Discuss ideas, submit feedback, and track what's next
Help us understand your request
An intake-ready template
When you work with a problem ticket you kan klick on the Incident button to see all the connected indicents. The presented attributes is like this: I would like to customize the view or second best, add the requesters organisation to the list.
Hi all,I would like to request greater control over the Welcome Email that is automatically sent when the Help Center is enabled.Current situationWhen: The Help Center is active, and “Anybody can submit requests” is enabled Zendesk automatically sends a welcome email to new end users who submit a request.This email: Cannot be fully disabled Has a fixed subject line Contains system-controlled text that cannot be edited Is always triggered when the Help Center is active The problemIn our case, we use the Help Center strictly as a public knowledge base.We do not want: Customers to create Help Center accounts Customers to track tickets via the portal Customers to receive any account-related emails We only want customers to: Read articles Contact Live Chat if needed The welcome email creates confusion because: It asks users to create a password It references signing in It includes text such as:“If you didn't sign up to [Brand] using this email address you can safely ignore this email.” For regulated industries (e.g., online gambling in the Netherlands), this is especially problematic: We cannot send automated emails in English Customers may believe this refers to their actual gaming account It creates unnecessary concern and support contact What we needIdeally, Zendesk should allow: The ability to completely disable the welcome email even when the Help Center is active Full customization of: Subject line All body text System default strings A configuration where: Help Center is public Web Widget (Classic) works No account creation flow is triggered This would allow companies that only want a self-service knowledge base to use Guide without forcing account-related communication.Are others experiencing the same limitation?I would really appreciate if this could be considered for the roadmap, as it currently blocks us from using the Help Center in production.Thanks in advance.
The current behavior when exporting a CSV from Explore creates a new row for a ticket for each value in a multi select field. Our reporting requirements for our client requires this data to be displayed as a single row for each ticket with all data values included (comma separated) in the cell associated with the multi-select field. This creates a lot of extra work because I have to manually consolidate the duplicate ticket rows and copy the values from each one into the common cell, then delete the duplicated tickets. Here is an example of the current behavior: Here is an example of the preferred output which currently requires a lot of manual work to achieve:
Dear Community, We are thrilled that Zendesk Dark Mode is now in your hands with our Zendesk Dark Mode EAP. We are thrilled to have you start trying this feature. Please share your feedback with us here in the comments below to help us improve this feature! We appreciate you taking the time to share your insights.
Hello, I would like to know how to split tickets natively in Zendesk. We have used te Split n Close third part app, but now it's limited its features to premium users, meaning that we would have to pay $3.00 per month per agent just to keep splitting tickets.I consider that this is a basic feature (others cheaper helpdesks have it built in) and ZD must have a solution for its clients.
Please give a quick overview of your product feature request or feedback and note who in your org is affected by this issue.As an agent I would like to be able to attach comments from end users into side conversations for Messaging tickets. This way, I can provide field operations with the feedback from end users. This is currently not possible as described here. What problem do you see this solving?Agents can quickly provide word for word feedback/suggestions over to field operations. Being able to attach directly to do side conversation would minimize risk and speed up time it takes to send side conversations. 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 problem happens on a daily basis. This is critical for our business as our agents sent feedback to field operations multiple times a day. Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem?Yes, my agents have to manually copy and paste responses now. This poses a risk as all of the content may not be carried over properly. What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function? (1-2 sentences)Allow the ability to attach ticket comments to side conversations like email or legacy chat tickets currently do.
Following the introduction of the “View audit logs” permission described in the this announcement, we have identified a concern regarding the effective scope of this permission. When the option is enabled for a team member, the interface also displays the “Manage settings” button, which allows users to modify the “Automatically delete PII” feature.Issue DescriptionThe “View audit logs” permission is expected to provide strictly read‑only access to audit information. However, the presence of the “Manage settings” control extends user capabilities beyond this intended scope, granting access to sensitive administrative actions. This results in an unintended elevation of privileges, as users who should only have visibility into audit data are able to change account‑level settings. Additionally, providing access to the “Automatically delete PII” option under a permission that is meant to be view‑only introduces unnecessary compliance and data‑governance risks. This situation also deviates from established least‑privilege principles, as a permission associated with viewing audit logs should not expose configuration mechanisms that have operational and regulatory implications.Suggested ImprovementWe recommend that Zendesk remove or hide the “Manage settings” button for users who are assigned only the “View audit logs” permission. This control, and the ability to enable “Automatically delete PII”, should be restricted exclusively to users with appropriate administrative rights. Ensuring that “View audit logs” remains strictly read‑only would provide clearer permission boundaries and prevent unintended access to sensitive settings.Impact and BenefitsImplementing this refinement would strengthen account security, support compliance obligations, and reduce the risk of unauthorized or accidental changes to data‑retention configurations. It would also ensure greater clarity in how permissions are applied, resulting in a permission model that more accurately reflects industry standards and customer expectations.
