Product Ideas | Gainsight Community

6164 Ideas

AmarendraGainsight Employee ⭐️

Adding a Contact When Creating an ActivityNew Idea

"When typing an external contact and it shows “No Record Found”. It would be helpful to have the ability add a new contact record at the pop out screen. It would save many clicks."

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

Sai Kumar PadalaGainsight Employee ⭐️

show the dependencies of a URL in In-App Hub (formerly KC Bot) like which bots include the URLs and whereNew Idea

A feature to show the dependencies in a KC BOT like which bots include the URLs.When I try to delete a link from the ‘Google search knowledge base’ from the integrations page, there is no way for me to find which KC BOTs include this URL without reaching out to customer support.Current solution to find this is manually going through all the KCBOTs content → web links, recommendations, Editor --> Search --> Google Search Domains: Integrations page Editor --> Search --> Google Search Domains Engagement's Content tab --> Web Links sectionSo, it would be good if there is a facility to know which bot included a specific URL.

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

manda.edmondsContributor ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Scorecard auto-calculateNew Idea

It would be fantastic if there was a distribute evenly feature on scorecard measures. Sometimes, this can be remarkably tedious to get just right. Example: I have 9 health score elements and would love a button that says distribute the remainder evenly. Each product family we have in this element should be weighted the same. I started with the remainder divided, but I had to fiddle for an extended period of time to reach 100% precisely. This would be a significant time saver!

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

bradleyExpert ⭐️

Consistent Field Layout ConfigurationNew Idea

I would like the ability to configure field order and layouts however I want, and consistent throughout the product.Consider the following two sections:This is from an Attributes section of the C360. All of these are string fields, which take up one column width. Notice how they are arranged vertically to spell SMART: This is from the Plan Info page of a Success Plan, looking at the EXACT same fields. All string fields that take up one column width. Notice how the order is snaked:Look up “Don’t dead open inside” and you’ll know what I mean. This second option just looks silly for one thing, and is inconsistent on the other. Please give us the level of control you see in the FIRST example, throughout the product. I use C360 and Success Plan as examples, but they are just that - examples. This should not be considered a comprehensive review of all the places this should align on.

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

andreammeldeHelper ⭐️⭐️

More CTA Options in a Success PlanNew Idea

Only allowing one CTA type of Objective in a Success Plan is super limiting. That means every objective has have the same field layout and status options regardless of the goal of the Success Plan. For example, we have a success plan for our customer KPI’s and Goals, and another Success Plan type for an audit of our customer’s instance with recommendations. These are different reasons and have some different data points we want to capture. These are very different angles, but have a long term timeline that make sense to have them grouped to a Success Plan With the KPI we want the starting value, target value, and ending value but we do not need those on the Recommendation. On the Recommendation, we want to show LOE and Implementation Difficulty, but do not need that for a KPI tracking. We also want a status for “Closed Not Implemented” or “Closed Implemented”. These do not make sense for a KPI

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

balajibvContributor ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Trigger a rule when an activity is createdNew Idea

We monitor certain types of Activities and run certain actions/metrics based on the type of activities and to which object it is linked to.It would be really nice to create a trigger for e.g.If a timeline entry is added/associated to a CTA / Success Plan with parameters xxxxx, yyyy, then do xxxxxxxxxxxThis will improve Manager tracking of critical events, reduce dependency on running a rule chain frequently to achieve this.

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

jjarvisHelper ⭐️

Drop Down Lists in scorecard widget reportNew Idea

Hi, I have a Scorecard mass edit report that has some MDA dropdown lists. It would be useful if there was an inline filter on this field type. Thanks,

