Discuss ideas, submit feedback, and track what's next
Help us understand your request
An intake-ready template
Hello, Zendesk currently provides administrators with visibility into how business rules and tags are being used through features such as Rule Analysis & Ticket Tags Usage. However, there is no equivalent visibility for file attachments. Administrators can configure allowed file types under Admin Center → Objects and Rules → Tickets → Settings → Allowed File Types but there is currently no way to understand which file extensions are actually being used across the instance before making configuration changes. Proposed EnhancementIntroduce an Attachment Type Analysis page similar to Rule Analysis and/or Ticket Tags Usage that provides visibility into attachment usage across the account. Example Information DisplayedFile Type Number of Uploads Last Used pdf 45,221 Today jpg 18,430 Today png 12,833 Today docx 5,391 Yesterday xlsx 2,201 3 days ago zip 311 Last week Additional FiltersInbound attachments (end users) Outbound attachments (agents) Channel Email Web Form Messaging API Date range Brand Group Business JustificationToday, administrators must make decisions about attachment restrictions without understanding the actual usage of file types within their Zendesk instance.For example:Security teams may want to disable ZIP files. Compliance teams may want to restrict executable file types. Administrators may want to allow only a limited set of file extensions.Without attachment analytics, there is no way to determine:Which file types are actively used. Whether a restriction would impact customers or agents. Which file types are no longer needed and can safely be blocked. Suggested UXA dedicated page under Objects and Rules → Tickets → Attachment Analysis Objects and Rules → Tickets → Settings → Allowed File Types → View Usage following the same concept as Rules Analysis / Ticket TagsThis would allow administrators to quickly audit attachment usage and make informed security and configuration decisions.
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)Ticket summaries are an awesome feature, but they include first and last name and sometimes other sensitive personal information What problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences)Allows LLM consumption 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 Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1-2 sentences)No, we tried to be able to strip this data in another platform, but the real solution would be to prevent it’s storage - or limit specific users from seeing this names. What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences)Feature that can generate all ticket summaries with no PII or the ability to build a custom role that cannot view this, even if it is generated.
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,I couldn’t really engage with this EAP, because it didn’t have an avenue for myself as an admin to lock down access to only certain agents or support leaders to aid in ticket queue reassignment.My use case was to avoid having agents make choices that the EAP feature would suggest for ticket assignment, because their role isn’t to make that decision. We have OCR that auto assigns tickets, and beyond that or if all agents are at capacity, it should be on support leadership to assign tickets.It would be great if I could lock down this access so only support leaders could see the suggested assignees, when clearing out the unassigned ticket queue.It was suggested to me by Zendesk to somehow build this into agent permissions, but if this could not be done easily, I’d have the EAP with full access to our agents, which could cause confusion. I would prefer if the permission structure was set at the feature level, instead of the agent permission level (to be honest).
Feature Request Summary: Making it easier for the end-user to mark their tickets as solved without a need to open Help Center would benefit customer support team in getting more accurate statistics. Description/Use Cases: In our company, we use email as a main channel for communication with our customers. It happens pretty often when the last comment from an agent resolves a customer's issue, but we expect a customer to confirm that, and they don't come back with feedback, thus the ticket is left for a while in Pending status. It will be marked as solved by an automation, but while it's within Pending status, it increases Ticket Resolution time metric. We presume that if a customer had a link right in their email by following which they could mark the ticket as Solved, we would get more tickets moving to Solved status earlier. Business impact of limitation or missing feature:This would be a neat feature that would help us to calculate Ticket resolution time more accurately.
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 often switch out the To and CC contacts listed on a ticket. Currently, when you have to edit the To or CC you have to do it manually by editing the requestor tab or removing and adding the person to the CC line. It would be great to be able to simply drag and drop into the different sections - similar to the functionality in Outlook. What problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences)Less clicks and quicker ticket management. 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)Daily, but not a critical impact. Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1-2 sentences)Manually removing and adding people to the appropriate fields. What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences)Drag and drop contacts, explained in question 1.
