Skip to main content

    Building a Better Ideation Process

    Votes matter. Comments matter. But product decisions are rarely as simple as "top voted idea wins."
    Dive into our ideation guide here.

    Learn More ›

    Idea Pipeline

    Filter by idea status

    Filter by product area

    6250 Ideas

    bjoern_schulze
    bjoern_schulzeHelper ⭐️⭐️⭐️

    Private Messages: Enable attachmentsParked

    For service-oriented communities it's a regular occurrence to move a conversation to private messages in order to obtain customer information or data. Right now it is not possible to attach images (the WYSIWYG editor isn't activated for private messaging), PDFs or any other file types to a private message. We would like to be able to have attachments for the standard file types (jpg, png, pdf, txt) enabled to private messages.

    11
    2 hours ago
    amy.beckerContributor ⭐️

    Ability for co-pilot to reach attachments.New Idea

    It would be beneficial if co-pilot in Gainsight Cs could read attachments in timeline notes. 

    0
    13 hours ago
    spencer_engel
    spencer_engelExpert ⭐️

    Allow Editing of Data Designs and Rules Without Having to Rebuild EverythingNew Idea

    Hi there -  I’m loving the relatively new functionality in JO Programs where you can remove the connection at any point along the journey. Before this was introduced, if you wanted to edit a JO Program, especially one of the first steps in a long journey, then you had to painfully delete all the steps below it and rebuild. This is a huge improvement in case you forgot to put in a delay, for example, like I did the other day. My ask is that the product team figure out a way to do the same thing for DDs and Rules Engine queries. My use case is that we’re building telemetry-based JO Programs, and they are largely the same template - except the data source that kicks off the whole query is different for each product. What I would like to do is be able to remove the connections at the top of this query without breaking the merges and transformations in the bottom 2/3 of the query. As it stands, I have to delete all the merges and transformations and rebuild manually for each product. Thanks for considering.  

    1
    jordan_cook
    15 hours ago
    darkknight
    darkknightExpert ⭐️

    CS AI Tools Management: Extend "Quick Insights" functionality to Copilot/MCP ServerNew Idea

    Report access through the Gainsight CS MCP server is all-or-nothing today. In Administration > AI Settings > AI Tool Management, report_search_tool and fetch_report_data can only be toggled Active or Inactive.The admin has no say in which reports are eligible. I’ve currently got both report tools disabled in my tenant. That’s not a preference — it’s the only option when you can’t scope them. And it costs users real capability, because the MCP tool instructions tell the model to prefer saved reports over dedicated tools, on the reasoning that reports encode the customer’s own business definitions. That’s a lot of trust to place in a library the admin can’t curate.As noted in this post, there are a number of reasons why broad report access could be problematic. Admins need a way to designate which reports are eligible for consideration by Copilot and the MCP ServerA marker already exists“Mark as Quick Insight” was built to designate which reports are fit for consumption through an AI surface. That is exactly the control we need.Today it only applies to Sally in Slack. Sally within Gainsight CS was retired in November 2025. Sally in Slack remains supported, but Gainsight AI Agent in Slack and Copilot are plainly where the product is heading.So Quick Insight is a working flag attached to a legacy surface. Rather than let it age out, repurpose it. Per-report gating already exists here — the report tools branch on a user_accessible flag today. This is a second flag on an existing gate, not new architecture.What I’m asking forRedefine Quick Insight as a general marker meaning “this report is approved for AI surfaces.”  Honor it across Copilot, Gainsight AI Agent in Slack, and Gainsight CS MCP — not just Sally. Add a toggle in Tool Management: “Restrict report tools to Quick Insight reports only.” allowing admins to choose whether or not to leverage this restriction When on, non-approved reports are excluded from both report metadata search and report fetch. When off, behavior is unchanged. Default the toggle off, so nothing changes for existing tenants on release.That gives admins a curated allowlist. We approve the reports that are accurate, stable, and safe. Everything else is invisible to the LLM — without touching report sharing and without disabling report tooling entirely.The restriction has to cover metadata, not just fetchToday’s user_accessible gate in the MCP server report tools stops a report from being run, not from being read. When a report is flagged inaccessible, the model appears to be instructed that its structure “still encodes genuine tenant conventions” — the objects it queries, the lookup chains it traverses, the filter logic it applies, the GSIDs it has resolved — and told to carry those forward.Row data stays permission-bound. Structural knowledge doesn’t. A toggle that only gates fetch would leave unapproved reports still shaping answers.Benefits Improved Accuracy - MCP picks reports by matching your question against report names and descriptions. With hundreds of reports, several will look like plausible matches. A curated set means it’s choosing from reports you’ve vouched for. Consistency - Today the report pool varies by user. Same question, different people, different answers. A shared approved set narrows that. Less prompt effort - Gainsight’s guidance is to spell out your business logic in the prompt. Good reports already encode that logic in their filters, so users write less to get the same result. Predictability - “It draws on this set of reports” is something users can understand and admins can explain. “It searches your entire report library” is not. Trust - This is the one that compounds. Users decide early whether the assistant is reliable. Curated sources make the early answers better, which is when it matters most. Better Admin QOL - Today when someone reports faulty results, you don’t know which of the hundreds of reports produced it. You have to reconstruct what the LLM probably matched on before you can even tell whether it’s a bug, a stale report, or the user misreading the answer. With a curated set, the suspect list is small and you own every report on it. Triage goes from “investigate the library” to “check these reports.”  It also cuts ticket volume at the source, since most of those tickets come from the LLM picking a report nobody maintains.Dependency: make the “Mark as Quick Insight” flag usable at scaleToday a report can only be marked as Quick Insight by opening the individual report itself, which makes curating an allowlist impractical when governing hundreds of reports.Please add Mark as Quick Insight to the row-level settings menu in the report list view. That menu already has Edit Report, Rename Report, Delete Report, Manage Permissions and Enable Add Record. The flag belongs beside them.Bulk select would be better still. The row menu alone makes this workable.One behavior to revisitMarking a report as Quick Insight currently exposes it to all Sally users. If the flag becomes a general AI-surface marker, that blanket exposure should be reconsidered — ideally the flag governs eligibility, with each user’s existing report permissions still applying on top.

