Hi teamWith the Dynamics connector, when mapping a field using a derived mapping, I can choose “Reject Record” for the “When No Matches Are Found” option.When the connector job runs and only sees records that are rejected for this reason, the status of the job is marked as “Failed”This behaviour isn’t consistent with a failure — it’s correctly and successfully rejecting the records based on our predefined criteria.It would be great if situations like this could show a different status, or be included under “Success”.This would help us with configuring notification emails and identifying true failures of the connector job.ThanksJon
Hi, IS there any additional discussions around having an option to send JO emails to timelines? I don’t think it needs to be necessary for all correspondence, but definitely for customer facing CSM activities. Thank you.
All configuration options from the CTA Rule Action should be available in the export from Analyzer on this section. Particularly what I was looking for when I came across this was the Default Owner. This should really be a self-serve location for all things related to CTA Rule Actions though.
The issue is that in Data Designer when applying a filter email equal to, it doesn’t accept an email address as input, it expects a name... In addition to being confusing, it is counterproductive because an email is a unique identifier but a name is not.These screenshots are from DD using AO Participants object as the source, but it's the same behavior if applying the filter directly in Person:In Report Builder, using Person as the source object and the equal operator you have two possible outcomes:If the Person record has the Name not null, you get the result. If it is null, you are out of luck, it’s not possible to apply the filter.Buuut… if the name is null but you use the “contains” instead of equal operator, you get the result too. It’s an inconsistent and non-intuitive user experience. Is it possible to change the behavior to be able to actually use the email address as a filter? P.S: This other post was created from support on my behalf based on a query I initiated last month, but as it lacks some context and an explanation of the extent of the issue, I’m creating this one
Please expand analytics for information passed through custom events. At the moment, custom events can be used in our analytics reports but there isn’t a way to drill down and get a report of the data passed through a custom event by a group of customers. In order to get this information, we need to look in each user’s profile and there isn’t a way to pull the information into a report.
We have reports created to show the due date of specific CTA tasks grouped by week. However if there are no due dates for that particular week, the graphs skips the date. We want to be able to show 0 for these dates rather than have it skipped. Is it possible to require this on graph setup? I tried with both line and bar graphs, and both skip the 0 week
Creating a copy the below question as an “idea” as suggested by PX support team :)
As of today, when scheduling rules or rule chains, a user only has the following time zone options to schedule in:Timezone listed in user profile Timezone listed in application settings UTCIn a world of remote working, a given organization may have a business need to schedule in a time zone other than these three options to keep all rules synchronized (ex, application settings are in CST, user operates on IST, all rules synchronized to EST). In this case, the current configuration would not catch all the needs of the company. There should be a way to add additional time zones for scheduling rules from Rules Engine>Rules Settings (or perhaps even just a way to request an option be added on an organization-by-organization basis if nothing else). In cases in which the org would like to schedule rules/rule chains in a timezone other than the one found in their user’s or application’s settings without re-configuring one of those each time they need to schedule something, the only workaround that I have been able to think of this far is to have a “Rule Scheduling” dummy user in the desired ‘scheduling time zone’ (to make that timezone available within the schedule setup window), which the admins could use to schedule the rule after building it out from their own login (to maintain the accuracy of the “created by” field). Downside being that this would effectively occupy a full license, so likely isn’t the ideal solution.
I always recommend my end users reduce their browser view from 100% to 80% because Horizon Analytics (HA) doesn’t make good use of space. I’d love to see you revamp the HA experience with tiles, fonts, etc. that make much better use of the limited available space! I’m imaging smaller margins around report titles… smaller margins in general to free us more space in and around tiles. Specific features I’d love are:In a table report, “fit all columns to visible space”. Essentially squeezes all the column widths to the visible space inside the table report. It’s really annoying to adjust column widths and then have them just stuck forever. Often times just one column is adjusted to fit the columns to the entire visible space, when it’s much cleaner to evenly distribute all columns. In-line editing in table reports.
I understand that we can enable Bionic pickplist labels which exposes dropdown list values in the rule export or execution results. But what if, I need to do some transformation like concatenation -- framing a Product name using concat( Opportunity Name, Product Type) where Product Type is a Dropdown item. Now the result is coming like this -ABC Opportunity 1I0054W9FAKXZ0H26HOVC484TSFM5160JI8N. As a workaround I am using Case expression. But would like to if there is any future enhancement with regard to this?