First of all: love the addition of callouts to Zendesk Knowledge! We’re currently migrating to Zendesk and our old solutions had them, forcing us to recreate them using custom HTML elements/CSS styling. Having it “Zendesk-native” is a lot better in the long term!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)Unfortunately, the content that can be created within callouts is severely limited. Not allowing headlines is not a big deal and not allowing images is probably also for the better. However, not being able to add links within callouts pretty much means we won’t be able to use them for now. What problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences)Callouts are often useful as sort of interruptions to the flow. A “hey, this might be important, there’s more info about it here”, for instance. Which is why it’s so frustrating to not be able to add links. 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)Well, it’s a simply lack of support, so it happens pretty much every time we want to create a new article with callouts. Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1-2 sentences)Yes, we’re using custom HTML that is styled using custom CSS to achieve something that looks very similar to the callouts launched just now. It makes the editing experience worse because you can’t use the native callouts the editor offers, but it supports links (and pretty much all custom styling). What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences)Add the ability to add links within callouts. That’s all we need, really :)
Hi Team, We will be implementing Guided mode in one of our instances, however we would like to request a couple of enhancements to the “Skip” functionality as it cannot be customized. - We would like to be able to select an option where we can mark “Ticket Skip Reason” pop-up text to be Required (Mandatory). - We would also like to see an option where we can disabled the “Skip” button entirely, so agents will not be able to skip offered tickets. This will give us more control and insight into gaps in agent knowledge, so they addressed in a timely manner. .Currently we are not using any workaround for this.Ideally, additional checkboxes can be added under “Roles” if permission is set to “Play views only”
Please give a quick overview of your product feature request or feedback, and note who in your organisation is affected by this issue [e.g. agents, admins, customers, etc.] Provide a supported way to set ticket form, group, and custom fields on AI-agent-only messaging tickets (native_messaging) that resolve without escalating to a human, scoped dynamically per bot, procedure, or tag. This affects admins (who can't configure workflows for these tickets), agent teams and team leads (who rely on correct form and group routing), and operations/reporting staff (who need accurate Explore data). In our large, multi-brand instance, it touches every team we put on AI messaging. What problem do you see this solving? It would let bot-resolved conversations carry the correct form, owning group, and source field so they can be routed and reported on accurately, instead of landing as read-only tickets we can't classify. It would also let AI messaging scale to multiple teams that each require a different form. 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? This affects us daily, on every chat our bots fully resolve, which is a large and growing share of our messaging volume. Most recently, when a team asked us to log their AI-resolved chats to a dedicated form with the right group and a "Ticket source" field, we found no supported path: triggers and automations don't run on these tickets, and the AI agent's Update ticket info action can't set the form. The only lever, reordering the account-level forms list, would force one form onto all AI tickets and break the triggers and automations built on our current default, so it's unusable for us. The impact is that an extensive and increasing volume of AI-resolved tickets can't be classified into the correct form, and because the tickets are read-only, they can't be corrected afterwards either, leaving a significant blind spot in our volume and CSAT reporting. Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) For group and custom fields, yes: the AI agent's Update ticket info CRM action can set them during the conversation. For the ticket form, there is no workaround at all, because these tickets are fully read-only: not even an admin can change the form (or anything else) after the fact, so the form stays permanently incorrect on every AI-resolved ticket. What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? Add "ticket form" as a settable field in the AI agent's Update ticket info CRM action, alongside the existing group and custom-field support, scoped per bot, procedure, or tag, and applied at ticket creation without requiring escalation. Reusing the mechanism that already sets group and fields keeps it consistent and avoids depending on triggers, which don't run on these read-only tickets.
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)For the messaging ticket, the case of re-opening is repeated. Since the requester wait time tracks the time from ticket creation to resolution, the SLA from that point cannot be measured normally for tickets that have been re-registered. For your information, when the messaging ticket is re-opened, we have another agent assign the ticket to handle it.
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)Two enhancements for the AI Agent Advanced: first, the ability to configure up to three sequential inactivity triggers with distinct re-engagement phrasing; second, the ability to trigger an automatic session closure message after 2 hours of inactivity, similar to how Inactivity triggers currently work. This affects our admins, who cannot build optimal conversational flows, and our customers, who miss out on a proactive and clear conversational experience. What problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences)This will solve the high drop-off rates (most of all whatsapp) by allowing more persistent and varied re-engagement attempts before a chat is abandoned. Additionally, it ensures a transparent customer experience by clearly communicating to the user when their session has been automatically closed due to time-outs. 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 is an ongoing daily issue, especially on the WhatsApp channel, where users frequently close the app, switch to other chats, or get distracted and forget about the open conversation. Currently, sending just one inactivity message is not enough to win back their attention, and because sessions close silently after 2 hours, users often try to resume the chat later expecting their previous context to be active, only to find a dead session. This lack of transparency and lost context causes significant customer friction, leading to confusion and lower bsat scores. Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1-2 sentences)No, there is no viable workaround within the AI Agent Advanced to cycle multiple different inactivity messages or to force a final text notification exactly at the 2-hour automatic session closure. What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences)The ideal solution is to allow admins to stack up to 3 inactivity steps in ai agent advanced (e.g., after 15, 30, and 45 minutes) each with its own customizable text behavior. Additionally, a native "On Session Close" trigger should be added to the AI Agent settings to automatically send a final goodbye/closure message after the 2-hour timeout.
Please give a quick overview of your product feature request or feedback and note who in your organization is affected by this issue.Zendesk has recently added requester email address as a condition for views, which is a very useful improvement. However, the current condition only supports exact matching using “is” and “is not”, which limits the practical use of the feature for teams that need to monitor groups of requesters, domains, role-based addresses, or system-generated emails. This primarily affects admins who build and maintain views, and agents or team leads who rely on those views to prioritize and manage ticket queues.What problem do you see this solving?Requester email address is often useful at a pattern level, not just as a single exact address. Adding “begins with”, “ends with”, and “contains” would allow teams to create more flexible views without needing to manually list every individual requester email address or maintain unnecessary user, organization, or tag-based workarounds.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?This becomes an issue whenever we need to create views for tickets from a group of related requester addresses rather than one individual email address. For example, we may want a view for all requesters from a customer domain, all emails from role-based addresses such as orders@, accounts@, quality@, or no-reply@, or all addresses containing a particular business unit, system identifier, subdomain, or email alias pattern. Without partial-match operators, each address needs to be added individually, which is time-consuming, difficult to maintain, and prone to missing tickets when new contacts or email aliases appear. This reduces the value of the new requester email condition because many real-world email management scenarios depend on patterns rather than exact email addresses.Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem?The current workaround is to manually add specific email addresses one by one, rely on organizations, create tags through triggers, or build views based on other less-direct conditions. These workarounds add admin overhead and are less reliable than filtering directly on the requester email address.What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function?Please add the following operators to the requester email address view condition: “begins with”, “ends with”, and “contains”. For example, “ends with @example.com” could show all tickets from a customer domain, “begins with no-reply@” could help isolate automated notifications, and “contains finance” or “contains +portal” could identify relevant email aliases or system-generated addresses. Exact “is” and “is not” matching could continue to require full email validation, while the partial-match operators could use appropriate text validation for safe and predictable filtering.
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 request to allow or update permission of custom roles to manage API tokens/OAuth clients into Zendesk. Currently our users(Developers, Team-Lead) need access to 'Generate and manage API tokens' as per their job task and roles. What problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences)As Zendesk Admin, we were able to create Custom Roles for our users(Developers, Team-Lead) but unfortunately Custom Roles does not have needful permissions aligned to Generate and manage API tokens/OAuth clients 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) Our users would need access to Generate and manage API tokens for Integration and configuration task very often therefore as a workaround our Admin team has to add them into Admin role to complete their work and later revoke their access as Admin when their task is completed. For security purpose we need the custom roles with needful permission to be aligned properly into Zendesk because user having additional privileges as admin can affect the other Zendesk areas like, billing, Subscription, User management, etc. Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1-2 sentences) Yes, as a workaround our Admin team has to add users into Admin Role to complete their work and later revoke their access from Admin, once the task is completed. What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences) Allow custom roles to manage API tokens/OAuth clients into Zendesk which requires for our users(Developers, Team-Lead) to complete their Job task.
Hello,Is there a way to add the option to solve a ticket right from within the status update notification that are sent via email? AFAIK, the only option for customers to set the ticket to "solved" for themselves is to check their request history and select it there. Please add the option to have this in the notification emails as well.It would also be helpful if customers could set a ticket to "solved" without any ticket activity. We have cases with customers who found a solution before we can reply.
Hi, I noticed that when I visit https://support.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests, I often see that my tickets show as "updated", but there's no updates that are visible to me as a customer. This is a confusing UI experience. It will show me that a ticket was updated 3 hours ago, but the last update *I* can see is over 2 weeks ago. Since I use the product, I know that this must be reflecting some internal side updates, but it's still not super helpful. That just ends up reminding me that I haven't gotten any replies, and makes it really difficult to see what tickets I've actually been waiting on the longest for a visible update.
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.
Please give a quick overview of your product feature request or feedback and note who in your organisation is affected by this issue:We are requesting a native, built-in passive visual indicator on recipients in the ticket composer and in Side Conversations, flagging when a recipient is external or when the recipient list spans multiple different domains, comparable to the external-recipient indicators in Outlook and Gmail. This affects our agents, who send external email from Zendesk daily, our admins, who handle any resulting incidents, and ultimately our clients, whose confidential information is at risk if a message reaches the wrong recipient. What problem do you see this solving?:It would reduce accidental cross-client disclosure caused by selecting the wrong recipient, for example when two contacts have similar names or when addresses from two different client domains end up on the same reply. Zendesk currently gives the agent no signal of any kind at the point of sending. When was the last time you were affected by this lack of functionality? What happened? How often does this problem occur and how does this impact your business?:In the past weeks, two separate internal stakeholders independently raised this exact gap with our admin team, prompted by recurring near-miss recipient selection mistakes. We run a large multi-brand enterprise instance where agents correspond with many external client domains every day, so the exposure is constant rather than occasional. A single misdirected email containing client information can constitute a reportable data incident with confidentiality and contractual consequences. The absence of any recipient-level cue means prevention currently depends entirely on the individual agent noticing the mistake. Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain):We have enabled 'Email address autocomplete - only show agent email addresses' for Side Conversations so lookalike end users are no longer suggested, and we reinforce recipient verification in agent guidance. We also explored a custom app with Zendesk Support, but apps can only display warnings in their own sidebar iframe, not on the recipient itself, and have no visibility of Side Conversations at all, so we chose not to build a partial control. What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function?:A native, Zendesk-maintained passive indicator (for example, a colour or tag on the recipient chip) in both the ticket composer and Side Conversations, with admin-configurable trusted/internal domains. Deliberately a passive cue rather than a blocking confirmation dialogue, since mandatory pop-ups are dismissed by reflex once agents habituate, while an ambient indicator informs without interrupting.
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)This impacts Agents and Customers. The issue is when merging tickets, the previous requester and CCs are always merged into the new ticket, when that is not always appropriate. What problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences)Improved security when merging tickets, as it will prevent CCs accidentally being merged into a ticket where sensitive discussions are occurring. 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 occurs semi-regularly, as often third party notifications or vendors may create separate tickets which are already being worked on separately. We often want all relevant information merged into 1 active ticket, but often the other requesters and CCs are not needed after the merge. We can manually remove them post-merge, however this is quite manual and also has room for a sensitive reply being added to the ticket after the merge before they are removed. Ideally there would be an option to prevent this during the merge in order to remove any potential security issues. Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1-2 sentences)We currently manually remove CCs when these situations occur. What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences)A checkbox (can be default ticked) to allow people to not add CCs into the new ticket.
In the legacy Explore dashboard, when you select “Schedule” there is an option to customize the message that is sent with your reporting dashboard. For example, we changed the default message “Your scheduled dashboard delivery is ready. It's attached to this email for you" to include the email addresses of our admins in case our managers needed any changes to the reports. Please update the “Schedule Delivery” option in the new builder to allow for adding a message to the emailed reports.
We would like to submit product feedback regarding scheduled dashboard deliveries in Zendesk Analytics.As stated in this Zendesk article, users should receive reminder notifications one week and one day before a scheduled delivery expires. However, based on our findings, no such notifications are currently being sent. In addition, there are no notifications when:A scheduled delivery has expired and stopped running. A schedule has been automatically suspended after five consecutive export failures. Repeated export failures occur and the schedule is approaching automatic suspension.This creates a risk that administrators and recipients remain unaware that reports are no longer being delivered until someone manually identifies the issue.We would like to request automated notifications to the schedule creator and Explore admins whenever:A scheduled delivery is due to expire (one week and one day before expiration). A scheduled delivery has expired. A scheduled delivery has been automatically suspended. Multiple consecutive export failures occur.Proactive alerts would improve visibility, reduce administrative effort, and help ensure the uninterrupted delivery of business-critical reports.