    4
    dcassidy
    16 hours ago
    KimStocks
    KimStocksHelper ⭐️

    Copilot Prompt Library - Admin Suggestions - Allow CategorizationNew Idea

    Gainsight Copilot organizes its out-of-the-box suggested prompts into categories, but administrators cannot categorize custom admin-suggested prompts. As more custom prompts are added, it becomes difficult for users to quickly find relevant prompts.Proposed Enhancement:Allow administrators to assign categories to custom Copilot prompts, using existing Gainsight categories or creating new ones. Ideally, admin-suggested prompts would appear alongside Gainsight's native prompts within the same categorized interface.Business Value:This would improve prompt discoverability, provide a more consistent user experience, and encourage greater Copilot adoption by making it easier for CSMs to find prompts relevant to their workflows.

    1
    KimStocks
    17 hours ago
    t.nelsonContributor ⭐️

    Ability to complete task within Timeline interfaceNew Idea

    When a task is created on an Activity, it cannot be marked as complete within the Timeline interface unless the Activity is opened in Edit mode.  Ideally, the checkbox would be able to be leveraged directly in the Timeline view.

    1
    18 hours ago
    heather_hansen
    heather_hansenVIP ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

    Copilot Prompt Library - Admin Suggestions - Sort by Most UsedNew Idea

    Would be great to have Copilot be able to sort your admin suggestions prompt library by most popular so that team members could quickly see how others are using Copilot.  If that’s not possible, maybe a separate tab with “Recent Uses” or something like that to combine all the prompts?

    2
    KimStocks
    19 hours ago
    heather_hansen
    heather_hansenVIP ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

    Saleforce Picklists in Dynamic JONew Idea

    In conjunction with this post, I’m also running into another challenge because I’m using Salesforce Picklists for the email template, and Dynamic JO is now forcing me to make them a picklist in Gainsight in order to use them in the program.  I don’t want to do that because:We shouldn’t have to maintain picklists in both places - it’s a pain to try to keep the Gainsight picklists up to date. It’s not just 1 picklist - it’s multiple, so again, that’s just more overhead in my instance that needs to be managed when it could simply just point to the Salesforce one.This is another case where parity with advanced JO is important.