Hi Team, We are requesting the addition of a dedicated dataset - or expanded attributes within existing Explore datasets - to provide full reporting visibility into approval requests. This limitation affects our admins and support leadership, who need granular insight to monitor operational compliance and measure the efficiency of internal authorization workflows. We currently lack the ability to report on core approval-request data within Explore, including the identity of the approver, the request text submitted, or event-based timestamps. While this information may be visible on the individual ticket, it is not exposed as a reportable attribute or metric in Explore. Because we cannot report on the specific moments when approvals are initiated and completed, we are unable to calculate the duration of the approval phase or differentiate standard ticket handling time from internal approval delays. Our ideal solution is a comprehensive “Approvals” dataset in Explore, including fields for approver identity, request description, time-to-decision metrics, approval count, and request timestamps. This would give our operations team a single source of truth for bottleneck analysis and ensure we can meet our compliance and performance standards without relying on manual processes.
Hi, I'd like to request some additional data be added to the search result object seen here:https://developer.zendesk.com/documentation/help_center/help-center-templates/objects/#search-result-object It would be very useful that if the result is an article then we can access the article id and article labels fields. The reason for this is that we would like to be able to display labels alongside the search results to show which of our users the article is targeted at. I've managed to achieve this with some javascript code but at present it relies on the article last updated date which sees flaky and will possibly be identical for multiple articles as we build our help centre out via API's Thanks
Hello Zendesk team,We would like to share some feedback regarding the Translation Tool used in our chat workflows.Overall, the application works very efficiently when we write in English. However, we have noticed that when we write in Spanish, the tool becomes significantly less accurate. It often mixes correctly translated words with Spanish words that remain untranslated, resulting in inconsistent or confusing output.We ran several tests using different languages, such as Dutch and German, and the tool performed very well in those cases. This issue seems to affect Spanish specifically.Improving the tool’s performance for Spanish would greatly benefit our team. It would allow us to write in our native language without compromising translation quality, increasing our efficiency, accuracy, and response speed while supporting customers.Thank you for your attention, and we hope this feedback helps guide future improvements.Best regards,Max
Zendesk Talk should allow Agent to Agent calls. Currently Agents have to have an external call in place to be conferenced in to a conversation together. The functionality of looking up a fellow Agent and giving them a direct call would be extremely helpful in making sure communication is straightforward and all-encompassing in Zendesk. Relying on third-party communication seems like a step backwards from what Zendesk is trying to provide. Agent to Agent communication is extremely important and the fact that Zendesk is limited to internal notes, alone, is pretty limiting for better workplace flow and intercommunication. The fact you can conference agents into an existing call seems like some capability is already in place. Expanding that would provide a greater reliance on Zendesk and maintain remote Agent connectedness.
Having a blind transfer option in Zendesk Talk would improve both speed and the customer experience. It would allow agents to route calls to the correct team or specialist immediately, without needing to stay on the line until someone answers on the other end to complete the transfer. This would reduce handle time and avoid unnecessary back-and-forth when the request is straightforward. It would also help keep queues moving during high-volume periods, while still allowing warm transfers when additional context is needed.
The ProblemWhen manually reviewing or correcting the Intent field on a ticket form, the field currently displays all Intents that have ever been created in the system, including those that have been explicitly deactivated.This behavior is problematic because: Severe Clutter: Our organization has over 60 active Intents, but we have deactivated many default or experimental Intents. These inactive Intents appear in the dropdown, making the list extremely long and visually cluttered. Confusion: Agents or Admins occasionally select the wrong (inactive) Intent, which can break reporting workflows, macros, and triggers. The RequestWe would like the Intent field on the ticket form to only populate with Intents that are set to “Active”. If an Intent is set to “Inactive”, it should be suppressed from the drop down menu. This feature is essential for maintaining the efficiency gained from custom intents: Improved Agent Efficiency: Agents can classify tickets faster by eliminating deprecated options. Data Integrity: Reduces the risk of agents manually applying an inactive Intent, which can lead to reporting errors and automation failures. Scalability: As organizations create, test, and deprecate more Intents, the current behavior becomes unsustainable and unusable.
