Skip to main content

Currently when someone comments on our Facebook story with an emoji/reaction it gets picked up on our system and gets tagged as a “member problem”. We want our members to be able to message us with an issue and we’ve got trigger words that activate that. We can’t just turn off all Facebook messages/reactions as we need to reply to some of them.

 

This is where it gets tricky. We also have a rule where if the “Conversation Subject doesn’t contain: mentioned you on an; Commented on your; “ then add Member problems. We found this stops comments on Facebook posts flooding our views.  

 

What we’re finding is when we put a post up on our story and it gets a reaction really quick. People are messaging in and it just floods the “member problems” view with these messages. We then have to manually go through and add a tag to separate the different types of messages. 

 

Is there a way to separate a reaction/emoji from a genuine message?

Is there also a way to put messages in our Facebook Group into it’s own tag/view?

 

Hope this makes sense

Hey @aadams1, Phoebe with the Front Support team. Super good question here. 

My first suggestion would be to create a rule to only apply the “member problem” tag on conversations that contain the symbols a-z: 


You could then set up a view for any conversations in the Facebook inbox that have the tag. 

Hey community! Following up on this reply, I had a customer write in after giving this a try and I wanted to issue a correction. 
 

It looks like Front pulls in the original Instagram post as well as any replies in the message body when we import a reply from Instagram. Unfortunately, this makes it impossible to implement this rule workflow.

Because the original post is present as well as metadata: “Bob commented on your post from May 19 ….”, the rule I suggested above will not work, because the symbols a-z will always be present in the metadata text.  
 

Emoji can be used in the "Message body contains..." condition. However, the issue here is that if we filter for conversations that contain an emoji, this could end up archiving conversations that have text in them as well as an emoji. 


We also can't use the only contains... condition here because there is also text in these messages, so the rule won't match if we use that condition. 
 


 

And there's nothing specific that precedes or follows the emoji, so we can't use starts with... or ends with... either.

It's a tricky situation because without including the original post text in the Front message, there would be no context for what the user is replying to in Front. However, it also means that it can be harder to hone in on specific elements of a reply in Rules. 

So, at this time, there’s not a solution for these cases. We recommend filing a feature request in our portal if you have ideas for how we could tackle this in the product!

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings