Adobe Analytics

It would be useful to be able to use Regex when creating segments in Adobe Analytics to help segment based on patterns/sequences rather than on specific values. It would also prevent the need for building complex, “stacked” segments with multiple criteria/containers.

DescriptionI would like the ability for Adobe Analytics admins to mass merge or mass delete Workspace tags and component tags without needing to view the affected Workspace dashboards or affected components themselves. There should also be an ability for us to rename tags so they are either all capitalized the same way - e.g., Sentence case, Title Case, or lowercase. At the moment, people at my company are able to create tags on their own, which means that if there are typos to a tag, or if there are duplicates, we need to go into each Workspace dashboard or each component itself for us to correct it. It makes it very difficult to find the Workspace dashboard we need. Tags then become an unused feature for us on Adobe Analytics, and we just end up using the search bar, which is not always effective. I have attached some screenshots to help visualize the problem.Why is this feature important to youTo make it easier for users to search for the Workspace they need without needing to

DescriptionCurrently, Adobe Analytics 1.4 API provides several powerful endpoints that allow administrators to manage report suite configurations programmatically. These include the ability to:Fetch and update eVars, props, events, and classifications.Retrieve configured processing rules for a given report suite.Adobe has announced that the 1.4 API will be deprecated in favor of the 2.0 API next year. However, these configuration-level features are not yet available in the 2.0 API. Once 1.4 is removed, these critical capabilities will be lost.For many enterprise-scale implementations, this functionality is not just convenient — it is essential. Proposed ideaExtend Adobe Analytics 2.0 API to include endpoints for:Variable Management: Create, update, and fetch eVars, props, events, and classifications at the report suite level.Processing Rules: Fetch and (if possible) update processing rules for a given report suite.Cross-Suite Comparison: Provide efficient ways to compare variable

I’d like CJA lookup table dimensions to natively differentiate between "Unclassified" and "No Value".Using a Campaign ID (CID) lookup as an example: "Unclassified" (ideally customizable in the UI): The event has a CID, but that specific CID is missing from the lookup table (or the CID is missing the specific attribute) "No Value": The event does not have a CID present at all. Currently, CJA groups both scenarios under "No Value". While the Data View UI allows you to rename "No Value Options," it applies blanket-style to both types of events, so you lose visibility into unmatched lookup entries versus traffic completely missing the key.While this can be solved today using a derived field, native support in CJA lookup dimensions would eliminate the need for derived field workarounds, save contract derived field slots, and provide immediate clarity into missing lookup data right out of the box.

With the new segment release on 23rd April 2014, it's become impossible to add multiple countries to a segment at once. We're now forced to add each country as its own rule, and when you're trying to build segments for entire market areas at once, this gets old very quickly. We used to be able to set a "contains one of" rule, that would allow us to space separate a list of countries. Can we please go back to doing that?Or at least find some way that doesn't mean I have to do three clicks for each extra country I'm adding?  I'm trying to make segments with 50 to 70 countries in. So as to get a sense for how different areas of the world are behaving on our site, with this new UI that's an incredibly frustrating process.

 Hi everyone,We use the Next or Previous panel to analyse navigation, and we compared it with paths rebuilt from our raw data (page events ordered by timestamp within each visit). The results are very close, which makes this panel really valuable. But I think two options are missing to reflect real user behaviour:Include repeat instances. The panel uses the "Non-repeating instance" model, so consecutive views of the same page (e.g. a search results page reloaded after each date change) disappear. Flow already offers "Include repeat instances". Having the same setting here would make both views consistent. Show visit entries. When the page is the first of the visit, there is no previous page, and these occurrences are excluded. A "No previous page / Entry" row would let the previous pages add up to 100% of the page's occurrences.Today we work around this with a manually edited segment, but it has to be rebuilt for every page and panel, which doesn't scale.Would others find this useful t

Many content-rich websites with extensive knowledge bases are experiencing a significant increase in traffic from AI scrapers, crawlers, and data harvesting bots. In our case, this has been an ongoing challenge for several months. While the impact on reporting accuracy is already substantial, the more immediate concern is the associated increase in Adobe Analytics server call consumption, which can lead to unexpected overages and additional costs.What makes this challenge different from traditional bot traffic is that these are not a small set of well-known bots that can be managed through static signatures or conventional bot rules. The traffic is highly distributed, frequently changes behavior, and often originates from a large number of sources, making it significantly harder for customers to identify and mitigate on their own.Given the broad impact across digital analytics implementations, could Adobe consider a more proactive partnership model with customers? For example:Maintaini