Hi team,We would like to provide feedback on the suspension flow for players, specifically regarding comment requirements and UI visibility.We strongly support keeping the comment mandatory when suspending a player. Suspensions are high-impact actions that require accountability, auditability, and clear justification. Mandatory comments are essential for ensuring that decisions are documented consistently and responsibly.However, the current implementation creates a usability issue:the option to leave an additional comment is not clearly visible or discoverable in the UI Reduced audit and compliance value: In reviews, disputes, or regulatory audits, missing contextual details can weaken the justification for a suspension and increase operational risk.Inconsistent internal understanding: Other teams reviewing the case later (QA, Risk, Compliance, Support) may lack the full reasoning behind the action, leading to rework or misinterpretation.Training and onboarding challenges: New agents may not realize that an additional comment option exists at all, resulting in uneven documentation quality across teams. Suggested improvements: Keep the mandatory comment requirement in place for suspensions. Make the additional comment field clearly visible and intuitive during the suspension flow. Maintaining mandatory comments while improving visibility and clarity would significantly enhance data quality, accountability, and confidence when taking critical actions such as player suspensions.
Hi Zendesk team, Just sharing some customer feedback implementing Copilot for a customer, since we've faced a few issues and would love to hear for eventual solutions/updates: Double signatures: we sometimes see a signature added in the auto-assist, while one has already been added in the agent profile. Wrong signature (agent not assigned to ticket): we sometimes noticed the signature from the auto-assist adding another agent's signature from previous interactions, instead of the one from the current user. Macros are unusable in auto-assist: it's probably that way by design, but it might be useful at times to allow agents to add macros to the generated reply from auto-assist, in order to complete the answer. App (add-on) for translations no longer loading: an app is used in the Zendesk instance for translation in tickets, from the comment section (public note). When agents deactivate the auto-assist mode to add a manual reply, the app is not reloaded at the same time the auto-assist is disabled. The agents then have to leave the ticket, refresh their page, and come back to the ticket to use the app again.Thanks a lot for your help,
Currently, the default setting can only be configured at the organization level, which applies to all users and roles. However, there are use cases where teams may want to set different default behaviors for specific users or roles (for example, making “Internal Note” the default for certain operational roles who primarily collaborate internally).It would be very helpful to have the ability to: Set the default comment type at a user level, or Configure it at a role level, instead of only at the organization level. This would provide greater flexibility and help reduce the risk of accidentally sending public replies when an internal note was intended.
We would like to request support for dynamically setting the Messaging Web Widget launcher position (bottom-left vs bottom-right) via JavaScript and/or API, rather than only through a global Admin Center setting.Current limitation Launcher position can only be configured globally in Admin Center. There is no supported way to change left/right positioning per page via code. Workarounds (multiple widget instances, custom launcher, embedded mode) add operational and maintenance overhead. Use case On certain pages, the default bottom-right launcher interferes with existing UI elements (e.g., floating CTAs, forms, or consent components). On other pages, bottom-right is the preferred placement. We want a single widget configuration that can adapt based on page context. Requested capabilityOne of the following (any would be sufficient): A JavaScript API option, e.g.zE('messenger:set', 'launcher.position', 'bottom-left') A page-level override parameter in the widget configuration Support for dynamically updating the launcher position at runtime Why this matters Reduces the need for duplicate widget configurations Avoids custom launcher implementations for a simple layout concern Aligns with modern SPA / component-based websites where layout varies by route Improves developer experience without impacting non-technical customers Current workarounds (not ideal) Maintaining multiple Messaging Web Widgets with identical configs Building and maintaining a custom launcher Switching to embedded mode solely for positioning control This would be a small but high-impact improvement for teams with complex or responsive layouts.
Just a request for improvement - could you find a way to better distinguish between between "Public" and "Internal" messages. While not a big problem, we do find ourselves occasionally unintentionally sending what should be an internal note to a customer.
Dear Customers,We are excited to launch AI agents and preview the upcoming launch of automated resolutions! For ease of collecting feedback on this launch, and to make sure we can provide you with quick answers to your questions, we are providing this space for all feedback to be shared. Please comment below to share your thoughts and feedback, or ask questions about this release.The product feedback forum in the Zendesk Community is always the best place to share information with our Product Teams around ideas you have for features or feedback you have about what we are building. This is where our product managers monitor and engage in conversation, and our aim is to aggregate all feedback here. Before posting, please take a moment to review the community guidelines and code of conduct. These outline how our product feedback forums work, how we review this feedback, and what you can expect. Take a look and let us know if you have any questions! Thank you for being a part of the Zendesk Community and sharing your feedback with us, we sincerely value your input!
