views should include the condition "subject"
creating this on behalf of customer
currently views doesn't support the condition "subject", so one cannot really restrict the display of tickets depending on subject line. while it's possible to get around this with triggers and tags, it'd be nice for views to have the condition to look for specific words / strings in ticket subject
Thanks for your post. This forum is just one of several input points for roadmap planning, so sometimes there are things that a lot of users have requested or that was originally requested a long time ago, but it still doesn't make it to the top of the priority list. We also look at other inputs from customers, market predictors, and other features being developed that might solve for a particular solution.
I don't have specifics about this request, other than to say that there's been a larger consideration around how tickets are "discovered" (i.e. searched and viewed) in the agent interface. As the product teams are looking at the larger functionality, they aren't adding individual features, conditions, filters, etc. Typically features are not developed on an individual basis, but rather several will be grouped at once.
I will raise this thread with the product manager again to ensure that it is being considered as they plan for the future of views.
Thanks so much for your response. I really appreciate it. I feel heard :)
I do understand and appreciate the complexity of managing a complex software product's releases and product features.
What would really make a difference, I think, is if the company provided its customers with *some* sort of visibility into the decisions that are made. For example, if a feature request has been considered, what are the major categories of "not currently planned" reasons, that you could potentially share without it being a problem? "work required to customer benefit ratio too high", "planned for a future release bundle", "not enough customer demand", "only affects a small number of customers", "workaround is of low impact", "depends on other changes not currently planned", "will be addressed by a future release", etc. What I want to know is why THIS request hasn't been acted on in nearly 10 years. Is it because not enough customers want it? Is it because it actually would be really hard (for reasons I can not fathom but may exist) and so it depends on other future work that will take a long time to see the light of day? Is it because changes to views functionality are planned for a later bundled release and this one will wait for that? Is it that you'll never do it because the workaround seems reasonable to most of your customers? Is it simply that only small customers or not enough customers need this?
I guess I'm trying to figure out if Zendesk product features tend to be driven mainly by the needs of the workflows of larger customers, or if less common workflows like ours can ever get their needs addressed. When requests like this go unmet for 10 years with no explanation as to why, it's easy to assume the worst. If you don't want people assuming the worst, a little transparency goes a long way.
Which brings me back around again to thanking you for your response, which, while not actually answering my question, did really make me feel heard and gave me some hope for hearing more about the future of this request some day. It also made me realize that our team often uses views very differently from how Zendesk intends views to be used. Which makes me realize that Zendesk might provide other functionality that would better meet our needs. (or, maybe it doesn't and isn't a great fit for how our team operates). I'll look into this further and will reach out to support for further guidance as this isn't the right forum to get into those weeds.
One person in a company can muddy the entire Zendesk by creating a form that dumps hundreds of tickets into the new ticket box. This could be solved by creating the option to make a view to exclude these tickets... if you could filter views by subject.
Please consider making this a priority.
Upvote from here as well. Sorting views based on a subject should be a "no-brainer" functionality.
I'm frustrated that I can't manually add tickets to a specific view. Is there a way to do this?
Yes! Please add.
Might be a good time to add this rather simple feature after all these years.
It's been 9 years and this hasn't been updated to show if it's considered, on the roadmap, not planned, anything. Any chance of getting some sort of idea if this will ever be possible? Has anyone written a workaround tool that does not involve adding more tags?
@... please give us a update. We dont understand why this requested exists since 2012 and is not implemented until today???
I'm not a product manager ( manage the community) so I can't speak to exactly why this hasn't been prioritized.
What I do know is that there has been a larger discussion around views, how we find and act on tickets, etc. going on for a while. So, individual, specific improvements have been on hold while the team figures out the longer-term vision for views.
I'll also note that, as stated in the product feedback guidelines, there is no guarantee that ideas shared in the forum will be developed; user feedback is one of many data points considered in roadmap planning. Sometimes great ideas don't align to longer-term strategy for the product, the direction the industry is going, etc.
The age of a request also does not factor into prioritization. Most of the time, an old post reflects a lack of appropriate community moderation in years past. To that end, we are in the process of working on improvements for how we intake and act on customer feedback in this space; in the future there should not be years-long requests that linger. More information will be forthcoming about these process improvements in the coming months. I encourage everyone to subscribe to the Community Info & Announcements topic to learn more about that, as well as opportunities to share your feedback and ideas.
Having said all this, I have flagged this conversation for review by a product manager, and we'll do our best to get an update posted here in the next several weeks.
Gaah...yet another simple request, made years and years ago, that still hasn't been implemented...
Adding my voice to this request. It would be helpful if ZenDesk would at least explain why this is a feature they can't make available.
It's the only system field that's text, other than the description, which is a multi-line field. All the other system fields are available for addition as criteria to a view. Why NOT this one?
Rigging it with a trigger to add a tag just makes a hot mess of my tag library.
" I have flagged this conversation for review by a product manager, and we'll do our best to get an update posted here in the next several weeks."
+1 This is a no-brainer to leave out and not to be included in supported view conditions.
Its unbelievable any issue I searched for end up in an large queue of requester and in between you see " that the user requests are important and the the link the PM to this" but at the end nothing happens. I never saw a request comes reality. Even this is a low brainer as all other systemfields can be searched for only "subject" is missing but I guess the most important as this is the easiest field to let Agents and endusers know what is ment.
Do you use Zendesk for your own Support and Views?
Please after 9years this should work ..........
And, it still doesn't work! Last comment was 3 months ago.
What does it take Zendesk? 9 years and you still haven't been able to add a new condition based on an existing field in order to create a view!
Why is this still not a thing? This should be an easy thing to add, so I don't know why this is still missing in the conditions.
They announced they plan to completely remove the ability to sort by subject in views, so it seems likely to me this is never going to happen: https://support.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4408826088730-Announcing-changes-to-views-sorting-and-ordering
We will be removing the ability to sort tickets in a view by Subject and Submitter. For example, if you click these column headings, nothing will happen. You will still be able to sort by other columns.
This is pretty insane to me, as a former ServiceNow admin. Other tools let us sort views based on subject, caller, etc. Why on earth would Zendesk make the decision to remove the ability to sort by Subject? It's one additional tool we have when managing a queue to see tickets titled similarly that may represent either 1) the same issue, or 2) similar issues that need to be investigated. I am also frustrated as we just turned on TALK and I have agents who aren't always changing the subject from the default "Call with"... format text to a real subject and I (yes... I'm crazy) want to create a view that looks at the subject text and capture those. In ServiceNow, it would be simple as I could do a "contains" qualification against pretty much ANY field. Not understanding why this is so limited in Zendesk. It's a great tool. "Subject Text contains" as a condition exists only as a trigger option, not for views, and not for automations. I had had a crazy idea of using an automation to monitor tickets that contain "calls with" subjects in tickets and add a tag so I could use that for a view, and then when the condition was no longer met, to remove that tag. However, of course, the condition of "Subject Text contains" is also not available in automations. If you can make it work in triggers, why on earth can't you find a way after what looks to be a decade of reporting this issue in views and automations?
I'm going to guess that this is not currently possible due to Zendesk doubling down on a bad database decision. They seem to be doing everything they can to avoid indexing on Subject fields. That's the only reason I can conceive of to disable sorting by Subject, and I can imagine it would also preclude filtering on Subject.
Why they don't want to index on the Subject field, I have no idea. These are theoretically professional database operators. I'm sure there's a plausible hand-wavy answer about "problems at scale", but if that's the case then you need to design around it better.
Please sign in to leave a comment.