It would be great if we could assign specific timeline note templates to activity types. So when an activity type is selected, a note template is automatically applied by default.Today, the user has to select a timeline note template manually- leaving the possibility of selecting the wrong template.
While Note Templates are a great way to standardize data capture, they currently can only be applied broadly at the Activity Type level. This rolls all milestones into the same bucket, creating a poor UX where end-users have to scroll or search through a long list to find the "correct" template for their specific scenario. Proposed SolutionGive admins the capability to select the specific milestone(s) to which a Note Template applies, rather than just the top-level Activity Type.Combined with a couple of existing requests on the radar, this would create a comprehensive, smooth, and significantly better UX overall: Milestone Mapping: Directs end users straight to the right template without the search fatigue. Token Auto-Fill: As requested in this idea Enforced Defaults: As requested in this idea
For anyone organization working with federal customers, it is very difficult to work with applications that are not FedRamp certified. Since Gainsight is not currently FedRamp certified, it has been very difficult for us to fully utilize the platform for all the features. To gain internal InfoSec approval, we have to put workarounds in to filter out or limit anything related to our federal customers. Our InfoSec team realizes that Gainsight has many security certifications and controls in place, but this still doesn’t replace the need for FedRamp to work with federal customers.
Currently, Gainsight’s External Actions lack native response parsing. While we can run a GET command, there is no way to extract data from the payload, nor can we parse success/failure responses overall.We tried moving these API calls into Journey Programs to utilize the response evaluation nodes, but it causes significant system lag, delays the rest of the program, and still fails to accurately parse for issues.Proposed Solution: Introduce native response parsing and conditional logic directly within External Actions. Specifically: Data Parsing: The ability to extract and map variables from GET/POST/PUT response payloads to use in subsequent Gainsight actions. Error/Success Handling: The ability to parse HTTP status codes or response body keys to determine success/failure conditions natively. This would drastically improve Gainsight’s integration capabilities, reduce reliance on laggy Journey Program workarounds, and allow for real-time, data-driven actions based on external system responses.
Currently, Auto Email Capture in Gainsight CS logs emails to the Timeline based on domain matching, even if the sender isn't a current Company Person record. This causes Timeline noise by pulling in automated emails, marketing emails, and One-Time Passcodes (OTPs) from addresses like no-reply@domain.com.Proposed Solutions: Option 1 (Preferred): Add an option to only log emails when at least one external sender matches an active Company Person record. Option 2: Allow Gainsight Admins to add full email addresses to the Exclusion List (e.g., no-reply@domain.com), rather than being forced to block the entire domain (domain.com). Why it matters: This will improve Timeline hygiene, protect sensitive data (like OTPs), and give admins granular control over global email logging.
The related topics widget in the topic side bar that promotes discussions on sub-forums seems to pull really old topic atlas in our community. Even on very popular and much discussed topics it often shows 3-7 years old topics though I am sure there are a lot fresher topics on the same subject. Overall I don't think it gives a good impression of a community that the most related topics are several years old. At worst it gives the impression that there's only really old topics, no fresh discussion and the promoted topics can have old info in them. I think it would be good to have atlas max 1 year time frame added to this widget. Examples: https://yhteiso.elisa.fi/laajakaista-70/vdsl-yhteyden-nosto-30m-50m-511748 https://yhteiso.elisa.fi/laajakaista-70/elisan-kiinteae-laajakaista-paloheinaessae-511752
This is more than one suggestion, but all under one banner of “Formula fields are not great”. This is also specifically the experience of building formula/calculated fields in Data Management or for some objects their layout configurators, though there are honorable mentions from other areas. Along the same lines as this post, I should be able to add Formula Fields to the Company object in Data Management when I can do it from Customer Data>Company>+Field. Oddly, you can add formula fields to CTAs but I seem to get an error saving them. The actual formula build process is bad. Really bad. As just one example, which prompted this, is the Concat function. Delimiter values can only be selected from a dropdown of 5 values, there’s no custom option. To get around this, I had to do this jank: You can nest functions, but not very many and it’s quite clunky when you do. For concat values, you cannot manually add in just a space. You get an error. If any of your string values are null (e.g., you selected a field with no data) then the contact doesn’t work. That section just seems to get ignored. You can’t determine how many things you concatenate very easily - you can nest things but again, only so far and it’s not at all intuitive and you need an even number. Also the below text isn’t really relevant to all data types: and flat out doesn’t work for String fields. Even for number fields you have to start a function first. The wording is at best confusing and at worst totally wrong in my experience. You can’t access lookups when creating fields, unlike in reports. This makes sense, since you’re not pulling in the related object data the same way as when you open reports but while I’m making demands I might as well mention that it would be nice to have :) The UI doesn’t even match Data Management and Customer Data>Company or CTA>Custom Field, even though the functionality appears to be largely the same. They’re also still called Calculated fields. Speaking of UI mismatch, the experience of adding a formula field in Report builder was updated, and also doesn’t match the other two previously mentioned areas. The functionality here is largely the same (same problems) though you can get to lookup fields if you expend the lookup first. Notably, Horizon Rules has the most up to date Formula Field experience, that matches nowhere else in the platform it seems.
