Share product ideas and upvotes with our product team
Prior to the release of the new navigation in Nov 2024, the page title when you were editing a help article would show the title of the article (logically enough).Now it is always “Knowledge | MY_COMPANY_NAME | Intercom”. When I have multiple browser tabs open looking at different articles, I now have to click on every one of them to find the one I want, whereas before the title of each article was shown there, so it was easy to find them.Here I have five different help articles open for editing:I often need more than five open to cross-reference things, making this quite aggravating.
Using the current Workflows builder is a constant source of frustration. The lack of execution history and detailed logging means there’s no way to understand what’s happening behind the scenes -when a workflow fails to trigger or doesn’t behave as expected, users are left in the dark for the most part.For context, HubSpot offers this kind of workflows visibility natively and offers API access, while Intercom still feels limited and paywalled by comparison. Troubleshooting becomes a guessing game, and it’s nearly impossible to track down issues or optimise workflows. The absence of API endpoints for reading, creating, editing, or triggering workflows make the experience feel clunky and restrictive.Every attempt to build or debug a workflow is so painful and frustrating.Could you please consider these features?Add a comprehensive execution history and detailed logging (including failed triggers and error details). Provide API endpoints to at least read workflows to help make it more manageable in the meantime. Though creating, editing, and triggering workflows would be awesome too.These improvements are essential for making workflow management and troubleshooting bearable, and would transform the Workflows builder from a source of daily frustration into a powerful, reliable tool.
Similar to HubSpot's workflow property usage feature, it would be valuable to have a centralised view showing which tags and properties are being used across all workflows in Intercom. Currently, we can see which workflows have fired and their actions, but there's no way to track tag usage across the entire workflow system.This feature would help users:Identify unused tags that can be cleaned up Understand tag dependencies before making changes Audit workflow configurations more efficiently Prevent accidental deletion of tags that are actively used in workflows
Would be really helpful if from a Manager or Lead perspective, when we are reviewing an interaction, we can see if the agent utilized Co-Pilot on that specific ticket. Although, I know we can pull the information from a Co-Pilot report, this would be more user friendly to see when we open the interaction and see that data in real time
Hi there, I’d like to suggest adding “Date Closed” as an available field in the conversation search and filter options. This would help teams quickly locate or report on recently closed conversations. Is that something on your roadmap?
I want to include the mobile capture form in a survey step, which Fin AI says is possible. However it doesn't seem to let you add it into a survey, only posts and chat type messgaes. The point is we want new users to submit their mobile number (if they want to) so we can text them a link. A post or chat does not suffice as they can be dismissed.
Turn the chat history into a knowledge base for an AI agent that can search up previous chats. That way it saves the time of searching previous chats if a recurring issue pops up. If it could summarize the problem in that previous chat as well as the solution give + link the chat source itself that would be ideal.
Woulb be great to have an article bin in the HelpDesk article section, so we can get articles back in case of error in deleting.Thank you team ;)
We would like to add specific text into all emails without having to do the manual work of choosing the macro for it. Example: the ticket number is something we would like to add to all emails, so we can disable the status updates
Currently, when users are linked to multiple companies via API, the built-in reporting system incorrectly attributes tickets to companies they don't belong to. This makes it impossible to create accurate "tickets per company" reports.Problem:Users linked to multiple companies through API cause ticket misattribution in reports Cannot generate reliable company-specific ticket volume reports (e.g., Company H: 5 tickets, Company F: 2 tickets, Company L: 0 tickets) Current workaround requires exporting data via API and creating custom reports in external toolsRequested Solution:Enhanced reporting logic that properly handles multi-company user relationships, ensuring tickets are attributed only to the correct company context in which they were created.Business Impact:This would enable accurate company-level reporting for organizations using multi-company setups, improving data-driven decision making and customer success tracking.
At this time, it is possible to create Back-office tickets from a customer ticket.But we would like to have the ability to do it the other way around.Our Operations team create Back-office tickets when monitoring our systems.Sometimes one or more issues need to be comunicated to a customer. In that case, from the Back-office ticket, it would be nice to be able to create customer tickets that are linked to that Back-office ticket.
We would like to request an enhancement to the phone system that allows callers to use voice input (spoken numbers) instead of DTMF tones (dialpad input) when interacting with: CSAT Surveys: Currently, callers are prompted to rate the call 1–5 using their phone’s dialpad after the call ends. Request: Allow callers to say the number aloud (e.g., “five”) as an alternative input method. IVR Menus: During the initial call routing IVR, users must press a number to make a selection. Request: Allow users to say the option number aloud instead of pressing it. Why This Matters: Improves accessibility and usability for callers who may be driving, have mobility impairments, or are using devices where touch input is difficult. Creates a more natural, user-friendly experience. Reduces abandonment or misrouted calls due to failed DTMF input. Adding support for voice recognition of simple numeric responses (e.g., 1–5 or menu options) would significantly improve the caller experience.