    0
    heather_hansen
    1 day ago
    heather_hansen
    heather_hansenVIP ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

    Use Salesforce Account IDs in Dynamic JONew Idea

    I’m trying to migrate a few of our advanced programs to Dynamic JO to take advantage of the ability to send multiple times a day, but running into some problems because I can’t use Salesforce Account ID in place of the Company GSID.  For context, the program is for post-case CSAT survey sends, and uses ONLY SFDC data to send currently, so I don’t have any Gainsight information included in the Advanced Program today.

    0
    heather_hansen
    1 day ago
    CC AdminHelper ⭐️

    Add a "plan_item" object in SalesforceNew Idea

    A few customers have reached out about a way to calculate Plan Progress for students, and adding a plan_item custom object could unlock even more data points for reports. Below is outlined what a plan_item object could unlock and used along side preexisting objects.Plan Progress % = Items Complete ÷ Total ItemsTotal Items = count of Plan Item records where Plan = the student's plan Items Complete = count of those Plan Items where a completion record exists for that student: course item: a Course Progress with Completed At not null (matching the item’s published course and the student) path item: a Path Progress with Completed At not null (matching the item’s path and the student)

    0
    1 day ago
    Tanya_MContributor ⭐️

    Gainsight Assist - Ability to choose "Meeting" as default vs. "Email" Activity TypeNew Idea

    Currently, Gainsight Assist defaults to "Email" as the Timeline Activity Type when logging an activity, requiring users to manually change it to "Meeting" each time.We'd like the ability to configure the default Activity Type in Gainsight Assist, either at the individual user level or through an admin-level setting, so that "Meeting" can be selected as the default instead of "Email."This would streamline activity logging, reduce unnecessary clicks, and improve the accuracy and consistency of Timeline documentation, particularly for CSMs who primarily use Gainsight Assist to log customer meetings.

    0
    1 day ago
    heather_hansen
    heather_hansenVIP ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

    Dynamic JO Goals Feedback - Can't RemoveNew Idea

    I cloned a program today that had a goal set, and the goal was also cloned, but then, I was unable to remove it.  You should be able to delete it if not needed before publishing.

    0
    heather_hansen
    1 day ago
    Revant
    RevantContributor ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

    Aha and Staircase IntegrationNew Idea

    Ability to integrate Aha ( prod req) into Staircase and setup some dashboards, topic reports to support product insights

    0
    Revant
    1 day ago
    alizee
    alizeeVIP ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

    Allow create self-lookup fields on Call to Action objectNew Idea

    Pretty sure I’d already requested this but it seems either I didn’t or it was archived.There can’t be a legit reason why we wouldn’t be able to add a self-lookup field on the call to action object. We can on company, on relationship etc. Yet, we can’t on the call to action object.In the spirit of feature parity and consistency: please allow it. Use Case:We are using success plans to manage PS projects. Some of the project items can be subject to escalations if they go south. We want to be able to track escalations within the success plan ideally. To that effect, linking the “Escalation CTA” we’ll create to the other CTA it relates to provide thorough context about the escalation (What project? (success plan); what part of the project (related CTA lookup)). I’m not interested in using a timeline record since an escalation is much like a risk and it takes a sequence of steps to resolve it; and there are lessons learnt. As such, a CTA is a better option to track and manage escalations. 

    3
    jordan_cook
    1 day ago
    Daniele Cmty
    Daniele CmtyHelper ⭐️⭐️

    Ability to move comments to any reply level in threaded replies (L1, L2, L3)New Idea

    Threaded Replies lets moderators move a reply up to the top level (L2/L3 → L1). There is no way to move a comment down into a thread, or from one parent comment to another. We’d like moderators to be able to move any comment to any reply level within the same topic.This shortcoming is actually the main reason why I still haven’t turned on this feature in our community. Why we need it (as observed in other communities)Members regularly answer another comment, but post it as a new top-level comment because they don’t know which reply option to use. Sometimes they use the wrong “Reply” button and the answer lands under the wrong parent. Today a moderator can’t fix this. The thread stays confusing, and nobody can tell which comment a reply belongs to.How often it would come upSeveral times a week in busier communities. Most often right after launch and with new members, who haven’t learned the reply behavior yet. Most topics are started by new users who don’t stick around long enough to learn it.Proposed behaviorModerators can move a comment to a different level (L1, L2, L3) or under a different parent comment in the same topic. A clear “move to…” action in the comment’s moderation menu, e.g. “Move under another comment”. It’s a manual moderator decision. Moderators can tell from the discussion and quoted text where a reply belongs, and can leave it as is when it’s unclear. No notification to the member when the move stays within the same topic. Open question for Gainsight: what happens to a comment’s own replies when it moves? We’d suggest they move with it.ImpactModerators can keep threads readable without deleting or reposting content. This removes the main blocker for enabling Threaded Replies.

