Discuss ideas, submit feedback, and track what's next
Help us understand your request
An intake-ready template
This is created a test
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)The new “Notify by>Autoreply using generative AI” trigger action (added with AI Agents for email/webform) only allows the fallback response to be customized. The normal response should be customizable as well as the fallback response.What problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences) With the existing “autoreplies with answers” trigger action, I can customize the response to include appropriate boilerplate above the suggested articles, which are inserted via the “autoreply.article_list” substitution. I want to be able to include the same boilerplate for GenAI replies with the new trigger action.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 the default behavior of the new “AI Agents for email/webform” capability, and not being able to implement the necessary boilerplate is blocking our implementing this new capability.Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1-2 sentences)I am trying to implement Instructions for the AI Agent to include the necessary boilerplate, which currently isn't working (I have a ticket open for that). But frankly, doing this via Instructions is a hack. What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences)The “Notify by>Autoreply using generative AI” trigger action should allow both the normal and fallback responses to be customized, inserting the GenAI content into the template via an appropriate subsitution, as is done for “autoreplies with articles”.
Hey Team, I’d like to request a feature for better time zone management in Zendesk. Currently, the account uses a single global time zone for all brands. While schedules allow different time zones for business hours and SLAs, there’s no option to set a time zone per brand. For Zendesk Clients with multiple brands across regions like Australia, North America, and Europe, this causes issues: • Ticket timestamps always show in the account time zone• Automations and time-based rules use the account time zone• Brand-specific reports are harder to interpret across regions Allowing a time zone per brand would: • Provide clearer ticket timelines for regional teams• Enable accurate automation timing per brand• Improve reporting and analytics by brand• Better support globally distributed teams Each brand could set its own time zone, similar to how schedules handle regional zones.
Overview A request for greater reasoning transparency in Auto Assist (Co-pilot) for procedure designers and QA testers. Currently, the "Why this suggestion was generated" tooltip explains what the AI decided, but not the full reasoning chain behind it. This affects anyone building, testing, or maintaining Auto Assist procedures. Problem StatementWhen the AI deviates from expected procedure steps, there is no way to query which specific element — a tag, a phrase, a piece of ticket context — caused the deviation. Diagnosis requires repeated (and often brutal) trial-and-error testing. Business ImpactDuring a recent beta procedure rollout, diagnosing an issue where the AI was conflating a shipping tag with warranty eligibility required 6+ hours of testing across 30+ test tickets. Each diagnosis required creating a new ticket, reproducing the exact conditions, and reverse-engineering the AI's decision from the tooltip summary. A transparency tool would have surfaced the root cause in minutes. Current WorkaroundsRelying on the "Why this suggestion was generated" tooltip, which provides a useful but high-level summary. It does not break down how individual tags, procedure conditions, or cross-procedure context contributed to the decision. Ideal SolutionAn interactive reasoning interface where admins can ask natural language questions about a suggestion — e.g. "Why did you skip Step 4?" or "How did this tag affect your decision?" — returning a step-by-step breakdown of the AI's decision logic for that specific suggestion.
Problem When viewing a customer's Interaction History, all conversations are displayed identically - there is no way to distinguish bot-handled conversations from human-agent conversations at a glance. Agents are forced to open each conversation individually just to check whether it involved a bot, which is inefficient and adds unnecessary friction to the workflow. Proposed Solution Add a visual indicator to bot conversations in the Interaction History list. This could take the form of: A label (e.g. "Bot" tag) A distinct icon next to the conversation entry A color-coded indicator Expected Benefit Agents would be able to instantly identify bot interactions without opening them, reducing unnecessary clicks and improving overall efficiency when handling tickets with multiple prior conversations. Use Case An agent opens a ticket and sees 5 recent conversations in the Interaction History panel. Currently, they must click each one to find the relevant human-handled interaction. With this feature, bot conversations would be immediately recognizable, allowing the agent to focus only on what matters.
Post Title: Single group routing Feature Request Summary: Allowing agents to be part of multiple groups for ticket purposes but only one group for voice purposes. Description/Use Cases: If an agent is part of "sales", "internal support" and "contact centre" can I keep them in all of these groups but only have calls from "internal support" routed to them? Business impact of limitation or missing feature: This is a part of the supervisors role and they need to be available for tickets in all groups to handle them and for the tickets to then be assigned back to them. However we do not want them to recieve calls throughb any group apart from internal support. Other necessary information or resources:
Hello Team, We would like to submit a feature request for expanded Trigger Conditions that evaluate whether an end-user has an email address or phone number associated with their Zendesk profile and ticket. We are requesting the ability to use native trigger conditions to detect the presence or absence of contact information (email address and/or phone number) on an end-user's profile, and execute actions based on that data - specifically, sending an SMS notification containing the ticket ID to callers who do not have an email address on file. This is a critical operational requirement. We have active contractual SLAs that mandate this specific workflow, and the absence of this functionality directly impacts our ability to meet those obligations. We are seeking a fully native Zendesk solution. Workarounds or third-party integrations are not viable options. We appreciate your attention to this request and ask that it be prioritized accordingly. We would welcome any updates on the feasibility or roadmap timeline for this feature. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Current behavior: In the Zendesk Messaging SDK (iOS & Android), the end-user conversation list shows all conversations without any indication of their current status. Users cannot distinguish between active (Open/Pending) and resolved (Solved) conversations. Expected behavior: We'd like end users to see the status of each conversation in the conversation list, either via: A visible label or badge (e.g. "Open", "Solved", "In progress") Or at minimum, a distinct visual indicator (color, icon) for solved conversations Business impact: End users unaware their case is already handled open duplicate conversations on the same topic This creates unnecessary agent workload for merging tickets With multi-conversations enabled the lack of status visibility is more impactful than ever. Users managing multiple threads have no way to know which ones are still active.Upvote if your team faces the same issue :)
Hi Team,I would like to request a new feature to add advanced reporting capabilities for Side Conversations.The Problem: While the Side Conversation feature (via email and Slack) is essential to our workflow, we currently have no way to measure its usage or efficiency.Proposed Solution: We need a way to quantify and track these interactions. Specifically, we would need: Count of Side Conversations per Ticket: A metric that shows how many side conversations are initiated on each ticket. Individual TTR for Side Conversations: The ability to track the Time to Resolution (TTR) for each side conversation individually, separate from the main ticket's TTR. Use Case (Why this is important): This data would be crucial for us. It would allow us to understand the true complexity of our tickets, identify bottlenecks (e.g., waiting on other teams), and track the performance of internal departments or external partners we contact via side conversations.Thank you for considering this enhancement!
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)It would be nice to have the ability to post multiple internal or public notes using the native Zendesk functionality described in the following article:https://support.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/6191477770906-Automatically-adding-comments-and-notes-to-tickets-using-triggersCurrently, only the first internal note can be posted when multiple triggers are invoked.This issue affects both admins and agents. What problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences) This behavior is counterintuitive and limits the capabilities of the feature, forcing a switch to the API to avoid these kinds of conflicts.It is preferable to post notes using "Ticket > Internal Note" because it provides a rich text editor. In contrast, the API requires raw HTML to be used. 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 problem most recently occurred this week when we switched from posting notes via the API to using the publicly released "Ticket > Internal Note" functionality:https://support.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/8763325557018-Announcing-the-general-availability-of-autoreply-and-internal-note-actions-in-ticket-triggers.Although two separate triggers were meant to post internal notes, only one note was successfully posted. Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1-2 sentences)The possible workarounds are as follows: Posting notes via the API. Limiting the number of notes to one across all triggers. What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences)The ideal solution would be the ability to post all specified internal notes or public comments defined in trigger actions without limitations.