The Adobe Analytics API 1.4 is scheduled for decommissioning this summer, yet critical endpoints from this legacy API have not been integrated into API 2.0. This creates a significant gap in functionality that will impact many organizations relying on programmatic management of Adobe Analytics configurations.Missing Critical Functionality:The most important missing feature is the ability to programmatically:Create new Adobe Analytics variables (props, eVars, events) Modify existing variable configurations Delete variables when no longer neededCurrently, API 2.0 forces users to manually manage these variables through the Adobe Analytics interface, which is:Time-consuming for bulk operations Error-prone for complex configurations Incompatible with automated deployment workflows Difficult to integrate with CI/CD pipelinesBusiness Impact:Without this functionality in API 2.0, organizations will lose the ability to:Automate variable management across multiple report suites Maintain consiste

Description - When a users share a segment with a group of users or individual, there should be an option to decide edit rights - edit copy or edit original. Why is this feature important to you - Our Analytics community is mixed with foundational to advance users and we are often sharing components based on expertise level. This feature would help us to democratize more of the IP across teams. How would you like the feature to work - The sharing prompt should work much like workspaces. Edit copy - Edit Original- Read Only. Current Behaviour - Today we can only ask the user to clone segments from the components section, if they want any specific universal segments OR work based on trust that the user wont make an update and would be careful.  

In the old SAINT data export user-interface, we had the ability to filter the results exported based on number of rows (which we can still do), dates (which we can still do) and key values (which we cannot do). When we are addressing data changes by our users and trying to update a subset of the page classification values, this ability to fetch only a subset of the data that needed to be addressed was critical. Sadly we no longer have that ability in the new classification set interface. If it could be added back, that would be a tremendous boon for us. I know we can get this via the API, so the underlying code is there, it would be great if it were added back to the user interface as well.Thanks! 

When updating the panel date ranges, the Comparison Dates stay the same. This means we as users have to delete the old comp dates and percentage change metrics, then create new ones. On bigger “recycled” dashboards, this takes FOREVER! This one improvement would save me hours and hours and hours every year.Thanks! RR

I have several report builder reports that got out to many stakeholders. Anytime a change is made to one of the reports, it needs to be rescheduled so that the report will send with the changes. Simply going in to edit the schedule of the report and selecting “current workbook” does not actually update the file sent to the latest file with the changes. Because of this, the schedule needs to be set up from scratch again, which can be quite tedious when the recipient list is long and each individual needs to get re-entered because publishing lists are no longer an option.

In a freeform table, I frequently want to put in a specific valued dimension, and then a second dimension.If you select a specific value from a dimension, you cannot put a second dimension side by side.Can you fix this?I know we could use breakdown. but I like the side by side.At the moment I use filter to filter on the value I want. So, there are work-arounds, but it is annoying.

Rename “Last month”  to “1 month ago” in order to enable proper sorting in rows with “2 months ago” & “3 months ago”, Additionally create more “X months ago” to cover at least last 13 months so that trending can be done. Same with week ago would be optimal! Reason? Since person containers are affected by the selected reporting date range, the segment can be evaluated over the panel range rather than independently for every month row.  This is a problem when trending monthly numbers over a longer timespan than 3 months (also the 3 backwards monthly date ranges defy sorting in the right order which messes up bar charts due to “Last month”). Creating custom date ranges allows both proper sorting & meaningful bar charts. However this means each month a new one must be created. Better as suggested to have the X months ago made available in Workspace. 

Hi,With alot of users in Analytics, the structure and also findability of existing reports becomes difficult.As an administrator, I would like to be able to create area or topic folders, and default users to save their reports in the their area’s folders.Applicable to AA and CJA

The older version of the API, 1.4, allowed us to download a JSON of the processing rules in a suite.  Since these are instrumental in transforming data into eVars, Props, and Events, they are an essential part of maintaining the data quality of a suite.  The newest version of the API, 2.0, does not currently support accessing the processing rules, and it's been stated on Github that, as of this idea submission, processing rules access is not even on the roadmap.  Unless Adobe is going to eliminate these rules (and the eVars and Props that are driven by them), a mature multi-site installation of Adobe Analytics, esp. across mobile and web, relies on a constant overview of processing rules for maintenance, QA, and to aid site and mobile app developers.Please make sure that processing rules are accessible via the APIs, not just in version 2.0, but in all future versions.  Leaving 1.4 up is not a complete solution, as Adobe may deprecate it at any point.

Sometimes we need to create report on something - some area of interest - that is just too ungainly in a single report.The report freezes and crashes. It is hard to read and navigate, and it very slow to load and update.So in general on the platform, I would like a way to do have multiple reports grouped together.I have thought maybe a widget, that acts as a navigation point to link multiple reports grouped together might be something like the TABS you have in an excel spreadsheet. Applicable to Adobe Analytics and Customer Journey Analytcis.

