Discuss ideas, submit feedback, and track what's next
Help us understand your request
An intake-ready template
Overview of Feature Request & Affected RolesWe are requesting the ability to sort and filter tickets using Lookup Relationship fields (LURPs) within Zendesk views.Our organization uses a Lookup Relationship field to designate Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) responsible for certain tickets. This field is critical for routing, collaboration, and identifying tickets assigned to a specific SME.Currently, Zendesk does not allow sorting or filtering by Lookup Relationship fields in views, which significantly limits the operational usefulness of the field for reporting and ticket management.Affected roles include: Support Agents Escalation Teams Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) Support Managers / Operations Leads These teams rely on Zendesk views to efficiently locate and manage tickets tied to specific SMEs.What problem does this solve?Without the ability to filter or sort by a Lookup Relationship field, teams cannot easily identify tickets associated with a specific SME.This creates several operational challenges: Agents cannot quickly locate tickets tied to a particular SME. Teams must manually search through multiple pages of tickets to find relevant items. Escalations and SME collaboration are slowed. Operational reporting and workload visibility are limited. The Lookup Relationship field is designed to model relationships between records (such as SMEs), but the inability to use it in views, sorting, or filtering prevents it from functioning as a practical workflow tool.When were you last affected? Frequency & Business ImpactThis issue occurs daily for teams managing SME workflows.Our teams frequently need to locate tickets associated with a specific SME, particularly when: Following up on escalated issues Reviewing SME workload Coordinating cross-team troubleshooting Managing ticket queues tied to expertise areas Because the field cannot be filtered or sorted, agents must manually navigate through multiple pages of tickets, which increases time spent locating tickets and introduces inefficiencies in ticket management.At scale, this results in: Lost productivity for support agents Delays in issue resolution Reduced visibility into SME workloads Current Workaround (if any)Currently there is no effective workaround that preserves the benefits of Lookup Relationship fields.Possible alternatives have significant drawbacks: Manual searching through ticket pages, which is time-consuming. Replacing the lookup field with a dropdown or user field, which removes the relational data benefits and increases maintenance overhead. Using additional tagging or manual data entry, which introduces inconsistency and administrative burden. These workarounds reduce the value of Lookup Relationship fields and create additional operational complexity.Ideal SolutionAllow Lookup Relationship fields to be used in Zendesk views for filtering and sorting, similar to other ticket fields.Ideally, Zendesk would support: Filtering views by Lookup Relationship field values Sorting views by Lookup Relationship field values Using these fields in view conditions and column sorting Optional: exposing these fields in Explore reporting filters This enhancement would allow teams to fully leverage relational data in Zendesk while maintaining efficient ticket management workflows.
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)Currently there are trigger conditions that test for tags on a ticket (or not on a ticket). I want to have triggers that fire when a tag is set or when a tag is removed.What problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences) Trigger conditions for tags apply to current ticket status, not to tag changes. When I want a trigger to fire only when a tag gets set on a ticket, I have to create a 2nd tag to prevent the same trigger from firing the next time the ticket is updated, for some completely different reason.For example, if I want to send an email to an Agent when a specific tag gets set, today I need to have a condition that tests for the presence of that tag (e.g., tag1) and the absence of a secondary tag (e.g., tag1_notification_sent), and then the action sends the email and sets the secondary tag. Without the secondary tag, the email would get set every time the ticket is updated as long as tag1 is on the ticket.A trigger condition that activates only when the tag is set, not simply because it's present, would remove this overhead and tag-clutter. A corresponding condition for tag removal would be equally useful.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)I have numerous examples of “blocker tags” in my triggers to prevent redundant notifications. I was looking at adding another trigger today that would fire when a tag was set and decided to not do it because I didn't want to add yet another secondary tag to clutter up the ticket's tags.Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1-2 sentences)The only workaround is to use a secondary tag.What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences)Ideally there would be options for Ticket > Tags akin to Changed/Changed from/Changed to, etc for Ticket > Status category, such as “Added at least one of the following”/"Removed at least one of the following"
Our agents use the Interaction History in the context panel to check for previous conversations with members. To keep up with live channels demand having all ticket information in 1 spot is ideal.
