views should include the condition "subject"

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.

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? 

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.

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.

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! 

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 ..........

+1 This is a no-brainer to leave out and not to be included in supported view conditions.

Hi 18547870908

" 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."

Any updates?

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.

Gaah...yet another simple request, made years and years ago, that still hasn't been implemented...