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

bradleyExpert ⭐️

Please Have Documentation Match Product FunctionalityNew Idea

This is specifically about the new rollout of the Cockpit and Task Real Time Rule action, but really this should be treated more as an example than a request to just fix one thing, hence the generic title. The fact that Real Time Rules doesn’t support Custom Events is a pretty important detail that should have made it directly into the release notes. Custom events are supported on other action types so there wouldn’t be a reason to think they would not be supported and should be called out here: If you follow the link to Events in Real-Time Rules you scroll down and see this: No particular call out that Custom isn’t supported, it’s just not listed. It really should be explicitly mentioned it is not supported. In my instance however, I have the option for custom: Maybe they forgot to add it to the docs as a supported action? After all, the fact that it’s being rolled out incrementally was added later.It’s not called out anywhere but it’s here on my list. No indication at this point it wouldn’t work. Until you try and add a field, then you see this: I’ve already made a post here about it and I hope it’s already on the roadmap, but clarity in documentation is super important and I’m just not seeing that. There’s also discrepancies around the actual functionality of some fields in an object which isn’t a great place to be either. An enterprise level platform needs accurate, reliable, and trustworthy documentation. With a quarterly release, time and resources need to be baked in to make sure that that happens.

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

kevinwesley-lynchContributor ⭐️

Learner Activity StatsNew Idea

When looking at a learner profile as an admin, I would like to see more details on the Activity tab. Here are some of the items:Last LoginLast Completed ActivityAudit History, when enrolled in courseAudit History, who enrolled (self or by which user)If using badges, which badges have been earned

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

bradleyExpert ⭐️

Data Validation on LookupsNew Idea

The ability for users to edit fields, especially en masse, has been expanding. Instead of just being limited to fields in areas like CTAs, Success Plan, etc., fields can also be edited on Mass Edit Scorecard reports, some 360 attribute areas, and more recently My Portfolio and even in-line editing.While these can make both admin and user lives easier, they unfortunately lack some pretty standard capabilities across areas of the product to make using it viable. There are so many admin restrictions and caveats, and so little ability for us to put guardrails consistently these benefits are sometimes rendered completely unusable.One main area is any kind of data validation when making lookup fields editable. There are a few places where this is possible, but even those are not done particularly well (see this post). However, we should be able to put the same filter validations anywhere we make a lookup editable (there may be some exceptions for certain system things). Example:If you add a lookup field to a CTA where you allow the user to edit it, you have the ability to set up filters to limit the results. This is super helpful if you want to make sure a user can only add a record related to that company: If you have a lookup on the Company object, there does not appear to be any way to add this kind of filter either at the field level, or in the report setup when you want to allow in line editing to change what record the lookup is associated to. What this means, is that if you have say, a look up to the CTA object and you want to associate a particular CTA via that lookup, you cannot restrict the search to CTAs just for that company or relationship. You get every CTA under the sun. You might even be limited in the search fields you can display, to even show what company the record is associated with in the first place.This just makes an overall poor and inconsistent experience for both admins and users.Please allow us to set up filter/validation restrictions on lookups throughout the platform, if we are asking for user input.

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

bradleyExpert ⭐️

360 Attributes Field Support Widget vs SectionNew Idea

The 360 Attributes widget on the Summary section and 360 Attributes section allow for different types of fields.On the dedicated Attributes section, you can add Rich Text fields On the widget in Summary, you can NOT add Rich Text fieldsThere might be other examples, but the two attributes areas should have parity with one another. I get that there is generally less space available on the widget vs a dedicated section, but if you can add a report widget on the Summary section with rich text, I don’t see why you can’t have an attributes widget with Rich Text - it will probably take up less space than a report with a single record doing the same thing would.I mention another discrepancy here: I don’t understand why they are not the same. Please add Rich Text field support on the Attributes widget in the Summary section that already exists on the dedicated Attributes section.A general review of parity issues would be appreciate so I don’t have to make a post about every single thing I find (I’m sure there are some I’ll miss, and I’m not trying to QA this).

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

bradleyExpert ⭐️

360 Attributes Lookup Levels Widget vs SectionNew Idea

This is probably a duplicate but I couldn’t find another similar post.The 360 Attributes widget on the Summary section and 360 Attributes section allow for different levels of lookup.On the widget in Summary, you can go: Company>Success Plan>Lookup>Name But on the dedicated Attributes section, you can only go: Company>Success Plan>Lookup I don’t understand why they are not the same. Please add the additional lookup level on the Attributes section that already exists on the Attributes widget on the Summary tab.