Although I recently found a workflow to change the recipient based on the requester's locale — useful when we have multiple support emails under the same brand so that, for instance, the auto-reply is sent from an address with a name in their language — I haven't found a way to change the recipient for a side conversation. It's really unfortunate that we don't have a selector for this. Imagine we have a specific address that we share with our vendors so they can contact us. If we need to email a vendor from a customer ticket via a side conversation, the email is sent from the brand's default address instead of the one we've explicitly asked them to use. This creates confusion for the vendor, who may end up replying to the wrong address — sometimes even sending requests meant for us to our customer-facing support inbox.I hope this topic gets enough upvotes to make it onto the roadmap.
Hi Zendesk. I know you have now twice neither acted on. but also archived, requests to support HEIC image previews within a ticket. However, with both posts (one from 2019 and another from 2021) having been closed for comment, there's currently no way for additional customers to speak up and say they too need this feature. So I'm posting here to remind your product team that--six years later--we are still waiting for this simple feature. All we want is to be able to preview HEIC files within the ticket just as we can preview JPGs (without having to pay yet more money for a third-party app to do so). Please add this to your list of new features for 2025. Thank you.
Hi there, Please could you allow us to report on the actual rating selected by a customer in the new CSAT experience, as without this it is no good to us. We currently use a separate process where we send a survey via MS Forms for some teams, and ask customers to rate on a scale of 1 - 5. We would love to use the native Zendesk version, as this removes a lot of manual work in compiling surveys. But without being able to report on the rating, it defeats the purpose for us and is really disappointing. I realise I can get it from the API per this article, but it is multiple steps to get 1 rating back which is just not practical or feasible. Getting the CSAT ratings of tickets | Zendesk Developer Docs Regards, Steven.
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.]. It would be helpful if there was a way we could see which Help Center Articles are linked to and from other Help Center Articles. We are rebuilding our knowledge base and at times we have to archive an article and replace it with a new one which breaks links. If there was a way to know where the article was linked in other Help Center Articles, we could prevent that from happening. What problem do you see this solving?Preventing broken article links, keeping accurate information, improving customer experience. 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 on a daily basis as we rebuild our knowledge base and can continue to happen on a daily basis once our knowledge base is fully built out. Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem?No, if someone notices a broken link, they need to report it so we can fix it. This only solves the issue for the single article, not all that the article is linked to/from. What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? Ideally, if we can go into an article and see all the other articles it is linked to and from. Then we can click those links to open the articles and make updates.
We have had to rely on the auto-refresh third-party Chrome extension to provide what should be native functionality. This has side effects though that can cause erratic behaviour in the browser.The tickets also stopped auto-refreshing along with the views in the last few months and now requires a browser refresh "F5" (this is even without the third-party auto-refresh extension installed or any other extensions for that matter). That is a lot of manual work from support staff to make sure we don't miss tickets. We should not have to be installing 3rd party extensions, constantly clearing cookies and cached data and refreshing the browser, just to achieve what should be a base level of functionality. We are on an enterprise license and deal with a high volume of tickets and can't afford to be relying on manual refreshes to keep on top of tickets, that is what a ticketing system is for! Please address this issue as this should be standard functionality for a ticketing system, especially one that has been around as long as ZenDesk.
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 GenAI autoreply sent to an end-user via “AI Agents for email/webform” is not included in the ticket message trail visible to end-users in their request history in the Help Center portal. I thought this was a bug and submitted a support request, but the ZD Support agent told me that this is intentional and that I need to submit a suggestion to get this implemented.What problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences) With the new “AI Agents for email/webform” capability, the end-user receives an autoreply email to their ticket submission from the AI Agent. This is part of Agent interaction with the end-user, and it should be included in the ticket trail, because if all goes well, it will be the only Agent interaction for that ticket before it's Solved.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 recently converted from “autoreply with articles” to “AI Agents for email/webform”, and are looking to adjust our SOP for 0-touch ticket resolution in appropriate situations. Which means there may be no public comments in the ticket from a live Agent, only the GenAI response from the AI Agent. This GenAI reply is included in the ticket trail in the Agent workspace, and obviously the end-user receives the autoreply. But if the end-user reviews the ticket history in the Help Center portal, the GenAI response isn't there. Which means that the end-user cannot review the complete interaction history. This seems improper.Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1-2 sentences)No workaround exists.What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences)The GenAI response sent in the autoreply to the end-user's request should be included in the ticket trail the end-user sees in the Help Center portal, just like it appears in the ticket trail in the Agent Workspace.
Hello, We have encountered a limitation within the Zendesk log-in page that leads to unintended cross-branding, posing operational and security challenges. Currently, our Zendesk instance hosts four distinct brands, each with its own name and dedicated team, with department spaces used for brand separation. However, the issue arises when the log-in URL determines which brand name appears on the login page interface. This discrepancy exposes agents to brand names they should not see, potentially leading to cross-brand confusion and even data security risks. After reviewing Zendesk’s settings, we were unable to find an option to control brand name visibility at the login stage. Proposed solutions: An option to configure the displayed name independently of the URL return text or any attempts to manipulate the link. This would provide a consistent, controlled interface, reducing security risks. A less ideal option for us is to have the ability to select which brand will be displayed on log-in screen always, regardless of the URL manipulation. Implementing such controls would greatly benefit our operations by minimizing potential brand exposure issues and ensuring a seamless and secure user experience. Thank you!
[N.B. I posted this same request a week ago but the post never showed up, so I'm reposting it…] 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 internal note posted to the ticket thread when the end-user clicks “No, I still need help” in response to an autoreply from AI Agent Essentials is improper and should be changed. Our Agents are quite perturbed with the way this message shows up.What problem do you see this solving? (1-2 sentences) Recently AI Agent Essentials autoreplies were updated to prompt the end-user “Did this resolve your issue?”, with “Yes, solve my request” and “No, I still need help” options. If the user clicks these buttons, an internal note is added to the ticket stream (and the ticket is Solved for a “Yes”) response. The internal note used for the “No” case is inappropriate and perturbing to our Agents.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 any time the end-user clicks the “No” option. When a user clicks “No, I still need help”, what winds up in the ticket stream is “The requester marked the AI agent's reply as not helpful.”. But that isn't what the requester did at all. The requester said that they need help, not that the AI Agent's reply is unhelpful.A significant portion of our tickets, maybe 50%, involve issues that a live Agent must address on our end (e.g., issues with the user's configuration in our system). Our Help Center clearly documents self-help options for our end-users - and is very clear with them when the issue they are having requires us to fix the issue for them. The AI Agent's response then clearly explains to the end-user when they need to wait for our Agent to help them out. It is completely proper for the user to click “No, I still need help” in response to the autoreply, and it is completely improper to presume that the end-user clicking this option means that the AI Agent was unhelpful. And this discrepancy is upsetting my Agents.Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? (If yes, please explain) (1-2 sentences)No workaround exists, as we have no control over these internal notes.What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences)The internal note should state the same thing as the user stated by clicking the button - simply state, e.g., “The requester stated that they still require assistance” or something to that effect. Don't leave a note that implies things about AI Agent behavior that cannot be presumed.I will reinforce that my Agents are extremely perturbed seeing these notes. This may seem like a small/trivial thing, but it should be easy to fix to make the message accurate.
Hello, I’d like to submit a product request. Currently, when viewing a ticket via Actions > Ticket Preview > Side Panel, the side panel cannot be resized. Having the ability to resize the side panel would greatly improve usability and visibility when reviewing ticket details.
Please give a quick overview of your product feature request or feedback and note who in your org is affected by this issue. It would be helpful if AI Agent (Advanced) Instructions could be targeted based on user attributes such as tags, user fields, or organization fields. This would allow the AI agent to provide different responses depending on customer context or entitlements. This primarily affects administrators configuring AI agents and customers interacting with them. What problem do you see this solving? Currently, instructions appear to apply globally and cannot easily be adjusted based on customer attributes. Allowing conditional targeting would enable more personalized and accurate AI responses. 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 limitation appears when configuring AI agents to handle different types of customers with varying support entitlements. Without conditional instructions, it becomes difficult to ensure the AI agent provides the correct guidance depending on the customer context. This can lead to inconsistent experiences where customers may receive instructions that do not match their available support options. The issue occurs whenever organizations need to differentiate responses for different customer groups. Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem? Workarounds typically involve using segments, search rules, or custom logic outside of the Instructions feature. However, these approaches do not provide the same level of direct control within the AI instruction configuration. What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? The ideal solution would allow conditional logic within AI Agent Instructions, similar to how segments work. Instructions could be applied only when certain conditions are met, such as specific user tags, user fields, or organization attributes.
