Hey,It would be very useful to add the URL to the Topic dimension table like it is done for the pageview table :-)
Today, for a Webhook trigger of type Engagement, we select a single engagement per trigger. We would like a capability to select multiple engagements within a single trigger event, in a similar way to how we can select multiple engagements/criteria in Audience logic of an engagement or in the Query Builder.The use case is to avoid creating multiple, nearly identical Webhooks or triggers when the downstream workflow is the same for a group of engagements.
Now that notifications are not limited to email-only… I’d love to see Likes added as a notification. (And eventually reactions of all types if/when emoji reactions are added to an updated UI and feed experience, as mentioned in the April 2024 road map webinar)This type of notification is pretty standard in these types of UI and it can be a potent driver of engagement and activity, especially when tied to gamification. And with the planned enhancement (according to the documentation) for customizing which types of In-app notifications a user sees, those who don’t want this type of update may eventually be able to disable it.
Some of our users didn’t consider that their usernames would be displayed publicly when they registered. That's why we have received some requests to change their usernames, because they themselves can’t change it. It would be great if it would be possible for users to change their usernames by themselves.
Like it is possible to customize the layout of the main landing page and custom pages it would be great to be able to customize the user experience in each community section and category.
Please change the best answer label from “Solved” to “Answered” or allow us to configure the word we want to use. The word “solved” is counterproductive to running our community as a peer-to-peer forum and not an official support channel. Product break/fix issues are often reported but cannot be “solved” via the community. It is important to us to be able to mark official employee responses as a best answer as they do represent the best advice we (Marketing team) can provide in that forum. Our members frequently complain about the “Solved” label and the negative sentiment it generates could be easily avoided with a simple label change.Examples of “best answers” that we want to mark:Referring a customer to support when the issue they brought up cannot be addressed via the community, sometimes with guidance around the best way to expedite their case Confirming that a known issue exists and will be fixed soon. We don’t always have the ability to come back and post when it is fixed. Confirming that a product gap exists (feature not available), with or without a workaround. When the answer is that we have passed along their feedback to the product team, members complain that it should not be marked “solved” until we add the feature they want. Providing advice, help articles, etc as a starting point when the customer may still need further assistance from support We need a best answer to reflect the outcome of the question and not the outcome of the issue that is the subject of the question since most of the time, the issue is resolved via other channels.
Ideally learners should be able to download their transcripts in CE. We’ve also had users request to be able to get transcripts for their whole org, to track learning progress.
If the Control button appears for a logged-in user, they should be able to click it to go on the Admin backend seamlessly.Removing the need for re-authentication for Control view should be a good riddance.
As a PX Admin,I want to create task lists for my In-App Hub that include web links to content or resources that are not hosted within PX itself (Articles or Engagements)Examples include:Videos that are hosted elsewhere (yes these could technically be embedded, but there are use cases beyond watching them in-app) Links to Community pages Links to website pagesSo that I can include outside of PX resources/tasks in my Task Lists for onboarding or other task list work flows. This allows me to truly build Task lists based on the user journey, rather than only what’s available as PX content.
Over the past months, we have run into a few separate issues that required us to create a ticket over topics that I feel should’ve been fixable by us as the admins. My request/improvement is to increase the error notices or the context provided to Admins regarding errors. The first example is regarding uploading an email to Timeline, the subject was the same as another post in the same account’s timeline, giving the very vague error message of “Unknown Error”. Requiring support to have to come in and tell us what that Unknown Error was. The second example, when wanting to set up the Connector for Zendesk to get ticket info into GS. We received multiple jobs failing notices stating "error occurred while fetching object," we had multiple tickets open on the topic, just to find out that Zendesk only allows 50 records per API call. Something that is a clear answer but not communicated to the Admins at all. Lastly, we ran into a major data discrepancy issue with PX data in CS, using the Daily Aggregated data. It is NOT clearly communicated that the data in that record is only stored for 90 days. There should be some sort of clear messaging when using those Daily objects and a date field. The support team, although very kind and responsive, were unable to tell us that this was the issue (a predetermined Gainsight setting that should be easily communicated) for OVER a month. Meaning, we thought that all of our usage data from PX was unreliable for all that time. And this is just a few examples, there are more that I can come up with if necessary. Even if this means Error Codes that GS Admins have to find and investigate, it would be a huge improvement, saving both that GS admin’s time AND the GS Support team.
As we are a mature community we do have a long history of exchanging private messages with our customers. Sometimes we might have a case of a possible stolen identity, fraud or other misuse. So, sometimes there is a need to check messages and details from older messages, and in a case of stolen identity, there might be two community users pretending to be the same person. Therefore it would be handy for the moderators to be able to search PM's by email and the contents of the PM. Also it would be really good to see the exact time stamp of the PM's. A case example from today: A customer has registered Nickname1 to our community using email@email.com and Nickname2 using other_email@email.com. Our moderators exchanged private messages with Nickname2 back in 2017. Now in 2019 Nickname1 contacts our moderator team. They see that an order has been placed via the community, but they do not see it in the PMs. We only had the first email registered in our CRM system, so we were, at first, unable to find Nickname2. After a while we were, luckily, able to find the user and all is well... But, in the future it would be handier to be able to just find the messages a little bit easier 😉
@Julian I’d mentioned this to you I believe before but reading into other existing community topics I feel this warrants gathering upvotes from other users to evaluate the need.There are multiple use cases for such a feature:Authentication methods conflict resulting in a same person having 2 accounts, example: (Which also happens to be a question around merging accounts). A community manager/ staff at community company leaving resulting in lost mentions and need to explain the situation to members example: In both cases merging/ consolidating the activity of both users into one single account makes more sense then other options, enabling case 1 users not to loose any activity/ p[points/ contacts/ subscriptions etc… and in case 2 all community members have consistency and continuity on the platform and the current community manager to have no loss of information or explanations to make… Finally perhaps less common but an interesting case for B2B companies:A person changes company and their SSO login tied to our App which requires the use of their professional email address, is therefore no longer valid and we need to be able to manually fix this as they’ve created a new account for themselves. We want our community to act as a career long partner and not being able to honour this would be disappointing!