Would it be possible for Zendesk allowed administrators to create custom views or filters for suspended tickets based on the suspension reason. Currently, the Suspended Tickets view shows all suspended tickets together, regardless of why they were suspended. This includes spam, automated replies, bounced emails, and other system-generated messages. There is no way to filter or create a view for specific suspension reasons. You can sort but that isn't always that helpful. With Zendesk’s newer email verification requirements, this limitation will become more noticeable operationally. When a request is submitted from the Help Center by a user who is not signed in, the ticket is placed into suspended status until the user verifies their email. These tickets can represent legitimate support requests that simply require verification before opening. However, because the suspended queue also contains large amounts of spam and automated messages, it is difficult to quickly identify these verification-related tickets. We also have a external support email that will get a decent amount of spam and/or auto replies that tend to clog up that view. Being able to create a custom view that filters suspended tickets by suspension reason would allow teams to: Monitor verification-related submissions more effectively Troubleshoot situations where users believe they submitted a ticket but it has not yet opened Reduce time spent scanning the entire suspended queue This functionality would make the suspended ticket queue significantly more usable for operational monitoring and troubleshooting. Thanks!
A new button appeared today after a call ends "Finish wrap up". This is positioned in the same exact spot as the button to end a call. If you are attempting to click end call while the person on the phone hangs up, the button instantly changes to “Finish wrap up” causing you to click “Finish wrap up” which ends your wrap up time instantly. This is not great from a UX POV in my opinion, buttons/user clicks should not change functionality while living in the same location. An easy solution would be to position the finish wrap up button to the left of all the buttons that control the call (where it says recording, or to the left of that), so when the call ends the finish wrap up button populates and can be clicked, but not accidentally. This same issue occurs on the phone drop down, so it cannot be used as a workaround to avoid ending your wrap up time.
Hi team - is there any feature on the product roadmap that will allow you to create a new ticket off of a public-reply from an existing ticket? Use case: if you are working on a ticket and a customer raises an unrelated issue - being able to have an option to “Create new ticket from public reply” would be useful to easily transfer info/data into a new case Being able to easily transfer attachments and files as part of this public reply, instead of manually saving + uploading all of the files into a new ticket Similar to this feature that is already available in community re: you can create new Zendesk tickets from community posts, are there any plans or current features that can mimic this functionality for a public-reply on a ticket? Thank you. Example:Can this functionality please be replicated for Zendesk ticket comments or replies?
Feature Request Summary: Help Center should have an API endpoint for Article Verification, or attributes within the existing Article endpoint for verification. Description/Use Cases: Verification is a great concept but is rather limited in its implementation through Help Center. Exposing this process via API would allow for more robust 3rd-party tools to be built that could manage Article Verification more effectively. Business impact of limitation or missing feature: Our team uses outside tools, such as Google Sheets, to track verifications. It is cumbersome, but allows us to have the right controls in place for how verifications should flow for our team. Having the ability to do this right through Zendesk would allow us more flexibility to build tools to handle it. Otherwise, we'll keep outsourcing the work.
Can the Create a View button be removed, or the icon changed from a plus symbol. Horrible UX having a new view button below the new ticket button which is also a plus symbol.
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 would like the ability to customize the text of the messaging widget's privacy policy textWhat problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences) We need a slightly more complex version with the ability to add multiple links, if possible. Having this be customizable entirely, including a simple text editor, like this page, would be fantastic. 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)n/aAre you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1-2 sentences)Yes, we are adding in a second “disclamer” as a follow up message in flow builder. What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences)Make the entire privacy notice section customizable with a simple text editiing tool. It's awesome but the verbiage should be able to be customized.
As a Support agent, when a customer gets to the voicemail option and hangs up or doesn't speak, then I want that ticket to auto-solve to reduce manual time. Tagging won't work because the only way to differentiate is that if a voicemail is actually left the transcript will have the word Customer. However, Zendesk doesn't ‘read’ internal system comments so it can't tag it for a trigger. This is a big issue during busy times. It creates a lot of noise and manual triage work taking away agents from more meaningful work. Please figure this out.