    3
    atwhite
    1 day ago
    CyJervis
    CyJervisContributor ⭐️⭐️⭐️

    Support Co-Authors and Secondary Contributor Attribution on ArticlesNew Idea

    Introduce multi-tier attribution on articles, allowing content owners to add one or more co-authors or contributors without disrupting primary content ownership. Why this is neededGainsight articles currently enforce a strict single-author model, however content is frequently collaborative. Restricting attribution to one person forces teams to pick a single owner, leaving other contributors without public recognition, profile credit, or community engagement points. 

    3
    CyJervis
    1 day ago
    art.baranovContributor ⭐️

    Flag or neutralize instruction-like text in member content returned by the Community MCPNew Idea

    Problem: The Community MCP returns member-written content (post bodies, titles, replies) to AI assistants exactly as written. Each response is marked untrusted_content as a whole, but nothing flags individual fields or text that looks like instructions to an AI. A member, or anyone who can post, could plant text like “ignore previous instructions and...” and every AI tool reading the community would receive it unchanged. Today the only protection is the AI model’s own behavior and the customer’s client-side settings.Request:Mark member-written fields (post body, title, reply text) separately from system fields in tool responses, so clients can handle them as untrusted data. Optionally flag content that looks like prompt injection, or let admins turn on filtering.Why it matters: Community content is open to many people, and the MCP can be connected to tools that can also write to the community. Protection should not rest only on the AI client.

    1
    Daniele Cmty
    1 day ago
    DannyPancratz
    DannyPancratzVIP ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

    New Primary User Role: Staff (Non-Admin)Released

    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 without a way to filter out non-staff registered users. (Unless you took the pains to assign an additional custom user role to every non-staff member that signed up). If there were to be built, my recommendation would be:Posts avoid spam detection (like superuser role without the mark answer ability)  Option to automate users with an email with a specific domain to be auto-assigned this role

    8
    Daniele Cmty
    2 days ago
    venkatesh_immidiContributor ⭐️⭐️

    Feature Request for Role-Specific Leaderboard WidgetNew Idea

    1. Problem StatementCurrently, the leaderboard widget only supports a role-exclusion (blacklist) mechanism to filter out unwanted users or roles.2. Why the Current Solution FailsIn our permission architecture, every user is automatically assigned a common base role (e.g., “Registered User”). Because this role is universal, it cannot be excluded without accidentally blocking all users from the leaderboard entirely. As a result, administrators cannot isolate or display specific target roles (such as “VIP Members,” “Staff,” or “Contributors”) on the leaderboard.3. Proposed SolutionUpdate the leaderboard widget settings to include an inclusion-based (whitelist) role selector. Desired Behavior: Allow administrators to explicitly select which specific role(s) should be displayed on the leaderboard (e.g., selecting only “Contributors” or “Premium Members”). Alternative: Allow a multi-select toggle for "Include Selected Roles" vs. "Exclude Selected Roles" so admins have full flexibility. 4. Business / User Value Flexibility: Enables community managers to spotlight specific user tiers (e.g., top creators, staff, or tier-based subscribers). Accuracy: Resolves configuration blocks caused by universal baseline roles. Better Engagement: Drives gamification by allowing targeted leaderboards for specific user segments.

    4
    2 days ago
    marcos.beinder
    marcos.beinderContributor ⭐️⭐️⭐️

    Group Send FeedbackNew Idea

    Recently we launched a Group Send pilot to test and to scale. The pilot met its objectives and the team became largely self-sufficient quickly. Group Send landed clearly as the right tool for human-led, one-to-many outreach alongside JO for automated, multistep outreaches. Early feedback is now shifting from basic usage to scale and governance:  Pre-filtered lists: Admins should be able to create approved, pre-filtered base lists that users can then extend/refine. Shared template structure: When sharing personal templates, a folder structure for shared templates would allow scoping to a specific team. Admin visibility: Email/Admin users should have visibility into Group Send templates to more easily promote proven content into JO use cases where appropriate. Extend Group Send Template Availability to Group Send permissioned users at P360. CTA, and Timeline level. Group Send users should be able to access their Personal and Shared Templates from anywhere in the platform. This is not a current capability. Ensure that every email has an Admin Defined privacy statement that can be enforced for all Operational Templates and Non-Operational Templates sent using Email Assist. None of these are blockers – they’re signals of healthy adoption and teams already thinking in terms of lifecycle and scale.​@ahelminski 