Currently, when viewing a ticket, it will show the Requester's name and the to email address, but it doesn't show what email the ticket was sent from. To see the from address, you have to open the "View Original Email" pop-up window. It would be great if the from address could be visible directly on the ticket, as this has caused some confusion for users with multiple emails associated with their profile when they reach out from an address other than their primary email.
Hello, Our organization uses internal Knowledge articles across several Zendesk instances. Agents can access these articles through the Knowledge section in the Agent Workspace context panel while working on tickets.Some of these internal articles contain sensitive information, including internal procedures, screenshots from other systems, and content that must not be shared with customers.The issue is that agents can open internal articles in the Knowledge panel, copy text, links, images, or screenshots from it, and paste that content into a public customer-facing reply. This can happen accidentally or intentionally. The same concern applies to any native functionality, such as “Copy to conversation”, if internal article content can be inserted into the ticket conversation.We investigated possible workarounds internally, but could not find a supported Zendesk configuration option to control this behavior. Help Center theme/CSS changes do not appear to apply to the Knowledge panel in Agent Workspace, and we could not find a way to customize the panel globally for internal articles. Why this mattersThe Knowledge panel is valuable because it lets agents access guidance directly while handling tickets. However, internal Knowledge content and customer-facing replies exist side by side in the same workspace.For organizations using internal Knowledge articles for sensitive workflows, this creates a practical governance gap:Internal content is easy to access. Public replies are available in the same view. Copying content between the two is easy. Admins do not appear to have controls to restrict, warn, or audit the action.This makes it difficult to safely expand the use of internal Knowledge articles in Agent Workspace. Requested capabilitiesIdeally, admins should be able to do one or more of the following: Prevent internal/sensitive Knowledge article content from being copied or inserted into public replies.Example: Disable selecting the content from sensitive articles and/or disable “Copy to conversation” for internal articles, or allow copying only into internal notes. Warn agents when they try to paste internal Knowledge content into a public reply. Zendesk already shows a warning in the Knowledge panel stating that “The requester does not have access to view this content.” However, this is a passive warning and can easily be missed or disregarded. We would like an additional active warning or confirmation step, such as a pop-up when an agent attempts to paste internal article content into a public reply, or when using “Copy to conversation” from an article the requester cannot access. Ideally, the agent should be required to confirm/accept before the content can be added to a public comment, or admins should be able to configure this action to be blocked. Audit or log the action if prevention is not possible.Example: log the article used, ticket ID, agent, timestamp, and whether the content was inserted into a public or internal comment. We understand that no control can fully prevent all bypasses, such as manually retyping information or taking screenshots. However, admins still need supported controls to reduce the risk of accidental exposure and to monitor how sensitive Knowledge content is used in public customer replies.A supported governance layer for sensitive/internal Knowledge content in Agent Workspace would allow teams to keep the productivity benefits of the Knowledge panel while adding the controls needed for sensitive internal information.Thank you!
Hi,We are currently exploring the use of Zendesk's generative AI search capabilities within our Help Center and are highly interested in integrating this feature into our custom workflows and applications. However, we’ve discovered that there is currently no public API or documented method to interact programmatically with the generative search endpoint (/generative_answers.json), particularly due to the need for the contents_data parameter, which is dynamically generated. We would like to request the following: API availability for generating or retrieving contents_data so that we can use the generative search feature outside the default Zendesk UI. Inclusion of this functionality in the API roadmap, either as part of Copilot or as a standalone feature. Access to any beta program or developer preview if this feature is being explored internally. Having this API would significantly increase the flexibility and automation possibilities for teams aiming to deliver enhanced AI-powered support experiences.
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) When using the Content Moderation >> Moderate Words tool, it matches strings, which essential makes the tool useless. What problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences) Matching partial strings of a banned word list isn't helpful. For example, "assistance" or "assurance" would get matched if you have "ass" in the word list. 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 is a daily issue when moderating posts. Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1-2 sentences) The only workaround is not to utilize the Moderate Words feature What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences) This tool should moderate based on the entire word string, not a partial text match.
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.
![[S_C]RN](https://uploads-us-west-2.insided.com/zendesk2-en/icon/1900207992304.gif){kind=icon}