There are some cases where we need to use a Standard field, but we would prefer to have it be calculated based on other fields of data we have. Example: Renewal Centre - there are many OOB fields which require being used as they feed in to a lot of the automations and functionality built in to RC reporting, particularly the Analyze tab. Forecast is one of those fields, but we want forecast to use a case statement formula, where it uses an override if present, otherwise uses the value in another field. Right now we have this built in to a custom field, and then a rule that copies that value to the Forecast field - this provides a lag between updating numbers in RC and showing the impact in the Analyze tab.
There are various rules that update our success plans and CTA’s everyday. Because of this, the last modified date is always the same for all of them and last modified by the system admin. I believe there’s a way to distinguish this on the scorecard, but not for Success Plans or CTA’s. I’d love to be able to specify a specific modify by field and modified date that is an actual user versus the system admin. If there’s a way to do this and I’m missing it, would love to know, thanks!
Our CS team heavily uses the Outlook widget on Gainsight home and would like to have events set as “private” filtered out of the widget.
Hi Team, We have received a request in to Support for the ability to track the linking and un-linking of Cockpit Associated Records. For example, if the Opportunity Object were linked to a CTA, Admins may find it helpful to be able to see what Opportunity records had been linked to a given CTA at various points in time, who made the change, and when for internal auditing and tracking purposes. Thanks for the consideration!
Many of our customer facing teams and customers are Hebrew speaking so the little Gainsight Assist icon that pops up when you compose a message is in the way. There’s no way to move this now and I’d like to propose that it’s a movable icon. Small use case I know, but still helpful to our team.
We recently launched the Ideation module in our community and have been gathering feedback from our Product Managers on ways the moderation experience could be improved. Moving Ideas into our community has created a more unified customer experience, but there are several moderation and workflow capabilities our PMs relied on previously that would help streamline Idea management within Gainsight CC.Below are the enhancements our team would most like to see:Filtering & Idea ManagementIn our previous Ideas platform, filtering and reporting capabilities made it much easier for PMs to identify trends and customer activity. Our team would love to see additional filtering options such as:View all Ideas voted on by organization or email domain View all Ideas created by organization or email domain View all Ideas commented on by organization or email domain Easier workflows for identifying and merging related IdeasLonger term, our team would also be very interested in AI-powered Idea management capabilities to help:Identify duplicate or related Ideas Surface Ideas tied to similar topics or themes Analyze customer sentiment across submissionsWe realize AI functionality is a more forward-looking request, but wanted to share it as a future enhancement opportunity.Easier Idea MergingOur PMs would also love to see a more streamlined workflow for merging Ideas. Ideally:Click “Merge” Search for the related Idea using a type-ahead search (Idea name or URL) Complete mergeAdditionally, we’ve noticed that when Ideas are merged in Gainsight, the merged Idea currently only receives an automated comment at the bottom of the post. Users are still able to vote and comment on the original Idea, which can create confusion and fragment engagement across duplicate submissions.It would be helpful to improve the front-end experience and moderation controls for merged Ideas by:Displaying a more visible banner or notification at the top of the merged Idea Restricting additional voting and commenting activity on merged Ideas More clearly directing users to the active Idea threadModerator NotificationsWe would like the ability to assign PMs as moderators for specific product areas within Ideas. This would allow them to receive email notifications whenever a new Idea is submitted in the areas they oversee, helping them stay informed without needing to manually monitor the system throughout the day.Product Area PermissionsOne additional enhancement that would be valuable is the ability to restrict Idea submissions to specific product areas based on customer licensing. Ideally, licensing information could be used to create segments and we could give certain segments the ability to post in certain product areas. We recognize this is a complex request but would appreciate the consideration. Our customers are regularly posting in the wrong product area and it take a lot of time to manually sort and move posts.
I’m surprised this idea doesn’t exist already. We should be allowed to set different default open and closed statuses by CTA Type rather than a default across the board.
We regularly have customers reaching out asking to update their usernames or email addresses. It would be helpful for customers to have the ability to update this profile information themselves, rather than requiring our team to make the changes manually in Control.This would give customers more control over their account information while also saving our team time managing these minor but frequent requests.
We are currently setting up automated email capture in Gainsight CS. Due to Fed Ramp requirements , we have a specific segment of customers whose emails cannot be processed by an external system.Right now, the only way to prevent this is by adding their domains to the Domain Exclusion List in Staircase Settings. However, because the system doesn't currently support wildcards (e.g., *.gov), I had to manually parse through our customer contacts for this segment and add nearly 600 domains individually.The current UI dialog is incredibly cumbersome for manual entries at this scale. Furthermore, this creates a major operational burden for us, as we will have to manually maintain and update this list every time a new customer onboarding falls into this category.Request: We would like to see a more streamlined way to exclude domains or segments of customers from AI automation.
It would be really useful to be able to filter users (and create a segment) by matching all selected badges , and none of the selected badges.I would like to see the users who have completed a series of badges, or are still in the running. Use these segments for email campaigns and widget visibility.Cheers!
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.