    1
    rrobinson
    2 days ago
    Gaby
    GabyHelper ⭐️

    For emails use the variable "first name" under profile fields opposed to just "username"Open

    I’d like to use the "first name" in system and campaign emails under profile fields opposed to just username just “login information”. Sometimes people’s usernames don’t make the emails feel personalized and like spam or have weird characters and spaces. First name would look much better but it’s not an option.

    5
    Daniele Cmty
    5 days ago
    johje69Contributor ⭐️⭐️

    Notifications - Staircase AINew Idea

    I setup a folder for notfiations but I can’t rename it. Can a edit button be made available?

    0
    5 days ago
    CyJervis
    CyJervisContributor ⭐️⭐️⭐️

    Automated profile sanitization when banning (Profile Spam)New Idea

    When banning a user, either via AI high confidence spam detection or manual moderator action, their public profile stays visible. Spammers exploit this by creating accounts purely for link farming; even after being banned from posting, their spammy profile fields and forum signatures remain.The ProposalAdd an automated sanitization trigger when an account is banned, backed by an admin-level configuration toggle. Trigger Scope: Executes on both automated AI bans and manual moderator bans. Fields Purged: Clears all profile fields and signatures, and resets avatars to default. Admin Setting (Opt-In/Opt-Out): Add a toggle under Community Settings > Moderation:

    0
    CyJervis
    5 days ago
    angela_domenichelli
    angela_domenichelliContributor ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

    Program Failure distinctionNew Idea

    In the new Program banner, any Program that has participants fail in the past 24 hours is listed in the count of “failed” Programs.  Participants “fail” for legitimate reasons, like preventing a dulicate email from being sent.Years ago for a very short period of time, Gainsight was sending notification emails for these participants that failed to join.  But quickly rolled that back because it created too much noise.Now, the noise is in the banner.Gainsight, please stop calling participants that fail to join because they ahve already met uniqueness or the email is only allowed to join once in x days “failures.”  If you must still categorize them as failures, remove them from the banner like you did the email notification.  A Program level failure is the Program failed to turn on when scheduled.  Or that the query failed to run.  Or the emails failed to send because, for example, Gainsight infuriatingly still allows email templates to be edited that are used in a Live Program without re-mapping them in the Program - but that’s a whole other post.

    1
    angela_domenichelli
    5 days ago
    saratoomicContributor ⭐️

    Include Salesforce Chatter Notes in Staircase AI Handover AnalysisNew Idea

    We would love to see Salesforce Chatter notes and conversations included in Staircase AI Handover Analysis.Currently, the analysis provides valuable insights based on emails and meetings, but a significant amount of customer context is often captured in Salesforce Chatter. This can include:Key customer requirements Internal handover notes Implementation updates Risks and blockers Customer goals and success criteria Important decisions and follow-up actionsWithout Chatter data, CSMs may miss critical information that was never discussed in an email or meeting.Business ImpactIncluding Chatter notes would:Create more comprehensive handover summaries Reduce information loss between Sales and Customer Success Improve onboarding and adoption conversations Help CSMs become productive faster Increase the overall value and accuracy of AI-generated handoversFor teams that rely heavily on Salesforce as their source of truth, Chatter often contains some of the most important customer context. Bringing this into Staircase AI would make handover analysis significantly more powerful.Use CaseAt NinjaOne, many customer details are documented directly in Salesforce Chatter during the sales cycle. Having Staircase AI analyze this information alongside emails and meetings would provide a much more complete picture when transitioning accounts to Customer Success.

    0
    6 days ago
    Show more activity

    Filter by product area

    • All product areas
    • Gainsight CS
    • Staircase AI
    • Gainsight PX
    • Gainsight CC
    • Skilljar by Gainsight
    • Gainsight CE

    Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement