Discuss ideas, submit feedback, and track what's next
Help us understand your request
An intake-ready template
Currently, AI agents can only be edited by an administrator.We believe that it is a security issue that only administrators can operate an AI agent, which is a single function, so we would like to see the ability to assign privileges through custom roles, etc.
We would like request a small change be made to the 2FA screen we encounter when logging in to our Zendesk help center. When the 2FA screen is displayed, and a field is provided to enter the passcode, the cursor focus is not on that specific passcode field.We start typing in the code from our phones, but since focus is not set in the Passcode field no text is entered. Thus, I have to select focus and look up the code again on my phone and re-enter it properly.Could you please create an enhancement to change this?
Hello, I want to request that Zendesk allow for us to group tickets by their custom ticket statuses instead of the default status categories. We use our custom statuses to give our agents better visibility into what actions need to be done on specific tickets, but it is a little cumbersome since the system does not allow for them to be grouped together. For example we have our On-Hold status category with custom statuses "Awaiting Response" and "Input Schedule." I want to be able to group all "Awaiting Responses" together and all "Input Schedules" together. Right now it looks like the below screenshot. Any help would be appreciated!
Please give a quick overview of your product feature request or feedback and note who in your organization is affected by this issue [ex. agents, admins, customers, etc.] (2-3 sentences)For Copilot Suggested Macros, we have an issue because when there are suggestions, it hides the ‘your most recent’ macros list. The suggestions are good for some teams where we have a high number of group macros, but other teams rely more on personal macros where the ‘your most recent’ is more beneficial. I have agents now disadvantaged by the Suggested Macros, because the most recent no longer appear, meaning they now need to manually search. We need either: Keep the ‘your most recent’, as well as AI suggestions. Allow us to set which groups have access to Macro Suggestions - currently you can only toggle it on or off for everyone. What problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences)Allow us to use Suggested Macros for teams that do benefit, without causing a disadvantage / downgrade for teams that do not. When was the last time you were affected by this lack of functionality, or specific tool? What happened? How often does this problem occur and how does this impact your business? (3-4 sentences)Every day, for dozens of tickets handled by our Technical Support team who do not use group macros. This impacts our team by slowing down ticket handling for that team (effectively I need to choose between removing functionality for that team, or disabling the Suggested Macros for everybody). Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1-2 sentences)No existing workaround. I have asked our Technical Support to keep dismissing the suggestions in the hope that it learns, but this means clicking away suggestions 3 or 4 times for every ticket, and doesn’t seem to be working so far. What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences)Either keep ‘your most recent’ with the suggestions, or allow me to select which teams have it and which don’t.
Please give a quick overview of your product feature request or feedback and note who in your organization is affected by this issue [ex. agents, admins, customers, etc.] (2-3 sentences)We would like the dynamic carousel to support multiple selection, or at minimum allow customers to safely re-select another item or order during the same conversation without breaking the flow. At the moment, when a customer interacts with the carousel again after progressing, that action may be treated as free text instead of a structured selection event. This affects customers, bot admins/builders, and agents, especially in journeys where the correct item context must be maintained through to escalation.What problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences)This would allow customers to change or select another item/order mid-journey without triggering incorrect generative replies, loops, or context loss. It would also help ensure issue details, attachments, and escalation context remain tied to the correct item.When was the last time you were affected by this lack of functionality, or specific tool? What happened? How often does this problem occur and how does this impact your business? (3-4 sentences)Most recently, we were affected while reviewing item/order selection flows where the customer needed to select another item after the initial carousel stage. Instead of recognizing the second selection as a structured action, the bot could treat it like a normal text message, which led to irrelevant replies or repeated prompts. This can occur whenever customers interact with the carousel more than once or need to change their selected item mid-conversation. The impact is reduced containment and automated resolution, poorer customer experience, and a higher risk of agents receiving mixed or incorrect item context during escalation flows.Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1-2 sentences)Yes, in some closed-loop status journeys, we allow the customer to complete one item journey first and only then offer an option to check another item. However, this does not solve the main issue for information-gathering or escalation-type flows, where customers may need to re-select an item mid-conversation without losing context.What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences)Ideally, all carousel selections, including repeat selections and re-selections, should be treated as structured events rather than free text, even after the customer has moved past the initial carousel step. The bot should allow the customer to select another item or order within the same conversation while either preserving the correct item context or safely resetting the journey so details, attachments, and escalation information do not get mixed.
I would like to suggest a new feature: the ability to hide end-user ratings from support agents. The goal is for these evaluations to be visible only to supervisors or managers. This would help ensure that agents continue to provide consistent service quality, without being influenced by seeing a negative rating from a specific user. This change would allow performance reviews to remain a management tool, while keeping the agent’s focus on maintaining high-quality support for all users.
Zendesk QA Reporting Integration with Zendesk Analytics Please give a quick overview of your product feature request or feedback and note who in your org is affected by this issue [ex. agents, admins, customers, etc.]. (2-3 sentences)We'd love to see the ability for data collected in Zendesk QA to then be used as a data source in Zendesk Analytics (Explore). Right now, we are limited to the reporting style in Zendesk QA and cannot create our own custom reports in the formats we'd like to see. What problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences) Team Leads and other managers in the org can have their own custom dashboards presented in the reporting style or structure of their preference. The data collected from Zendesk QA might also be able to be paired with data from Zendesk Support in the same dashboard. When was the last time you were affected by this lack of functionality, or specific tool? What happened? How often does this problem occur and how does this impact your business? (3-4 sentences)Today. Impact is not severe, but it would be beneficial for our team members to have more control over the report structure, how information is presented and have Zendesk QA data in their own dashboards in Zendesk Analytics instead of visiting this tool separately. Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1-2 sentences)Yes, we manually extract information from the Zendesk QA report and then manually place it into a spreadsheet. What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences)Zendesk QA data would be available as a data source in Zendesk Analytics and we can use it to make reports of our choosing to then place into existing dashboards.
Hello Zendesk Community,We are writing to request a crucial feature for better management of our CSAT metrics and internal reporting: the ability to customize the expiration date of the custom CSAT survey link.We appreciate that the expiration period was recently extended to 28 days. However, having this long, fixed period without the option to set our own timeframe is significantly disrupting our internal controls and reporting cycles. 🎯 The Request:We urgently request that Zendesk allow customers to edit and configure the number of days the custom CSAT link remains active after the ticket is solved/closed. 📉 Why the 28-Day Period is Problematic:A 28-day validity period drastically alters our feedback collection and reporting alignment: Reporting Distortion: Our reporting cycles (e.g., weekly, monthly) are much shorter. Responses coming in up to 28 days later skew the metrics for the period when the service interaction actually occurred, making it harder to link performance directly to agent action. Relevance: Feedback is most valuable immediately after service. Extended periods dilute the relevance and accuracy of the customer’s memory of the interaction. Operational Alignment: We need the flexibility to align the CSAT eligibility window with our internal definition of a closed cycle, which is often much shorter than four weeks. In summary, we need to choose the expiration period (e.g., 7 days, 14 days) to ensure our CSAT data is timely, accurate, and aligned with our internal business metrics.Thank you for considering this critical functionality.
Please give a quick overview of your product feature request or feedback and note who in your organization is affected by this issue [ex. agents, admins, customers, etc.] (2-3 sentences)I would like to request to allow an easier way to change the spacing between: Alter the vertical spacing between ticket fields. all Support agents are affected by this.To be more specific, perhaps you can make the scroll bar thicker or wider so it's easier to drag up and down to view ticket contents? I find the scroll bar so thin and close to the vertical line used to make the window larger or smaller... I'll send a screenshot to show you what I mean.If you move your mouse just to the right of the area I have highlighted in red you will see the cursor changes to allow to resize the window of the internal noteJust to make it more user friendly. I use that scroll bar alot and often find I have to be so precise just to click+hold and drag it up and down to see the ticket content. What problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences)it makes it easier to adjust an agents workspace or dashboard to make it easier to view more content on the page when working on tickets. When was the last time you were affected by this lack of functionality, or specific tool? What happened? How often does this problem occur and how does this impact your business? (3-4 sentences) every day. Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1-2 sentences). not really. What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences) Ideal solution would be to make it easier to change the sizing and to be able to ‘lock’ the sizing of the scroll wheel or size of the different windows on the agent homepage when working on tickets. here’s a screenshot of what I mean: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yoYKBya-_YrDU9SnLLNvuHYebqJcsg0k/view?usp=sharing
Hi team,When creating a brand new Zendesk Sandbox, the existing production setup is not fully copied over, which can result in key configurations—such as messaging—being missing or incomplete. This creates a situation where a sandbox does not accurately reflect the environment it is intended to replicate.In practice, this means that teams setting up a sandbox to test improvements or changes must first spend significant time manually rebuilding configurations that already exist elsewhere. For example, messaging and other carefully configured elements may need to be recreated from scratch, even though they are critical to the experience being tested. This undermines the purpose of using a sandbox as a safe and reliable testing space.For organizations that regularly test workflows, messaging changes, or operational improvements, this behavior is counterintuitive. A sandbox is expected to closely mirror an existing environment so that testing focuses on validating changes, not on reconfiguring baseline settings. Manual replication increases effort, introduces the risk of inconsistencies, and makes it harder to trust test results.It would be extremely valuable to have the ability to copy an already configured setup when creating a new sandbox—either by duplicating the full configuration or by allowing admins to select which components should be included. This would make sandbox environments far more effective, reduce setup time, and provide greater confidence when deploying improvements to production.Thank you!
Hi Team, we have a couple of suggestions for the generative search feature in the Knowledge product that we hope will improve the experience for admins.{{generative_answers}} placement validation When using a custom Zendesk theme, enabling Quick Answers requires manually inserting {{generative_answers}} into search_results.hbs. While the system correctly flags some incompatible placements with an error, it does not consistently catch each placement — allowing the template to be saved and published with no warning while feature silently stops working. This primarily affects admins responsible for theme configuration. The system should consistently validate all placements of {{generative_answers}} in search_results.hbs and prevent saving or publishing when an incompatible location is detected. Generative search usage Usage tracking for Generative Search is currently available in Admin Center under Account > Usage > Summary. However, the data is aggregated at the account level and lacks the granularity needed for multi-brand instances. This affects admins and stakeholders who need per-brand visibility to make informed decisions about feature adoption, capacity and performance. Without brand-level usage breakdowns, it is not possible to understand how different brands within a multi-brand instance are consuming the feature, making it harder to attribute usage, optimise content, and plan for scaling. The ideal solution would be to add a detailed usage table within the Generative Search section showing monthly consumption broken down by brand, covering at least the trailing 12 months broken down by month — enabling admins to compare brand performance, and make data-driven decisions over time. Looking forward to see these improvements in a future update. Thank you.
Hi Team,Following the recent release of the Spelling and Grammar Checker, we'd like to request a shared/global dictionary feature. Currently, the dictionary appears to be user-specific, which creates challenges for our team working in a specialized industry with distinct terminology. This affects all agents and new team members across our organization.Without a shared dictionary, industry-specific terms are flagged as errors for every new user, creating friction and inconsistency. This prevents the team from benefiting from established vocabulary without manual, individual setup.We currently have no effective workaround — each user must individually add specialized terms to their own dictionary, resulting in duplicated effort across the team.We would like the ability for a dedicated member to maintain a shared or global dictionary that is automatically applied across all users. Ideally, this dedicated member (can be Admins or other members with role permissions) could add, edit, or remove terms centrally, ensuring the entire team works from the same validated vocabulary from day one.
It is great to see you have enabled Slack workspace to be connected to multiple Zendesk accounts Announcing multi-instance support for the Slack integration – Zendesk help. This is a great addition. However, my company uses Microsoft Teams, and we have 5 separate instances. I am sure there are Microsoft users out there like me that would love the same functionality. Any chance you can enable the same for us?
Please give a quick overview of your product feature request or feedback and note who in your organization is affected by this issue (agents, admins, customers, etc.) (2-3 sentences)We’d like the Zendesk–Slack integration to support placeholders in the Slack channel selector, so the target channel can be set dynamically from ticket/organization data. This impacts admins, support agents, and the account teams who rely on Slack notifications per customer account.What problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences)Right now, the Slack channel for a notification must be statically defined, which doesn’t scale when you have hundreds or thousands of customer-specific channels. Allowing placeholders would let us route notifications to the correct account channel automatically, without maintaining an unmanageable number of triggers.When was the last time you were affected by this lack of functionality, or specific tool? What happened? How often does this problem occur and how does this impact your business? (3-4 sentences)We’re currently in the process of migrating from our legacy webhook-based Slack integration to the official Zendesk–Slack app due to new IT security guidelines, and this limitation is blocking that migration. Our support workflow sends ticket creation notifications into account-specific Slack channels (one per client), and we can no longer change the channel dynamically when using the new integration. With hundreds/thousands of organizations, creating and maintaining separate triggers per account isn’t operationally feasible. This affects us daily and risks either losing important account-level visibility in Slack or remaining on a deprecated integration that doesn’t meet internal security requirements.Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1-2 sentences)Yes. Today, we use a webhook trigger that posts directly to Slack with a payload like: "channel": "#acct-{{ticket.organization.custom_fields.account_key}}", which lets Slack resolve the correct #acct-<key> channel on the fly. This works technically, but we’ve been asked to move off custom webhooks and onto the official Zendesk–Slack integration for security and governance reasons.What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences)In the Zendesk–Slack integration, we’d like an option in the channel dropdown that allows free-text entry supporting Zendesk placeholders (for example, #acct-{{ticket.organization.custom_fields.account_key}}). At runtime, the integration would evaluate those placeholders using the ticket context and send the message to the resulting Slack channel name, restoring the dynamic behavior we had with webhooks while staying fully within the supported integration. Edit: Looking at the integration again, I’m realizing that the dropdown doesn’t seem to be relying on channel names but rather IDs. I’ve renamed a few channels and the triggers persist. Aside from a placeholder like we’ve used before for a custom channel name, maybe a placeholder that uses an organization field that we simply populate with a slack channel ID?
Regarding: https://support.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/10223024943770-Announcing-end-user-private-attachments-for-Zendesk-Support I appreciate the intention behind strengthening security across the platform however I wanted to provide feedback that may be helpful as this change moves toward enforcement. When a security enhancement becomes mandatory with no opt‑out or alternative configuration path, it can create challenges for organisations whose workflows, policies, technical environments, or customer‑facing models don’t align with a single enforced approach. Even when the goal is improved protection, removing flexibility can unintentionally introduce friction, disrupt established processes, or limit the ability for teams to manage risk in ways that suit their operational reality. Please consider offering opt‑out functionality - even if temporary, conditional, or time‑limited.
Our team has received numerous customer complaints that the acknowledgement emails they receive via trigger do not contain any identifying information. If they submit say, 5 tickets in a row, they do not know which ticket number pertains to which request. We tried adding the {{ticket.description}} placeholder to our trigger, as this would alleviate the issue. However, it was confirmed by Zendesk that this won't work as it is blocked when sending to the requester and CCs. The reason being issues with Spam when include the ticket description, which seems to be a very odd reasoning when spam could affect any and all tickets whether or not this placeholder is used. Zendesk seems to have pretty involved Spam filters already, so I'd hope there will be able way to update and allow this placeholder in the future.
Hello,Following our evaluation of the Version Management feature (Environment Configurations) after its General Availability announcement, we would like to share some product feedback based on our sandbox testing. We hope these observations are useful as you continue to develop and refine the feature.1. Snapshot language limitation & Production to Production environments restore restrictionWe encountered two notable limitations around Snapshots:Language dependency - The language of a Snapshot is tied to the account language at the time it is taken. When attempting to deploy from a Snapshot created in one language (for example Portuguese) to an environment set to a different language (to English), the deployment fails. There is no warning or indication of this at the point of taking the Snapshot or initiating the deployment, which makes troubleshooting unnecessarily difficult. We would suggest either making Snapshots language-agnostic, or surfacing a clear warning when a language mismatch is detected before deployment begins.Production to Production restore restriction - For plans below Enterprise (which do not include a Sandbox), the ability to restore a Snapshot back to Production is directly tied to the existence of a Sandbox environment. This feels like a significant limitation, as it restricts access to a core recovery capability based on plan tier. We would welcome a review of this dependency, or at minimum clearer documentation around it.2. Lack of detailed error information when deployments failWhen a deployment test fails, the feature currently notifies the user that the test was unsuccessful but does not provide specific details on why individual items failed. Similarly, Partially Deployed statuses indicate what was not pushed, but not the reason behind it.For a feature that manages configuration changes across environments, actionable error information is essential. Without it, admins are left guessing, which increases the risk of repeated failures or incorrect workarounds. We would strongly encourage more granular and descriptive error outputs - ideally identifying the specific configuration item, the reason for failure, and a suggested resolution where possible.3. No indication of who triggered a deploymentCurrently, there is no visible record within the Version Management feature of which admin initiated a specific deployment. While the Audit Log may capture some changes, this is not surfaced directly within the Deployments view itself.For accountability and governance purposes - particularly in environments with multiple admins - knowing who triggered a deployment is important. We would suggest adding an "Initiated by" field to each Deployment record, visible directly within the Version Management interface.We believe Version Management has strong potential and are encouraged by the direction of this feature.We hope this feedback helps prioritize improvements that would make it more robust and trustworthy for production usage.
So we really like the idea of using Followers; however, losing quick visibility to if folks are cc'd or not on the ticket is going to create extra work for my team. With the old functionality anyone can quickly see if there are or are not cc's. With the new functionality we know have to either create a Public Reply or check Events to see who is a cc before we are ready to send a reply. Is there a way to request an enhancement to bring back the 'cc' box at least for viewing (can be read only) so someone can quickly see if anyone is or isn't a cc on a ticket? Losing the ability to quickly see who's a cc and only being able to see that on a Public Reply to me says we went backwards on the cc feature when you added the Followers option.
Here you go, cleaned up and structured: Please give a quick overview of your product feature request or feedback and note who in your organisation is affected by this issue (2–3 sentences) There is currently no simple way for the original requester to automatically receive responses when a ticket is reassigned to another user. This mainly affects agents and CSMs who raise tickets on behalf of clients, as well as the end customers who need visibility in their portal. The lack of automation creates friction in managing communication and visibility across all parties involved. What problem do you see this solving? (1–2 sentences) This would ensure that both the actual client and the original submitter remain informed without requiring manual intervention. It would streamline communication and reduce the risk of missed updates. When was the last time you were affected by this lack of functionality, or specific tool? What happened? How often does this problem occur and how does this impact your business? (3–4 sentences) This happens regularly whenever a CSM submits a ticket on behalf of a client and the requester needs to be updated to ensure visibility in the client portal. Each time, the original requester must be manually added back into the conversation to stay informed. This is a recurring issue that adds unnecessary operational overhead and increases the chance of communication gaps. Over time, this impacts efficiency and can lead to a poorer experience for both internal teams and customers. Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1–2 sentences) Yes, the current workaround is to manually CC the original requester after changing the ticket requester. This is repetitive, easy to forget, and not scalable. What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1–2 sentences) Ideally, the original requester should be automatically CCed when the ticket requester is changed. Alternatively, there should be a simple built-in option or toggle to retain or add the original submitter to all future communications.
In the older version of Zendesk, there is an "Add CC" feature, which we heavily used. However, in the newer version of Zendesk, this was replaced by "Add followers," which is an issue if we are CC-ing agents who might respond to customers. Unfortunately, the "Add followers" action does not CC an agent, which means that the end-users will not see agents as having been CC'd on the ticket. If the agent added as a follower suddenly decides to chime in in the conversation, the end-users will be surprised because they weren't aware that they were involved in the ticket, which is not exactly a good user experience. It would be great if Zendesk would add back the "Add CC" action to the newer Zendesk, as the "Add followers" action does not completely replace its function.
Zendesk offers the option to display Device information for users that open a chat. This information can be useful in a number of ways, including troubleshooting issues for specific devices.Unfortunately, the option to export this data in any way is currently not possible, and one can only view this information manually by reviewing each ticket. Even exporting the tickets in bulk in Excel or JSON does not provide this information, even though things like IP and country are included.Having the option to view the % of devices your product is being accessed from, can help locate issues as the code for mobile and desktop versions is usually different.We recently had an update to one of our scripts which led to the chat being unavailable to mobile users, and we would have liked to see how this affected us in numbers by filtering the Device information in Explore. Manually reviewing a ticket showed us that specific devices could not open it, but having this information in bulk would be so much more helpful.I believe that the Device filter should be available in any of the Chat or Support datasets as this information is already available on the ticket and it shouldn't be too much to ask to have this available as bulk data.
Hi Team,We recently encountered a limitation that has impacted our operations: it is currently not possible to share Prebuilt Live Dashboards via external links. As noted in your documentation, "you cannot share the prebuilt live dashboards as an external link to users outside of your Zendesk account." The dashboards we are referring to are "Live Data (including Chat)" and "Live Data (including Messaging)" but not limited only to them. This functionality is critical to how we monitor our day-to-day operations. Without it, our teams have been forced to rely on workarounds that are unreliable, time-consuming, and fall short of our operational needs.We would suggest to enable external link sharing for these dashboards. Doing so would allow our teams and key stakeholders to maintain real-time visibility into current operations, and make timely, informed decisions around staffing and strategy.We hope to see this in a future update.Thank you for your time and consideration.
Hello,We attempted to implement an email reminder workflow with native Zendesk features, but during testing we confirmed that the platform’s current limitations make it impossible to create reliable reminders at intervals shorter than 60 minutes (for example 5, 10, 15, or 20 minutes).At the moment, this is not possible natively because:Automations run only once per hour, so they cannot trigger reminders at precise times like 5, 10, 15, or 20 minutes. SLAs only work when the customer is the last person who replied. In our workflows, the last reply is usually from an agent, meaning SLAs do not activate and cannot measure elapsed time after agent updates. Triggers cannot run on time-based delays.Because of these limitations, there is no native Zendesk feature that can send timely reminders based on time since last agent update or time spent in a status (e.g., Pending).To support operational workflows like this, we would like to share the below features that could enhance Zendesk's capabilities:Time-Based Trigger Conditions - Allow triggers to include: “Minutes since status changed” ; “Minutes since last agent update” ; “Minutes since last public or internal comment” . Triggers would then be able to fire reminders precisely and instantly. Faster Automation Execution - Allow automations to run after configurable intervals (5, 10, or 15 minutes), not only once per hour.These enhancements would make it possible to manage time‑sensitive workflows entirely within Zendesk, without external tools, reducing operational risk and improving internal responsiveness.Thank you.
It would be great if the bot could narrow the search for articles to a specific section of the Guide in order to optimise the search results. It also would apply to the search box of the Guide. Let me set an example: When you build a flow for a bot / AI agent and when you buid a form, it is reasonable to use a ticket field to ask the users for details, for instance to get information about the kind of product s/he is looking for and eventually to route the ticket. Many times this “ask for details” has a certain relationship with the Guide's section, for instance if you have a section for any kind of product. And many times we have similar articles for different products (price, warranty, etc.), what could mislead the AI Agent to provide information from the wrong product. This is why I think it would be wonderful if the details provided by the final user could lead to focus the search to a specific section of the Guide.
Please give a quick overview of your product feature request or feedback and note who in your organization is affected by this issue [ex. agents, admins, customers, etc.] (2-3 sentences)We make extensive use of the Knowledge Base on Zendesk for our day-to-day working. It would be very helpful to be able to create an article within a category without needing to create section.This would be helpful because the article under the category can explain the overarching process within that category without the need to create a redundant section with one article in it. What problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences)It would improve our productivity and allow easier use of the Knowledge Base. When was the last time you were affected by this lack of functionality, or specific tool? What happened? How often does this problem occur and how does this impact your business? (3-4 sentences)We use the KB extensively, so it is something we encounter all the time. Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1-2 sentences)Yes - we have redundant sections with single articles in. What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences)Ability to create an article directly within a category.
Already have an account? Login
No account yet? Create an account
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.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.