Hello Zendesk Team,I would like to submit a feature improvement request related to the AI Agent Reporting dashboard. Current situation:When exporting data from the AI Agent Reporting dashboard (Export CSV), the available metrics are:- Use case- AI agent- Channel- Reply method- Total conversations- Automated resolutions- Custom resolutions- Escalated conversations- BSAT What's missing:Two key metrics are visible in the dashboard UI but are NOT included in the CSV export:1. Handled Conversations – the percentage of conversations fully handled by the AI agent without escalation2. Ratings Requested – the number/percentage of conversations where customers were asked to provide a BSAT score Impact / Business case:Our team monitors AI agent performance on a weekly basis, broken down by use case. Without these two metrics in the CSV export, we are forced to:- Manually cross-reference data from multiple views- Switch between different dashboard tabs to gather all needed KPIs- Spend significant extra time each week compiling data that should be available in a single exportThis makes week-over-week trend analysis slow and error-prone. Requested improvement:Please add Handled Conversations Rate and Ratings Requested as available columns in the CSV export from the AI Agent Reporting dashboard, with the same filter options that already exist today. This would allow teams to perform complete performance tracking in a single file and significantly reduce manual reporting effort.Thank you for considering this request. Please let me know if any additional information is needed. Best regards,Chris
In our company, we have three different product brands that are commercialized. Because of this, we require separate customizations for each brand, and there cannot be any conflicts related to tickets, bots, or other configurations.With the new CSAT implementation, we noticed that when a customer evaluates a ticket through WhatsApp, the URL that appears belongs to the domain that was initially configured in Zendesk when the first brand was created. Since this domain cannot be changed, it creates an issue for our other brands.Currently, when a customer evaluates a ticket from another brand via WhatsApp, a new tab opens and the main domain of the first brand is displayed in the URL (as shown in the screenshot). This causes confusion because the domain shown does not correspond to the brand associated with the ticket.Therefore, we would like to request a customization so that only the subdomain is displayed in the CSAT evaluation URL. This would greatly improve the experience for our multi-brand environment and make the new CSAT implementation more suitable for our use case.
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.
Good Afternoon, I can not access the analytics platform
We are a part of the EAP and have a question about the translation. Is there a way to train the Zendesk translation model on words or terms that we do not want translated and should stay in the original language?
ObjectiveTo modernize the Zendesk SDK integration by allowing administrators to upload .p8 (Token-based) files for iOS push notifications, replacing the restrictive and high-maintenance .p12 (Certificate-based) method. Problem StatementCurrently, Zendesk Messaging for mobile requires .p12 certificates. For organizations managing multiple products (Product 1 through 4), this creates: High Operational Overhead: Certificates expire every 13 months, requiring manual rotation and risking downtime if missed. Scalability Friction: Each product requires its own specific certificate, increasing the surface area for configuration errors. Security Rigidity: Unlike .p8 keys, .p12 certificates are tied to specific App IDs, preventing a streamlined "one-key-to-rule-them-all" approach for a suite of apps. Proposed SolutionUpdate the Admin Center > Channels > Messaging configuration to include a "Token-based (p8)" upload option. Fields should include: Key ID: The 10-character unique identifier for the .p8 key. Team ID: The Apple Developer Team ID. App Bundle ID: The specific identifier for the product app. Use Case Scenario: The Multi-Product ScalingThe Profile Company: A multi-vertical SaaS provider supporting four distinct mobile applications (Product 1, 2, 3, and 4) under a single Zendesk instance. Support Goal: Maintaining 99.9% uptime for proactive messaging and real-time support notifications across all platforms. The ConflictThe Engineering team has shifted all internal services to Apple’s token-based authentication. However, because Zendesk Messaging only supports .p12, the DevOps team is forced to maintain a "legacy" pipeline specifically for the Zendesk integration. The Impact of No Change The "Blackout" Risk: If the .p12 for Product 3 expires and the Admin is OOO, customers stop receiving push notifications. The conversation dies, CSAT drops, and the "Messaging" channel becomes a liability. Maintenance Debt: With four products, the team is performing manual certificate rotations every quarter. This is 4x the work, 4x the documentation, and 4x the chance for a mismatch between the production and sandbox environments. Authentication Conflict: Running .p12 for Zendesk while the rest of the app's infrastructure uses .p8 creates technical debt and complicates the handshake between the Apple Push Notification service (APNs) and the Zendesk SDK. The Desired OutcomeBy implementing .p8 support, the company uploads one key to Zendesk that covers all four products. This key never expires, requires zero annual maintenance, and ensures that the support experience is as modern as the products being supported.
ChallengeToday, all user fields are global and always visible to any agent. There’s no way to make user fields conditional - like with ticket fields - and no way to map user fields to specific brands. Additionally, there isn't a distinction between what’s relevant for end-users vs. staff/agents. Esp. in multibrand environments, this can create cluttered and confusing user profiles, as fields that are only relevant to one brand (or one department) appear for everyone, and regardless of the core user role (as in, licensed vs end-user).Internal stakeholders (support agents, account managers, customer success, IT) have to scroll through irrelevant data, which increases cognitive load and risk of misusing or misinterpreting fields.Who's affectedI'd say this affects everyone to some extent, every day. Agents and internal staff who interact with user profiles daily Admins who need to maintain clean, usable data models End-users (indirectly), since a cluttered profile means agents could miss/mishandle important context Example solutionsJust examples, obviously, any of these would add significant value!1. User fields per BrandNo conditionality but at least Admins could map user fields to a specific brand.2. Conditional User FieldsMirror the conditional ticket fields feature for users (e.g. only show a user Field B if Field A = XYZ).3. Conditional User Fields per Brand A combo of 1 and 2, for example: If Brand is ABC, then show “Field Set 1” Within Field Set 1, configure user field dependencies (like we already do for ticket fields in each form) Could also be CUF per Role..? :-)Additionally, profile segmentationNowadays, if we add a custom field to users, this field will also appear in Agent profiles. We could let Admins configure which fields appear on end-user profiles vs. staff profiles, as these are fundamentally different personas. Functionality like the Profiles API already lets us enrich users (esp. with external data), but Zendesk’s native user profiles can’t be made brand-aware or role-aware. In multibrand setups this creates clutter and, to some extent, inefficiency, since every field shows for every user regardless of relevance.Adding conditional user fields, brand-scoped fields, and/or at least segmented profiles for end-users vs team members would definitely make profiles easier to interact with.
How can I like and hide Facebook and Instagram comments through Zendesk? Hi, To further clarify, we are lacking the following functionality for Facebook tickets: 1. "Like" individual facebook comments from customers2. Hide certain comments from our page Is this a feature gap or is there an add-on that will enable this that we are unaware of?
Hello, I would like to have desktop or browser notifications when tickets are updated as a native feature in Zendesk. When things are very busy, I get bombarded with so many emails about Zendesk tickets that the notifications I actually want to see often get lost. This can sometimes lead to delays in getting back to folks about time-sensitive issues if I do not see a pending ticket reappear as "open" soon enough. If I could get a desktop or browser notification as soon as a pending or solved ticket that is assigned to me reappears in My Open Tickets, when someone tags me in a ticket, or when someone assigns a ticket to me, it would help be very helpful. Thank you!
Hi,We have a customer who requires French Canadian Translation Support in AI Agents. They have knowledge set up in this locale. Please could this be added to roadmap?Thanks
I would like to request that the Change tests (Changed, Changed to, Changed from, etc) be added for custom Drop-downs for triggers. I was unable to find a similar topic, but I did find someone's comment that aligns with my request here. We use Drop-down custom fields in tickets to categorize requests. These are generally manipulated by our support personnel only. I would like to be able to send notifications when a Drop-down is changed, so that I can target the correct internal/external groups that need to receive a one-time notification of this event. Right now, I appear to be limited to only Is/Is not/Present/Not present. This does not work for me, since it fires every time a ticket receives any update. I cannot restrict this to a Created ticket condition since these dropdowns are either A) not always selected on ticket creation and B) can be changed during troubleshooting. For my needs I would appreciate being able to just set a condition for "<custom field> Changed to <field value>". I've reviewed some options for using tags but that just seems like a messy work around, and there is some risk that tags will be unintentionally edited by personnel during ticket updates. Additionally, even the tags associated with the dropdown can still only be tested as "Contains at least one of the following" or "Contains none of the following". I realize this may not be straightforward since Drop-downs are probably lumped into all other "custom field" types, which these additional tests may not apply to. However, Drop-downs can already be used in specific tests to check their precise values so some differentiation must be possible, and "Changed" seems generic enough to apply to just about anything at a minimum. Perhaps it requires its own topic, but maybe "Added"/"Removed" should be testable conditions for tags? That would potentially resolve my issue (since custom fields automatically add/remove tags) and other tag-related ones.
Is it possible for Zendesk Talk to have native noise cancelling, like Google Meet? The headsets we use pick up so much background noise with Zendesk Talk, however, we do not have issues with Google Meet due to it's built in noise cancelling. Unfortunately, replacing everyone's headset isn't currently possible. Is Zendesk considering this?
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.