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

VIjayasailesh KaturiContributor ⭐️

Unable do rename the Customer Goal fieldsNew Idea

Hi Team,We are unable to rename the fields in Customer Goals and update the Inline comments under Description Please do let us know if it is in future pipeline and your comments/thoughts about this. Regards,Vijayasailesh

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

alizeeVIP ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Make rich text filterable and searchable or string text character limit extendableNew Idea

Hi there,Salesforce string data can contain more than 500 characters, while Gainsight can only fit 500 characters. Meanwhile, rich text cannot be filtered on or searched through which makes it somewhat useless. We need a hybrid:

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

TMaierHelper ⭐️

Update Qualifications for "Last Modified" Warning on DDNew Idea

Currently, Data Designer produces a warning via a banner at the top of the Explore page when modifications were made since the last run. The intent here, which is very good, is to warn people that logic affecting the output of the design may have been updated since the last run. Refreshing the DD resolves any conflict, all good. The issue I found is that ANY modification to the DD seems to trigger this warning. In my case, I updated the email listed for failure notifications and got this… While I appreciate the intention behind the warning, and would pick too many warning over too few, I think this behavior can potentially lead to confusion - most of us expect this to mean “You changed something in the design and your output will be inaccurate if you dont rerun this design”. If possible, could we have this changed such that the warning is only triggered by edits to the actual task config in the designs?

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

darkknightExpert ⭐️

Rules Engine: Change Execution Data Flow diagram to display verticallyNew Idea

When you have a lot of actions based on multiple dataset tasks, the Execution Data Flow diagram sprawls all the actions out horizontally, requiring a significant amount of scrolling (or zooming out to the point of unreadable) to get to the execution results for each action: Horizontally laid out resultsIt would be so much better for admins if the results could be structured vertically instead, similar to:

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

angela_domenichelliContributor ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Email Assist cc option always available or configurableNew Idea

Our end users often cc others on emails sent using email assist. Please allow this option to be always visible without clicking “cc”, or configurable for tenant / end users to toggle this to make it always visible.

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

angela_domenichelliContributor ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

Pre-populate or Lookup options for Email Assist To & CCNew Idea

We use email assist in CTAs with the Add Email option instead of with a Playbook because our users need to access translated versions of the email templates. Therefore, we cannot ever have the To or CC lines pre-populated with the email address. If we did use the email task in a Playbook, we could only pre-populate the To line with data at the time the CTA fired and not the real-time current contact. Suggesting any of the following improvements:Allow Admins to configure the To and CC for Email Templates in the Builder Allow end users to look-up fields on the Company / Relationship to bring in an email, similar to how CTA assignments can be searched by CSM or other fields

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

tatkinsonContributor ⭐️⭐️

Field Dependencies in CSQL (GS Leads)New Idea

I am not sure why but the typical pick list dependency functionality is not available in GS leads. I believe this should be standard functionality anywhere you use pickists including multi-select picklists.Not only is his functionality incredibly useful but to me it just makes sense for consistency across the platform.

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

awellsContributor ⭐️⭐️

Fix User Management in PXNew Idea

I don’t know how else to put this so allow me to be blunt, and I will apologize up front for seeming overly passionate here. User management in PX doesn’t work. Unlike in Gainsight CS, user fields are locked. You cannot modify the user’s name or email without, as support informed me, creating a new user account and transferring ownership to the new account. This is beyond frustrating considering names and emails change all the time. You get married and want to have your new name reflected in PX? New account! Someone misspelled your email address and need it fixed? New account! You went through an email migration and now have a different domain in your email address? You guessed it, new account! Oh and it gets better. A new account means you have to go through the account activation flow all over again. So that means another welcome email sent to your users and another password being created that may or may not be used. And don’t forget after the user activates a new account you cant just get rid of the old one you have to transfer ownership of reports and dashboards, otherwise that user has to redo all their work. Rather than doing all that wouldn’t it be easier if we could just, you know, be able to edit the fields?Okay now that my rant is over here is what I would like to suggest:Establish a unique identifier that is not the email address. ← From my conversations with support that I am lead to believe email address is what you are using as the unique identifier. Allow admins to edit the email, first name, and last name fields. ← Again names and emails change all the time for various reasons. Allow admins to decide if a welcome email should be sent out. ← If you are using an IDP then you may not want these to go out. From the user management page allow admins to reset a password and/or require password reset on next sign in. ← For those who allow users to log in via password On the topic of passwords allow the admin to set a password policy. Being able to bulk create users would also be nice or better yet allow for just in time provisioning from the IDP.I’ll stop here this is already borderline a novel. Bottom line please fix user management in PX. Creating a new account for everything is not sustainable, causes unneeded confusion with the users, and makes managing users painful.