Hi Team,Currently editing String fields on Gainsight Home “My Portfolio” is difficult for users to work with. The string fields don’t expand to display the full text value of what they enter, and instead it tabs across as they type, only showing a short snippet of their input. This is an unfortunate user experience as they have to scroll back across to look for mistakes or make updates. There is also poor formatting to indicate that the character limit of the field has been passed.What I would like to see here instead is that the field will expand into perhaps a pop-out editing section, similar to what happens with picklists in this section, and the user can therefore see the full string value as they are editing, as opposed to the small snippet that is shown today.It would also be great to incorporate the character limit into a change like this too.Thanks,Brian
We have a need to update the status of CTAs to "In Progress" once any task has been completed on the CTA. Currently, a CTA will stay in a "New" status until it is manually updated by the CSM or edited through Mass Edit. For tracking and reporting, we'd like to know how many CTAs are truly "New" (e.g. never been worked on) vs. "In Progress" (e.g. some action has been taken, but not all tasks completed). Our CSMs would also like to be able to filter New and In Progress quickly without having to manually update the status for each CTA. Mass Edits are not reoccurring so it would have to be a manual process for an admin. Rules Engine would be ideal but currently the "Call to Action" function in "Setup Action" will not change the status of an existing CTA (it can upsert to other fields but status cannot be changed via Rules - confirmed both internally and with Gainsight Support). Adding this capability to Rules Engine would allow an admin to schedule a rule to run everyday to modify the status to align CTAs with their current progress. This is similar to the request here but specific to adding functionality to Rules Engine to have more control over updating the status (Rules could be used to update to any status vs automation to change to In Progress specifically).
Exporting Success Plan data to Asana and as well as importing asana projects into Success plans. We have to use external tools sometimes to collaborate on objectives at a project level and using Asana helps us.
White space between navigation options (C360) as well as fields (Attributes section) can be shrunk so that more values can be seen on a single page as well as prevent the need for scrolling.
Currently, when a participant list is generated and all fields are mapped, they are “locked” with those values. This makes it prohibitive to use Journeys for communications over time. Here are some examples of issues:CSM changes after the Journey starts CTA is assigned to the CSM when the participant list was created instead of the current CSM Emails are sent from a previous CSM, and the client may even respond to a previous CSM Client’s email address changes Email is sent to an old email, potentially exposing company information to a non-customer Other fields become outdated Tokenized fields in CTAs and email templates surface inaccurate information the day the communication is created The participant List is mapped to fields with real-time updates and the file should be upserted at minimum before each time an action within the program is occurring for those participants.
I was disappointed to find out today that despite the system looking like it lets you rename reports within a “Report” section in the C/R360, Gainsight has actually classified this as a bug. Rather than fix the system to make the editing functionality actually work and therefore let admins rename reports to something more end-user friendly, they are going to “fix” the editing functionality by not allowing us to edit the report names at all - and therefore stick us with whatever the report is called in Report Builder. My use case is that we have 5 R360 layouts, and due to a limitation in our data I had to clone and tweak reports for a few different objects. I appended the relationship name to the end of each contract report - i.e. Contracts (Relationship A), which goes on Relationship A’s R360; Contracts (Relationship B), which goes on Relationship B’s R360, etc. I tried to edit the report name in each R360 to just say “Contracts,” (see screenshot below) which obviously makes way more sense to end users, but I wasn’t seeing the change reflected in the R360s. That’s when I found out Gainsight said it’s a bug to allow the editing interface at the report level in the first place.
It seems like there is no way to swap a conditional wait for a wait timer without having to delete everything that comes after that part of the program. This is also true for an email or CTA. Knowing how the needs of customers and our interactions with them evolve, it would be a nice UX improvement to allow users to edit and adjust the flow of a program without having to recreate the entire journey. I'd like the ability to delete or swap a conditional wait for a wait timer and the ability to swap or add a new step into the program that isn't the last step.
Instead of requiring an entirely different Success Plan Layout for sub-types of Success Plans, it would be amazing if we could have dynamic sections of the SP. For example: Onboarding Success Plan with all universal sections at the top. Then, based on a controlling picklist field such as Onboarding Type, additional sections appear. Current state is that we either need to create a different SP layout for each subtype (which is made even more difficult by the fact that we cannot clone SP layouts) or we need to make those additional sections and just tell users to ignore it. Can work for some use cases, but not when we are also sharing those SPs out to customers.
Hey Guys, As our users often make use of the picture upload feature, there's a growing demand for additional functionality on this point. As it stands, images are uploaded in a fixed size, following their original aspect ratio. Especially when a user has posted several print screens this makes for quite a long and unreadable post. Therefore, we'd love to see the option to resize images implemented(i.e. by dragging corners). Who's with me on this? I know this would appeal to any photography centered communities as well. 🙂 Greetings, Thomas
Background: Maintaining an up to date Product Map is critical to data integrity and ease of reporting, so the Product Map should reflect the architecture of a product. There are times at which large scale edits are required (ie. QA for a major release, shifting UI elements to different pages, etc.). Problem: Features in the Product Map must be modified one by one. This includes moving features to other modules, backfilling, deleting, and so on. If you need to make large scale edits (ie. relocate 10 features from one module to another, or delete 30 features), the process is repetitive and tedious. Request: Allow users to edit multiple features at once. The ideal edit options would be to move, delete, and backfill.
Hi Team, In reports, if we change the colour palette settings, it will applicable to all the reports. But customer also want to restrict the colours to only specific report.https://share.getcloudapp.com/v1uEDkOR Customer name - Inovalon
If you ever had a profile with us, there's no need to create another one.
Don't worry if your email address has since changed, or you can't remember your login, just let us know at community@gainsight.com and we'll help you get started from where you left.
Else, please continue with the registration below.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.