Skip to main content

Hi, we are a SaaS Company and use the community to get improvement ideas from our clients. Votings are a first indication on the importance of ideas, but our development would like to get some more details on the usefulness and importance of ideas for our clients.

Therefore we’d like to have a more detailed Voting functionality for ideas, that exceeds a simple “upvote”. A rating scale to a question like:

How important is this idea for you?

Not important

Nice-to-have

Important

Critical

Would also include votes from users, that don’t see an idea as important and would give a better understanding, if an idea is just a nice to have or a critical blocker.

This would be a big benefit for our development to e able to prioritize user ideas.

This idea sounds interesting, and usefull.

Hmm. Maybe solution might be that there is a normal vote, as it is at the moment, and Gainsight builds new reactions to the platform.

Reactions would be something like:

  • Like
  • Critical
  • Important
  • Nice-to-have 
  • And so on

With this solution users can add these same reactions to the topics and comments as well. In our community users gives ideas and feedback while they discuss.

 

--

I would not use “Not important” reaction, if something is not important, then user just not vote.

Sorry, there isnt edit button:

I just would like to add that with extended reactions users can vote if there is bug in some product etc. Some bugs are critical, some of them are not.

New→Open

At first glance, this seemed like a valuable addition to me, but I'm also somewhat skeptical.

I already notice that when a Community member adds an idea, quite often he or she lets the idea circulate within his or her own company to collect internal votes.

This can speak to their level of engagement, but it can also be exploited by customers with many employees to push their ideas forward.

Introducing this expanded voting feature may lead even more to ideas being labeled by default as critical by larger customers, even when they are not, solely to expedite their implementation.

What are your thoughts on this?

Terms & ConditionsCookie settingsAccessibility statement