Provide feedback on private view creation improvements

One option that would be amazing, although not sure how possible it would be is to allow you to define the status of the email as the default when looking at a view. 

For example, I could create all my filters and then say I want to default to the Assigned or maybe the Waiting status view. Currently I use views, but it can be cumbersome as quite a few of them I don’t need to see the Unassigned emails, I need to see ones with other statuses. So currently I have to click the View and then choose the Status from the top of the list to change to the one I need.

I agree with the above for status - in our team we are big fans of views and have used them consistently since they were added as a feature. I would like it to be easier to add views to team members’ side bars as it’s currently the only thing that I am missing (besides the ability to copy rules) on a teammate template. 

These improvements look great, especially the easier entry point and simplified field selection. Topics as a field option will be a big win too.

One major thing that would make views work much better for us is the ability to build a single view across multiple workspaces. Right now we have to duplicate the same views workspace-by-workspace (ex: separate SLA tracking views), instead of having one consolidated view that spans everything.

From an admin perspective, it would also be huge to be able to centrally create and assign views for all users, using the same multi-workspace logic. That would help standardize workflows and reduce manual setup.

We’re also still struggling with the lack of a good way to track @mentions, and expanded view functionality might help as a workaround -  but a dedicated mentions view/folder would still be the most valuable improvement for collaboration.

One question I had on views - is the “number” counter next to them only the total number of messages in that view that are in the ‘open’ status?

A big barrier we’ve had with views in the past is that our users really want to be able to have the number counter reflect all the messages in that view (so in open, archived, snoozed, etc.) instead of just open, which allows them to have a more accurate representation of how many conversations are actually in there at a glance.

I recognize that might not be everyone’s preference, but an option like that would be super helpful for our org (for both private and shared views)

Like, clicking into a view that has a “5” next to it and all of a sudden there’s 25 messages in there between all the statuses is a bit of a discrepancy, at least for our users. 

The improvements look great! 

I personally use views to help oversee my teams and the outstanding tasks they have. I’d love to have the ability to choose what conversation statuses show by default, while retaining the ability to view them all separately. For my use case it would be better if I could see unassigned, assigned, and snoozed as a single view and have the view count reflect the number of messages in the selected defaults. 

A view with those features would allow me to quickly see how many tasks are outstanding in the view count, and then by opening the view I could see a broad overview with the ability to drill into individual statuses if needed. 

​@marta As an admin, you do have the ability to create shared views which can be added to your teammates’ sidebars. See this help center article. If this doesn’t meet your needs, let me know!

​@grit_evy thanks for the feedback, as always!

• Why do you need to see a view across multiple workspaces? Typically I see separate workspaces set up because they have different purposes with different teams and shouldn’t really be combined, so I’m wondering what you’re trying to accomplish.
• Besides the lack of support for multiple workspaces, is there anything missing from the shared view creation process in settings? 

​@dtos yes, the number reflects what’s in open or unassigned (depending on your status display preference). The thinking behind that is, users typically only care about what is still left “to do” or needs to be closed out. The count of archived will always increase over time, which means the total count would then always be increasing. The question we’re asking is then, is that actually actionable or informative for users?

Gotcha. We might have something a bit different at our org, then:

• We have shared tags that get applied to conversations to flag certain situations on the convos
• Those situations are sometimes easy for the user to handle (which automatically clear the tag), but other times it’s something outside of their control (which can take days to resolve), so the tag might stay on the conversation for a while
• So, users will frequently snooze/archive the conversations before they can actually accomplish the thing that would cause the tag to be removed
• For our purposes, we’d prefer to use the View as a “what’s every conversation that still has this flag on it that I should review,” regardless of the Open/Snoozed/Archived state of the tag, because our conversations frequently get Snoozed/Archived before the tag can be cleared

Being a bit vague, but I can explain more over a call if you’d like at some point.

Hello ​@conniechen 

In our environment, workspaces aren’t separated by department or team ownership, they’re primarily segregated by communication channel (ex: SMS, phone support, web leads, live chat), not by different groups of people.

The same team is working across all of them, so operationally they aren’t truly independent silos. Because of that, we still need unified visibility for things like:

• SLA tracking across every channel

• Escalations and overdue conversations regardless of inbox origin

• Consistency in workflows and prioritization

Right now, we’re forced to duplicate the same “open SLA” or “needs follow-up” view in every workspace, even though it’s the same users and the same operational goal, just split by channel.

This is also why @mentions are painful: collaboration happens across channels, but there’s no clean way to track those mentions in one place.

So for us, multi-workspace views aren’t about mixing separate teams, they’re about giving one team a consolidated operational layer across channel-based workspaces.