Suggestions for Person Admin

Welcome @Shilpa Gumnur!!

Can we please have the ability to make certain fields required on 360 UI side. Removing email as a required field is messing up our processes.

Additionally though being able to make Fname and Lname or custom fields is important too. Especially when trying to follow the guidance of person information being stored.

Tied to above, give the ability to update records with no email.

Since email is not required email and due to a gap of not being able to show name in certain areas we have to push it to the rel or co person level. However, due to no email we can;t update via rules. 

So, giving the ability to update records without emails. All we need is the gsid of the record when email is not present.

This a big topic and I’m sure other items will come up as we go along, but I will start out with

1. Allow admins the ability to write directly to the Person and Company Person tables (just like we do with Company) as opposed to (or in addition to)  a custom rule action type that limits our ability to manipulate data through rules (See the comment thread in the following post)

    

    

2.  

   4.  

   5.  

   6.  

@bradley @gunjanm @ana_g @davebrown2242 @keith_mattes @angela_domenichelli @sagan_sherlin @andreammelde I’m sure you awesome admins will have a point of view on our Person model and where it can get better. :)

I would also like to see Persons/Company Persons flagged in a visible/actionable way when their email experienced a hard bounced or there was some other issue with outbound communications related to their email address.  I don’t think this currently exists and would really help with company person sanitation.

I echo @darkknight’s last statement. A ‘ deliverability ’ flag/status that allows us to filter and surface Person issues would be huge.

Also the many other suggestions proposed for accessing and leveraging Person/Company Person objects.

agree with @darkknight and @davebrown2242 . The biggest thing that CSMs have a hard time with managing is the opt-out/ bounce of emails. If we could make this more obvious and manageable, it would help the CSMs keep their contacts up to date.

Right now I have a workaround where I added custom fields to the Person to update if they have opted out of certain categories but it is heavy for an admin management side, and not very surface-able to the CSM

Hello, @jean.nairon @Wayne @darkknight @davebrown2242 @andreammelde,

This is awesome!

Please allow me some time to dissect and ingest what’s been shared so far and I’ll be back with follow up questions wherever needed.

Thanks,

Shilpa

Thanks, @dan_ahrens for the shout-out.