Hello, I would like to request that you add a placeholder for the customer satisfaction bad rating reason. We use a trigger to notify all team leads when a bad rating is received. This notification includes information about the rating and ticket, and I would like to add the reason to this list: Requester: {{ticket.requester.name}}Assignee: {{ticket.assignee.name}}Group: {{ticket.group.name}}Ticket ID: {{ticket.id}}Link: {{ticket.link}} Satisfaction comment: "{{satisfaction.current_comment}}" Thanks!
We are using "First assignment to resolution time" to evaluate our agents' performance. However, it is only for calendar hour, so some data value is being counted too much high because of tickets which had been replied next day. So I would like to see "First assignment to resolution time - Business hour". (I have got feedback from Zendesk Customer Advocate that it is different from First resolution time or Full resolution time)
Hi, our agents says that the outgoing ring tone is too high, especially if you compare with the incoming ring tone. If they lower the volume on their headsets the customer will be almost silent, which makes the agent higher the volume again, and when next call back (or outgoing call) comes it will be too loud. Our agents are almost afraid of outgoing calls. Is there a way of adjusting the volume?
Zendesk recently announced the upcoming introduction of Anonymous Requester Verification for Help Center requests. While the security motivation is understandable, making this feature mandatory could create serious problems for existing workflows.→ https://support.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/10360295453082-Announcing-verification-for-anonymous-help-center-requests Many organizations intentionally allow anonymous ticket submissions for legitimate reasons — such as embedded webviews, lightweight support forms, or systems where user identity is already handled outside of Zendesk. With this upcoming change, those workflows may be forced to redesign their entire support flow, even though they are currently working without issue. What makes this even more confusing is that Zendesk already allows administrators to control whether anonymous users can access the Help Center at all. If admins can decide that, why are we not allowed to decide whether anonymous request verification should be required? Right now this feels like a forced security policy with no flexibility and no clear migration path for organizations relying on anonymous submissions. If this feature is intended to improve security, it should be implemented as a configurable option in Admin Center, not a mandatory requirement. Please allow administrators to enable or disable Anonymous Requester Verification based on their own workflow and security requirements.
Hi, Similar to how you can set wrap up time limits on Talk, is it possible to do the same for Chat tickets? Agents find that they end a chat and start to add their notes/ update the ticket form whilst the next chat is inbound and pinging to be answered. It's getting difficult to concentrate on finishing the first task before answering a new chat to prevent a missed conversation. Can anyone advise if this is available or if it can be made available?
Hello, Zendesk currently allows IVR routing only to external phone numbers. This prevents customers from using IVR to route calls between phone lines that exist within the same Zendesk account. This limitation reduces flexibility in multi‑line setups and prevents consolidated call‑flows within a single platform. Suggestion for improvement:Allowing IVR routing to other Zendesk‑managed phone lines within the same instance, similar to how external number routing works today.
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 would like Zendesk Talk to include an option to set the queue wait time to zero minutes. This feature would mainly impact our customers and agents. Allowing a zero wait time would prevent customers from waiting in a queue when an agent is unavailable.What problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences)Currently, the shortest wait time that can be configured is one minute, which still places customers in a queue. A zero-minute option would allow calls to bypass the queue so customers do not wait unnecessarily.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 issue occurs regularly when our phone queue becomes busy. Customers are placed in the queue and may wait for several minutes, even when agents are unable to answer the call. In many cases, the call eventually goes unanswered, which creates a poor customer experience. This impacts our support efficiency and customer satisfaction because customers spend time waiting without receiving assistance.What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences)The ideal solution would be the ability to set the Zendesk Talk queue wait time to zero minutes. This would allow calls to skip the queue entirely so our team can return the call later instead of keeping customers waiting.
Currently Zendesk supports only 4 hardcoded priority/severity levels: Urgent, High, Normal, Low.Customer contracts may require different naming or extra levels, e.g. Emergency, High, Medium, Low, Query. There is a need for more flexibility to be able to set it up according to customer contract.
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.
