This was a request from one of our customers. 

We’re a multi-product community and an important ask from our product teams is to make the Ideas page visible to all community users but when users want to post an idea or engage with one (upvote or comment), they’ll need to be able to go through a simple authentication process to ensure the user is our current customer. For example, if John is an existing customer of one of our products, he can authenticate by using his Account ID, which will verify that he’s a customer and give him access to post an idea or engage with other ideas.Some level of customization being allowed within this module to develop a set up that works for our Ideation process would be helpful.

Adding this one although it is no longer a big deal for me. I had to explain it to a colleague and as I was explaining I was slightly baffled by what I was saying… Which was:Only categories can hold content and categories must be contained inside a parent category, so if you want to create a single category with content it needs to be inside a parent category nonetheless. Hmmm…But the most confusing is this: you can restrict categories to different user roles which is good, BUT not parent categories. So if you were to create a single category that was restricted to some specific role, it would have to be inside a parent category; then everyone, even random visitors would see your parent category and nothing would appear to be inside for these people!?!?!So my suggestion:Allow parent categories to hold content if they hold no categories or alternatively allow categories not to be contained inside a parent category (Same result). Allow the restriction of parent categories by role so that

Hi Team, Currently, we are not supporting callExternal API yet in x-org migration and hence the rules are not being displayed in X-org to migrate. It would be helpful if we can show those rules to migrate in X-org.@tulasi_andukuri 

Currently there is no status update regarding the Execution history, like there is for the Rules Engine and I must look into each Program for the status.Would be useful to have an extra column here with the Status (success or partial fail) 

Adoption explorer currently allows a customer to connect to Redshift for AE, time-series data, but what if those customers have more data in Redshift they’d like to connect to in a productized way instead of S3? Similar to how we expanded the functionality of Snowflake and BigQuery connectors, Redshift may be valuable for more customers.    

Requesting a built in way to associate a survey response to a linked object from a CTA when utilizing a manual send of a survey template from within a CTA.What happens today is, when you need to send a survey template via Email assist from a CTA, when the response is received back, that survey response is associated to the CS_Task object and displays the GSID for that task. Two issues here:Generates a broken link from the Survey Response view when you click on the hyperlinked Id  Doesn’t link to the Associated Object from the CTA that based on the visual you’d expectIt would be incredibly useful, if at the time this survey was being sent out by the end user from the CTA, they could be presented with a way to select the associated record this survey is related to.Why use this workflow or be concerned about? Though it is true that the current JO workflow is the ideal workflow as it does populate the associated object as you’d expect, there will always be scenarios where there are excepti

Ability to create a CTA for the Stage Owner of that account automatically, to let them know that which email has been rejected when sending the email to several recipients within the same account. 

What the title says. When adding a filter for the "rule chain" field, only the operator "in" is available.+ the "used in" column is not to be found in the filter field search.+ when pressing on the funnel icon, to add a filter, I was countless times mislead by it and noticed that it does absolutely nothing;the "add filter" link on the right side of the page should be placed on the icon for it to act as a button and not just be a useless graphic.

What the title says. Add ability to sort by column names.No way to sort programs, currently and I really need this functionality; Related topic would be this: 

On the search page, I’d like to add:A way to see topics without any replies A way to see topics without a best answer (separate from above)We desperately need a way to surface these two things, but then sort them by category. Right now I’m manually adding and removing a “zero” tag for topics without replies. Several people have asked me for a similar tag for “unanswered.” That’s a lot of daily admin maintenance. 

While I am constantly advocating for minimal intervention by the community team internally; as a user on InSpired I sometimes feel that I know a few names at InSided but not well enough that I know who is the best person to mention in different situation… It makes me feel counterproductive to mention what is likely the wrong person.I wonder if there might be room for a flag to community team option for help or input as opposed to the « flag » option that exists now to report abuse.Perhaps it is a feature that should be limitable by rank so as to be controlled more thoroughly. Perhaps for super users to have an extra tool in their arsenal…?

Currently profile fields are pretty binary: Required or not Visible or not Part of registration or notIt’d be great to have an option for role-based profile fields that could be configured for only certain user roles (similar to category permissions)Use cases: Staff-specific profile fields that could be completed Superuser specific profile fields Gamifying the profile, incentivizing users to achieve a certain rank (and then get an automated role) in order to highlight specific things on their profileMy use case: We are highlighting some community members in a marketing campaign with power user profiles, etc. I’d love to feature the link to post on the users’ profiles. However, creating a field for this URL link would create a profile field for all users. Another use case I’d explore: Allowing users with certifications or ranks to specify their area(s) of expertise. Rather than allowing anyone to claim expertise despite being brand new or not yet certified.