Recently active topics

Currently in Relationship search configuration you are able to add additional fields to search by, but you are not able to remove the default fields. Customer use case for this is that they are only initially configuring the relationships, they are not being used yet and would like to hide the relationships until end users are using this feature.

We would like the ability to mark a learner as completed for a course. Use case:Currently revising our courses and moving our learners from one set of courses to a heavily updated version. To facilitate the transition with overlapping and rolling cohorts of learners, the best approach was to clone the old courses and launch new cohorts onto the new courses at a set date. Now I need to roll the learners that previously completed the old courses to the new ones, without the learner needing to “recomplete” the course to refresh their learning and attain learning resources. The current courses are set to progress in a linear path. The only solution I can determine at present is to clone the new courses again and set the cloned courses to navigate free-form. Marking the learner as completed would negate the need for course duplication.

My example here is the Case object, which is used for integrating an external tool used for case management, into Gainsight. While it is great that it comes with some OOB fields, some of those cause problems. Namely, the already created dropdown fields. Consider the following: Once a picklist field is created, the dropdown list ‘category’ cannot be changed or removed. When the dropdown for Cases is created, a field and corresponding dropdown category is created and assigned to that field. Part of that dropdown category includes values that cannot be deactivated, or modified, in any way. Why does this matter? Because if you have no business use for those values, you cannot repurpose them. You cannot even deactivate them. You essentially need to create a new field, and a whole new category. Because some of these OOB fields are *required*, that means you have to dummy map to them anyways, then use the fields you actually want. This is enforced platform bloat and it is incomprehensible why

Hi Team, Can we have an option of cloning the connector jobs? As part of custom job creations and testing we might end-up creating a job with some merges and transformations and I would like to have a replica of the job with some slight modifications and a different destination. In this case, with current setup I need to create the job from scratch. Expecting a simple user friendly option to clone the existing job design like we can do in rules & DD.

This might be applicable to any type of connector going to the Case object, but for the context of this request is related to setting up a ServiceNow connection to Case. In addition to the problems outlined here: there’s another glaring issue with the Case connector jobs. Any job requires these 4 fields to be mapped: Why is this a problem? Beyond the initial case feed, if you have data you want to supplement on your Case records with an additional job, you need to map these fields every time. That means you have multiple fields updating the same fields, which is redundant, unnecessary, and poor design to force. I have fields in my data schema that do not live on the standard SNOW case object, so I planned to build a job chain with supplementary jobs to add this information in. With these other field requirements, it makes that impractical at best. All I need to do is update some records on a case - I shouldn’t need these 4 fields present every time.

As Gainsight continues to expand its suite of native AI tools, such as Write with AI, Cheat Sheet, CoPilot, and Staircase, it would be incredibly valuable to include OOTB analytics and insights into the internal adoption of these AI features. Today, admins are often left relying on anecdotal or qualitative feedback from users to understand how (or if) these AI features are being leveraged. However, this user reported data can be inconsistent and limited. Having clear, quantitative insights directly in Gainsight CS would help admins: Evaluate adoption trends of specific AI tools This, and the following point, become increasingly relevant as organizations seek to measure the value of AI tools Identify which AI features are driving engagement or saving time Understand where further training, enablement, or awareness might be needed Track usage over time and by user/team for deeper operational visibility While any reliable OOTB reporting on AI feature-specific usage would be a significant

Not being able to surface, hide, and require different fields for different kinds of CSQLs is a severe limitation. As it stands now, we have to train CSMs on all the different fields to not fill out depending on Opportunity Type because there is only one CSQL form we can configure. As such, we have to include every field for every use case, which makes the form hard to use and enable on, especially as we cannot configure tooltip here either. Compared to SFDC’s capabilities where we can surface different fields based on certain field selections, this is very limiting.