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

heather_landgrafContributor ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

track success plan sharingNew Idea

How can I generate a report that can detail what success plans have been shared and to whom? I see I can get a list then click into the recipient details one by one, but how to create a report for non admins to see and that has all the info instead of clicking in one by one? [Success Plan Configuration Manage Success Plans Sharing].

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

bradleyExpert ⭐️

S3 Export as Rule ActionNew Idea

Basically a repost of this: that I made during the Horizon Rules Beta a year ago, but figured I’d make it into a votable (and visible idea). I would love to see S3 Export as an action, rather than having to go into your data setup, toggle it on and set it up on a given fetch like you do for DD today. Having it instead as an action, would give you more flexibility in how you can use the S3 as well as make it more intuitive. I realize there isn’t a carryover to Data Designer for this, so also leaving the option to do it as it is today is fine (albeit a bit confusing), but I would consider it an “action” and having all of those in one place just makes sense. As an added bonus, you could easily filter your rules by Action Type of “S3”, instead of todays method of document, guess and check, poke around in Analyzer, or some combination of those.

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

juan.delrioHelper ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Event calendar link enhancementNew Idea

Currently, this is coded to add the event page to the calendar. I think it should be coded to add the event description and optional link (which would be the direct Zoom call link), eliminating a step in the chain to join the meeting and reproducing how normal meetings work in your calendar.

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

darkknightExpert ⭐️

Change "Once in X Days" and "Include in identifiers" interdependency for auto-generated CTAsNew Idea

I could have sworn there was a post about this sometime in the past, but here goes:The use of the "Create CTA Once in X days" functionality when combined with the "Include in Identifiers" option creates a problem that has existed for a long time but still has no solution.If a CSM edits the name of a CTA, it resets the “once in X Days” restriction that’s supposed to prevent duplicate CTAs. This means that after the name change, the system no longer treats the CTA as an existing one and will trigger a new CTA before the X-day window expires. This causes duplicate CTAs for the same task, cluttering workflows and creating confusion.The only thing I can do as an admin is say “Please don’t change the name of the CTA, ok?” which is routinely ignored bc users either don’t pay attention to enablement half the time or go rogue. Why this is problematic:Duplicate CTAs: Name changes bypass the X-day restriction, so you can end up with multiple CTAs for the same issue, adding unnecessary clutter. Inaccurate Reporting: Multiple CTAs skew reports and tracking, leading to data inconsistencies. Wasted Time: Admins or CSMs have to manually clean up these duplicates, defeating the purpose of automated workflows. Isn’t there a backend value that correlates a triggered CTA to a specific action that can be used in the “X-days” evaluation instead of the CTA Name?Or, at a minimum, give us an option in a rule action to “lock” the CTA Name from being edited for CTAs that are auto-triggered.

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

bjoern_schulzeHelper ⭐️⭐️⭐️

Archive: Better SEO redirects (301 instead of 302)Open

Why:Gainsight offers archive categories in order to exclude content from being crawled by search robots. Redirects have been put in place so that crawlers receive information about the status of the archived content.Using the correct SEO redirect has an impact on the overall SEO performance of the platform and can make other content on the platform more visible.How:A 301 redirect indicates that a piece of content has been permanently moved to a new location, while a 302 redirects indicates that content has been moved temporarily. A crawler that receives information about a 301 redirect will focus on non-archived content on the platform instead, which will make this content more visible. This will improve the overall SEO performance of the platform and will likely lead to more SEO clicks to the content that isn’t archived.Gainsight currently uses 302 redirects for archived content.What:I propose to use 301 redirects instead of 302 redirects. Most archived content is moved to an archived category permanently, so the crawler should be informed accordingly and not expect to see the status of the archived content change.

Forum|Forum|1 year ago

Idea Pipeline

Filter by idea status

Filter by product area