We would like to request an enhancement to the phone system that allows callers to use voice input (spoken numbers) instead of DTMF tones (dialpad input) when interacting with: CSAT Surveys: Currently, callers are prompted to rate the call 1–5 using their phone’s dialpad after the call ends. Request: Allow callers to say the number aloud (e.g., “five”) as an alternative input method. IVR Menus: During the initial call routing IVR, users must press a number to make a selection. Request: Allow users to say the option number aloud instead of pressing it. Why This Matters: Improves accessibility and usability for callers who may be driving, have mobility impairments, or are using devices where touch input is difficult. Creates a more natural, user-friendly experience. Reduces abandonment or misrouted calls due to failed DTMF input.
I can see that you’re already working on the merging conversation feature. Please add a related feature - to split tickets.Problem: A customer creates a chat with question A. We resolve it. Later customer reopens a chat with a question B, we resolve it. Later the same customer again reopens the chat with a question C. And so on. We have cases when the same customer keeps one chat for months and has there 10+ different conversations. That impacts negatively our team and individual statistic:agent gets 1 productivity instead of 10 the total resolution time is in months instead of minutes the reopening rate is 10+ instead of 0 for such chatsWe need to allow customers to reopen a chat in case our solution was not satisfying. But we can’t afford to keep all conversations with the same customer in one chat. Example on how this feature works in other tools:When a new message arrives that is not relevant to an existing conversation, an agent clicks on the details of this message and chooses “Split” or “Move” (depending on the tool, wording was different). Then in a pop-up window there’s an option to choose to which team a new chat should go to and to whom it should be assigned (optionally) + a question if an agent wants to keep this chat open or to close it. If an agents chooses to close it, there should be no CSat. If an agent chooses to keep it open, they can continue handling initial issue.As for that message that is chosen to be split/moved, it creates a new conversation in a relevant team. The conversation contains that message from a customer + a technical message in Intercom that it was split from another conversation (link to that conversation).The old conversation keeps the message that was “moved” but there’s a technical information that this message was moved to a new conversation by [agent name] + a link to that conversation.On the customer’s side, as soon as the split is performed, they see a message from Intercom in their old chat that their message was moved to a new conversation to be handled as a separate issue. When that customer opens a newly created conversation, they see “This conversation was automatically created to handle the issue you’ve raised in this message:” and later customer’s message is shown. A cherry on the top request: If I choose to split a conversation, allow me to move not one message, but a few. Many times, customers send each sentence as a new message instead of combining those in one paragraph. So it will be useful to move a group of messages to a new conversation.As for data and metrics:If a conversation was closed, then a customer reopened it, then an agent split the message and moved it to another conversation and chose to close this old conversation, then there should be no impact of number of chats re-opened, as well as the closure date should be initial. It’s due to the fact that in initial conversation no changes actually happened, it was just a wrong choice of a customer.
We’d like to request a “Split Conversation” feature that allows agents to break an existing conversation into separate threads when multiple, unrelated issues are raised by the same client in a single interaction.Use Case:Clients often reach out with multiple requests that span different topics or departments—for example, one message might include a billing question, a maintenance request, and a technical issue. Currently, all of this lives in a single conversation, which makes it difficult to: Assign different parts of the request to the appropriate teams Track resolution times and ownership accurately Maintain clarity for both agents and clients within the thread Proposed Functionality: Allow agents to select a message (or series of messages) and create a new conversation from that point forward Include the ability to optionally leave a reference link between the original and the new conversation Preserve original timestamps and metadata for auditing purposes Why This Matters:A “Split Conversation” feature would improve workflow efficiency, enable more accurate reporting by topic/team, and enhance the customer experience by ensuring that separate issues are handled cleanly and by the right people.Thank you for considering this improvement to conversation management! Let us know if there are any current workarounds or plans for similar functionality.
Users/customers often send emails with different topics.Teammates need to be able to split a conversation into multiple conversations so that each topic can be handled with the risk of topics/information getting lost.
We should be able to edit and delete notes on a user or company profile. Sometimes a notes is 4-5 years old and no longer applies. Our team uses HS for any notes that need to be permanent. IC notes on the user or company profile are for quick context for our agents in chats.
User Notes can be created in Conversations sidebar but cannot removed.It’s a small thing, but it would be nice to be able to delete individual notes to keep User Notes tidy.
Feature request: Text formatted as “code block” inside help center articles should wrap instead of overflow.When viewing the article from the Intercom’s help center editor, code block text wraps. However, when viewing the article from the published help center, code block text overflows.The overflow behavior is undesirable because:It forces users to scroll horizontally. The appearance of an article inside Intercom’s help center portal should not differ from the appearance of the same article inside the published help center.
Would love to have the option for an end user to filter our news feed by label, to only see news items with that particular label. We would, in theory, use the Newsfeed to announce product updates, Release Notes, Event updates, and more. And with the amount of things we have going on, it would just get so messy to jumble through. Having filter options at the top to filter by label would be so helpful for our end users! And only showing labels in the filter that have been used in a published newsfeed that user has access to.
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.