The ServiceNow (SNOW) connector is a nice idea, but desperately needs improvement as it is borderline unusable in some areas. The primary issue is what SNOW refers to as “Choice” fields - Dropdowns or picklists in more familiar terms. The SNOW data is stored in Value:Label pairs. So you might get something like this: Value Label 1 High 2 Medium 3 Low The way it is currently built, the SNOW connector ONLY sends the “value” portion of this pair, which 9/10 is completely unusable as it is. This means that even if all you wanted were string values, and not have the choice fields come in as pick lists on the Gainsight side, you still have to hard code every variation from it’s value input to the Label output via Gainsight. This is completely bonkers and I don’t know how the connector got approved with this functionality. The API has a property that allows the Label to be sent, but the connector does not utilize this. Anecdotally, it might be possible to turn it on on a per-tenant basis but

My use cases: I’d like to set up an alert for negative content helpfulness votes so that I am immediately aware and can review the content I’d love to gamify completing the content helpfulness survey, a webhook could be the trigger to award points via the API However, I believe I was previously told that these votes are currently anonymous, so that might need to change. Regardless, it would be good to have the option to monitor content helpfulness activity via custom setups based on webhooks. Otherwise, you’re left to discover negative ratings on periodic reviews of the content analytics.

Request: Enable automatic tagging or labeling of users with their role type (e.g., Customer, Partner, Internal Employee) and optionally their associated company name—displayed alongside their name in posts, comments, and profiles.Example: John Smith – Partner, Company X Jane Doe – Internal Employee Alex Lee – Customer, Company Y Why it matters: This improves clarity and context across community discussions and knowledge base engagement by instantly showing who is participating. It also helps internal teams and other users quickly understand the perspective or access level of the contributor without needing to dig deeper.

Request: Allow admins to move articles between categories from the main admin panel or article list view, without needing to click into each article to edit its settings. Why it matters: Improves UX for content administrators and speeds up workflows, especially when managing high volumes of content.

Request: Add functionality to bulk move multiple articles from one category to another, rather than having to reassign them individually. Why it matters: This streamlines large content restructuring or reorganization projects, saving significant time for admins and reducing manual errors.

Request: Introduce the ability to assign moderators at the category level within the knowledge base. Not all moderators should have global access—permissions should be scoped to specific categories as needed. Why it matters: This enhances security and decentralizes content management by allowing different teams or individuals to manage their own category content without having access to unrelated or sensitive areas.

Enable article creators to add hidden or permission-based sections within a single knowledge base article. For example: A general content section visible to all users A “Partner Notes” section only visible to logged-in partners An “Internal Notes” section only visible to internal users/staff Why it matters: This allows for more efficient content management by consolidating related information in one article while still controlling visibility. It reduces duplication and ensures users only see what’s relevant to them.

View Sent Email: Only shows emails sent from P360 of the 1 person’s record that was accessed to create the email. Users would expect to see all sent emails here. Cannot configure/remove OOB Summary fields: We do not use Title and cannot replace it with information we do use. Automated Program Timeline Activities are not displayed - end users want a place to see all communications for the Person record, including (and especially) the automated ones they may not have easy access to in their gmail sent items. Gainsight Search should include P360 results when searched by configurable fields (OOB, probably name and email).

It would be great to replicate the Embed Page functionality that we have on the C360 on Gainsight Home Dashboards. Then we can incorporate the same benefits of displaying these pages for one customer, across multiple customers (like incorporating BI Dashboards with our data/reports).

Good morning Gainsight friends, I recently established our internal process as Admins for how we manage and communicate issues amongst ourselves. I shared this back with my Gainsight CSM, Courtney, and she said she had not seen any other clients create a process like this. Maybe someone out there will find this useful! I created the below flowchart in Visio, and most steps contain a clickable link with more detailed directions on what to do at that step in the process. For example, Research Issue has detailed instructions in 2 sections. The first section is on Admin pages for basic troubleshooting of different components of Gainsight. The second section is about Outside Resources and explains when and how to use systems like Gainsight Community and past Gainsight tickets our organization created to gather more information. I am happy to share more details about the process we use here at athenahealth and can answer any questions here on Community. I would also appreciate any feedback a