Skip to main content
Contributor ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
June 3, 2024
Released

Reconfigure Query in Active JO (new version)

Related products:CS Journey Orchestrator
  • June 3, 2024
  • 56 replies
  • 1382 views

I’m trying to adopt the new version of Journey Orchestrator, but keep finding areas where it’s not in parity with the old version!

 

In the new version, if your participant list is based on a query, that query can’t be edited once it’s active. It can’t even be edited if you pause the journey. The only solution I see is to clone the journey, make updates in the new, and activate changes in a new program. TL;DR this is a hassle, and time consuming! This is challenging because you have to then manage different versions, potential exclusion list for the new JO to not pull in participants from an old version, you have to monitor the old to make sure everyone has complete before stopping, you have to create reports to get analytics of all versions, etc.

 

Would love to see the flexibility that the old version had, where you can adjust your queries on active JO’s. 

56 replies

kelly
Helper ⭐️⭐️⭐️
November 14, 2024

Feature. Parity. PLEASE.

What’s funny about this lack of parity is old JO didn’t used to be editable, either. It would be good to consider existing functionality or at least consider what prior pain points were resolved and avoid them in new functionality with future releases. 

dayn.johnson
VIP ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
November 14, 2024

Feature. Parity. PLEASE.

What’s funny about this lack of parity is old JO didn’t used to be editable, either.

Yup… certain parts of old JO still aren’t editable, but I’ve accepted that.

We can’t change how a journey is structured (audience > email > wait > conditional evaluate > second email to end), nor can we change the actual template or add in new calculated fields, but we can change things like:

  • Query logic
  • Journey logic and timings
  • Mapping new fields (including mapping strings to email)

So many details to keep track of… what we can change vs what’s locked upon publish.

Staff CS Content & Comms Manager, 2x Gainsight CS Ops Product Council Member
rho_ran_experian
Contributor ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
December 10, 2024

I’m going to add my experience with Ghosted fields.  I built my first JO in the new builder because I needed the flexibility of the query builder.   Unfortunately, I won’t be using it again.  In the old builder you can see the Company name along with the participant name, email and other mapped fields.  In the new builder after you publish, you only see the Company GSID, participant name and email.  I now have to run a report to provide my users with a useable list of participants and their status instead of just being able to download the participant list from the program.  Extra steps and time that shouldn't be necessary.  An upgraded functionality should keep the basics of the previous functionality at a minimum.  

dcassidy
Helper ⭐️⭐️
December 10, 2024

Cannot agree enough with the above - an absolute waste of time. 

alizee
VIP ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
December 11, 2024

I’m going to add my experience with Ghosted fields.  I built my first JO in the new builder because I needed the flexibility of the query builder.   Unfortunately, I won’t be using it again.  In the old builder you can see the Company name along with the participant name, email and other mapped fields.  In the new builder after you publish, you only see the Company GSID, participant name and email.  I now have to run a report to provide my users with a useable list of participants and their status instead of just being able to download the participant list from the program.  Extra steps and time that shouldn't be necessary.  An upgraded functionality should keep the basics of the previous functionality at a minimum.  

Yup! I have to run my query as a DD in parallel to get a report to review my participants… doubles the time for our renewals program… 

The most expensive part of building is the mistakes. That's true in construction. Not so much in CSOps. So ask questions, make mistakes and learn. All views expressed here are my own.
dayn.johnson
VIP ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
December 11, 2024

I’m going to add my experience with Ghosted fields.  I built my first JO in the new builder because I needed the flexibility of the query builder.   Unfortunately, I won’t be using it again.  In the old builder you can see the Company name along with the participant name, email and other mapped fields.  In the new builder after you publish, you only see the Company GSID, participant name and email.  I now have to run a report to provide my users with a useable list of participants and their status instead of just being able to download the participant list from the program.  Extra steps and time that shouldn't be necessary.  An upgraded functionality should keep the basics of the previous functionality at a minimum.  

 

Adding my observations here as well. Our (single) dynamic JO originally had a query source, but we had to clone it, rebuild it using a data design for the source, and relaunch it since we had to make changes to the query after publishing it, and I wanted to prevent having to repeatedly stop and restart that program in the future as more new programs.

One of the side-effects of using dynamic JO is that a new data object is created for each dynamic JO after launch with the participant data. Enter the ghost data issue.

  • Our first iteration of the program (query source) has 18 participant fields in the object
  • Our second iteration (data design source) has… participant fields

Why is it so difficult to show the participant data on these programs?

If we build a program and include those fields in the program -- we should be able to see those details for program participants. This is where custom field mapping is incredibly helpful in the classic advanced program builder, and is why we can’t justify launching external programs in dynamic JO yet (see the related post below). Even if we have more data available in the show section in the query, we can still control exactly what fields are visible in the participant list by mapping them ourselves.

 

Staff CS Content & Comms Manager, 2x Gainsight CS Ops Product Council Member
Carol_Keyes
Helper ⭐️
December 13, 2024

This is a big challenge for us and each time our stakeholder have a “tweak” they want to something we are having to clone the program to modify a filter or add a field. PLEASE!!!! have this in the next release. Love the new shiny stuff but would love it more if the basics just worked. 

Carol Keyes
alizee
VIP ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
December 16, 2024

This is a big challenge for us and each time our stakeholder have a “tweak” they want to something we are having to clone the program to modify a filter or add a field. PLEASE!!!! have this in the next release. Love the new shiny stuff but would love it more if the basics just worked. 

In the meantime, I recommend using data designer which will provide more flexibility, surely filtering would be solved, adding fields as well but it depends for what purpose (how the new field would be used). 

The most expensive part of building is the mistakes. That's true in construction. Not so much in CSOps. So ask questions, make mistakes and learn. All views expressed here are my own.
rrobinson
Contributor ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
December 20, 2024

New JO can not be trusted, very frustrating to work with as it seems to have random behaviors and significant core function regression.

Field mapping is so basic and such a constant need, why take the power to configure this away? 

Not only are the basics taken away, the automatic decisions it makes for us are unwanted and often wrong.

Ghosting fields makes reporting much harder than it needs to be, why?

What GS Admin focus group helped decide this products direction? I can’t find anyone championing this - all the feedback is negative.

-RR
revathimenon
Gainsight Community Manager
December 23, 2024
The following idea has been merged into this idea:

All the votes have been transferred into this idea.
Where focus goes, energy flows.