Hello, Is it on the roadmap to enable reporting from SFDC objects within Spaces on the Community. The reports are visible from the C360 but we get this message from within the Community:
When a component's visibility is configured to target specific segments, changes to a user's segment membership can take over an hour to reflect in what they actually see. This delay makes it impractical to build real-time, segment-driven user journeys.For example, we attempted to build an onboarding flow where verified customers are shown a modal on first visit. Upon completion, we update a profile field via the API, which moves the user into a different segment — at which point the modal should no longer appear. However, because visibility changes aren't applied promptly, the user continues to see the modal long after their segment has changed, effectively trapping them in a loop.This is impractical for us for serveral reasons such as:User experience degradation - Users who should be seeing onboarding content, upsell prompts, or role-specific guidance will instead see stale or irrelevant components. This undermines any personalisation effort and creates a confusing experience. Operational reliability - If we cannot trust segment targeting to update within a reasonable timeframe, it limits the value of segmentation as a feature entirely. We cannot build automated workflows or time-sensitive processes on top of a mechanism with an unpredictable multi-hour delay. Compliance and access control - Depending on the content being served, prolonged access to the wrong segment's components could have implications for data handling obligations, particularly if customer-specific documentation, pricing, or account information is exposed to non-customers.Reducing this propagation time — ideally to near-instant — would unlock segment-based visibility as a tool for building responsive, self-resolving user experiences such as onboarding flows, first-run wizards, and conditional prompts.
When users want to reply to topics, they often open multiple topics in different tabs, but because there the CSRF token has a limited time they receive errors when they try to post. When the error 'Something went wrong’ happens, users lose the post they have typed and they need to do it again. That doesn't motivate people to help others.I understand the CSRF token is for security, but the way it works now it feels more like it's punishing users for using the platform in a natural way.Could the length of the CSRF be loosend or is there another option to reduce those erros? Or at least make sure the user doesn't lose their typed message when this error happens.
A while back Gainsight released a native Slack connector but only made it available for use in Advanced Programs. This means that if I want to send a Slack message from Gainsight I either have to use AP (which is extreme overkill when the use case isn’t tied to an email or survey) or I have to create/maintain a custom Slack application, Custom Connector, and JSON coding in External Actions for this purpose, which requires a whole separate set of skills.Why isn’t the native connector available to Rules Engine? There are innumerable use cases where this would be valuable.
Instead of showing the default “first letter” avatar, provide a library of pre-sized profile icons that users can choose from—and automatically assign one to new users at signup.The current default feels impersonal and makes communities look inactive or unfinished. A simple icon system would instantly make the community feel more vibrant and human.Suggested approach:* Add a selectable avatar library (clean, pre-sized images)* Auto-assign a random icon to new users* Allow users to change it anytimeImpact:* Better first impressions* Stronger sense of identity* More engaging discussion threadsSmall change, big UX win.
Please make this as an enhancement request: Key Definitions should support all major Gainsight standard objects as well as custom objects. If this isn’t already planned, we’d appreciate it being added to the Gainsight roadmap.
Copilot Key Definitions currently support a defined set of objects: Company, Call To Action, Task, Success Plans, Activity Timeline, and User Objects.Scorecards are not on that list (although Copilot doesn't appear to know that - unsurprising): What is surprising, however, is that I’ve been told to submit this as an “enhancement request/idea” in the community.How is this not already on the roadmap for Key Definitions!?Key Definitions need to work fully with Scorecard data—not in a limited "basic queries only" capacity, but in a way that reflects how Scorecards are actually used by customers day to day.For that matter, Key Definitions should work with every major Gainsight Standard object, (as well as Custom Objects and Data Designer objects, if those are also not on the roadmap) Key Definitions exist to give Copilot the business context it needs to interpret user questions accurately—translating your organization's data language and logic into consistent, relevant responses. This should include all major areas where we need to provide said context.
I have two different “themes” I use for email campaigns, but as only one is possible I constantly have to update the overarching theme/coding. Allowing for more than one would be SO helpful
We would love to see a few more Attachment file type supported in Community. .md.conf
Maybe this already an idea, i'm sorry then.I would like to have access in our backend to view data from product updates. This includes the number of registrations, categorized data, names and email addresses, as well as unsubscriptions.
The Problem: Currently, Gainsight Admins have access to "Write with AI" in the backend to craft clearer messaging. However, this tool is not available to community members on the front end. Our products are complex, and we frequently see community posts with vague titles, poorly structured questions, or missing technical context. This leads to a longer "time-to-resolution" and puts a higher burden on employees and power users to clarify the intent before they can actually provide a solution.The Proposed Idea: Extend the "Write with AI" functionality to the front-end community composer. This would allow members to: Optimize Titles: Turn "Help with rules" into "Troubleshooting Custom Object Mapping in Rules Engine." Structure Questions: Prompt users to include specific details like product area, error messages, or current configuration. Improve Clarity: Use AI to refine drafts for better readability before posting. The Value: For Members: Increases the likelihood of receiving fast, accurate assistance by providing a clear starting point. For the Community: Reduces "clutter" and makes the community a higher-quality knowledge base for future searches. For Gainsight/Admins: Lowers the manual effort required to "triage" vague questions.
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.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
OKSorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.
OK