A new feature that would be great to have is the ability to test marketing channel rules as you’re creating/saving them. Similar to what we have for classifications, where you can put in a test string and it will show how that string would be classified. It would be great to have this with marketing channels. How it should work:There should be an option to run a test where you can manually put in a URL, referrer, and other components (based on what components you’ve used to set up your rules). Either have it show up with all of the fields you’ve used and the option to populate them/leave them blank, or have dropdowns where you can select which fields you want to enter info for.Then have it run what you’ve entered against all of your rules and tell you which marketing channel it would get classified into. Why it’s important:Right now when making marketing channel processing rules, there isn’t currently a way to test them. It can be hard to mentally go through all of the rules and figure

In Adobe Analytics Segments we can use "equals" and "does not equal" to compare a variable against specific values.i.e. Page Name (evar1) does not equal “test”This is fine when you only have a few specific values to compare against. It would also be useful be able to compare the values of dimensions as a whole. The specific scenario that comes to mind is segmenting page views where Page Name and Previous Page name are not the same, but this could also work for a number of other scenarios.I.e. a segment that saysHitPage Name (evar1) does not equal Previous Page Name (evar2)

Current problemMy organisation uses centrally managed Analysis Workspace projects that are shared with a large population of Adobe Analytics users. These projects are commonly shared with broad product-profile groups using Edit copy, allowing users to work from a governed starting point without changing the original project.Within the Share dialogue, there is a checkbox labelled “Set as landing page for recipients”.If a project is shared with a large product-profile group, selecting this option and clicking Update can make that project the default landing page for every recipient in the group.This is a potentially high-impact action, but it is presented as a standard checkbox alongside lower-impact project-sharing settings. The interface does not provide a prominent warning explaining the scale of the change, clearly confirm which users will be affected, or offer an effective organisation-level method of reversing the action. Why this creates a governance riskIn a large organisation, A

It would be great to create a date range which is relative to the Date Ranges selected in the Panel. Right now, I can only visualize a fixed date range for a previous reporting period. Example: I create a report with last week as previous comparing period. When I change the Date Ranges in the Panel (e.g. last quarter) it will still compare the whole last quarter with last week.

There is an important option missing in the date rage panel.We can select the current period but not the selected period of the workspace. So it's not possible to create dynamic comparison to the current time range users set in the workspace.In other words we absolutely need these options:- current day- current week- current month- current quarter- current year- current date range

Dear Adobe Team,we are currently in transition from AA to CJA and are migration a ton of workspace to from AA to CJA.However the process is currently not really perfect as only CJA Admins can be chosen as Owner of the dashboard and its elements.We are aware of the workaround of first put the ownership on an admin. transfer the workspace and then later use Asset Transfer in CJA to set the real owner of the workspace but this is problematic and error prone as identifying all assets which ownership should also change is a lot of manual work.i guess that is also a problem for other admins that are in the transition and want to make as easy for the previous AA users the transition to CJA in having full access to their workspace as the workload explodes by only having CJA Admins and not CJA User as Owner ins transfer available.KRMarc

I recently created an SDR within the AA workspace project.  The thinking is that users should be encouraged to use the AA workspace tool as much as possible, as compared to generating an excel based SDR that has to be stored externally.   Some examples of what I built 1) a picture of the different sections of the SDR -    2) a picture of the different panels, one for each variable (props illustrated) indicated its number, its name and whether or not the variable is enabled   3) an overview of a specific variable details.   I get that there are some items in this example that might not be easy to automate, like the BRD reference number with a hyperlink,    but I think it would be great to have a tool in the AA admin areas that would generate an SDR template within Workspace grabbing all the information it can from the AA admin area report suite traffic and conversion variable screens.  UX:  The admin would click a button, the script wo

Description - Implementing the Analytics CNAME involves creating a subdomain for our website, which is then utilized to place cookies in a first-party context. However, during SEO crawling, these subdomains are scanned as well. To prevent Google from crawling these subdomains, we need to make adjustments to the robots.txt file located within it. Yet, as end users, we lack the capability to perform this task on our own and require assistance from Analytics Engineering to handle it on our behalf Why is this feature important to you -Search engines like Google allocate a crawl quota to domains, determining the time and resources dedicated to indexing a website. If these crawlers expend their resources on redundant URLs, like CNAME subdomains, there's a potential for vital content on our site to go unnoticed during indexing. This poses a risk of missing out on organic traffic if the crawlers neglect new or updated content while focusing on less crucial areas. How would you like t