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.].We are a global software company with a product portfolio consisting of more than 10 different product families. While these products operate within the same overall domain, they require distinct support approaches.Our customers typically use a combination of multiple product families, which is why we provide support for all of them within a single Zendesk brand. In the current setup, Zendesk Procedures which were created by us specific for product family A are currently used everywhere in a Zendesk brand, means also used for product families B, C, D, etc., which leads to confusion and reduced efficiency for our support teams. Since the products differ significantly in terms of troubleshooting and processes, these crosswise applied Procedures create unnecessary noise and increase the risk of incorrect handling. At the moment, Procedures can only be restricted at the Zendesk brand level. Our feature request is to allow Zendesk Procedures to be restricted by ticket forms and by support groups. This would enable us to provide more targeted, product-specific guidance and improve efficiency and accuracy for our agents. What problem do you see this solving?As intended, we would like to use Zendesk Procedures to provide agents with clear instructions for action, thereby increasing agent efficiency and customer satisfaction by providing customers with faster and higher-quality assistance. 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?Unfortunately, our tests to this point have shown that we cannot activate Zendesk Procedures with the current implementation because we cannot ensure that they will only be used for the product family for which they were created.Currently, Zendesk procedures distract agents significantly more and even reduce efficiency rather than increasing it. Are you currently using a workaround to solve this problem?We are currently unaware of any workaround and have removed Zendesk Procedures from the configuration. What would be your ideal solution to this problem? How would it work or function?Zendesk Procedures should be limited not only to a Zendesk brand, but also to ticket forms and support groups.
In Zendesk Support, the system fields in user profiles, tickets, and organizations have a fixed order. This can cause some inconvenience for agents, especially when there are important system fields that are located far down the page and others that are not interacted with at all. We propose a feature that allows the reordering of system fields in user profiles, tickets, and organizations. This would provide greater flexibility in customizing the layout and improve the user experience for agents.Use-case example:Our agents often need to link the organization to the user and access specific ticket fields when handling tickets. However, these fields are system fields that are located far down the page in the respective layouts. As a result, our agents sometimes overlook these fields. If we could reorder the system fields, we could move these important fields to a more prominent position, reducing the likelihood of this oversight.Benefits: Improved user experience: Agents can customize the layout of user profiles, tickets, and organizations to suit their workflow. Increased efficiency: Important fields can be placed in more prominent positions, reducing the likelihood of oversights. Greater flexibility: Zendesk Support can be more effectively tailored to meet the unique needs of each organization. We believe that this feature would be a valuable addition to Zendesk Support and would benefit many organizations. Thank you for considering our request.
I recently tried to create a custom attribute that used the DATE_DIFF() function to get the time between 2 custom timestamp attributes. I have been advised by a Zendesk Support agent that it is not currently possible to create a custom DATE_DIFF() attribute/ metric that will get the time between 2 custom timestamp attributes. I feel that this is a huge oversight as in reporting I need to compare 2 events that are not native Zendesk attributes, i.e. the time between a group assignment and the time a checkbox was filled. This feature was available in Insights can this please be made available in Explore
All of our users' usage and subscription data are visible in a Messaging conversation as tags. Based on those tags. With the old Zendesk Live Chat app we were able to trigger proactive messages/chats. We need this to be implemented in Messaging as well, since it helps us engage customers at key points in their subscription or usage, so that our application users receive information that could help them achieve their goals or be reminded that we are live and can assist them if needed. We have seen such strategies increase trial-to-paid conversions and feature adoption. Implementing all of the old trigger conditions would be great. But the tag conditions would be the most important for us.
Currently, bc the verification rules rely on inclusion, rather than exclusion, there's not a way to exclude an article, I have to use a filter to include all other articles. My use case is that we have thousands of articles and I need to exclude one specific type. With the current setup, I will need to go through all other articles to find what's unique about them to include in the filter, all in an effort to exclude these couple hundred. It would be very useful to have an exclude option where in this case, I'd exclude the one attribute I know this specific type of article has which is much quicker than finding what to include.
I added a lot of new users to the platform via an integration and I'm not sure if I had disabled the automatic email sent to new users before I did it. I just found out that there is no way for me to know if the Welcome email was sent or not and there is actually no way to see what Zendesk is sending to my users (except ticket items). This is a bit disconcerting as I feel I don't have enough control of the platform. I want to be able to know all the communications I have with customers even automatic emails from Zendesk. Not sure how complex this is to solve but in my mind this is a fairly high priority item.
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.
