Product Communities

Hello, I noticed there is no seed list function in Marketo when sending marketing standalone or automated emails.   Ideally, there would be a possibility to add as many people as we want (from contacts within the company), which skips the comms limit and doesn't end up influencing the email stats report.   Currently I've added people to the global distribution lists but they would end up being counted towards stats and might skip receiving some sends due to current limits. Creating another program and sending each email would be too time consuming, hopefully you can come up with a great solution 🙂 Thanks, Livia

Description - In Moment Customer satisfaction survey or feedback Custom form as an Inbuilt offering in Workfront would be good. A STAR rating or Grading based survey on set parameter that can be customised.This form could be used after a issue/project is closed to be filled by the Requestor. Why is this feature important to you - Feedback is important part of improving our processes and best done when fresh in memory and need not be sent as separately as EMAIL. How would you like the feature to work - Survey form / popup should come up when the user logs in to WF if one of his projects / issue has been closed upon completion. The survey form should be an inbuilt custom form that can be modified as necessary. A very simple star based rating for gauging user satisfaction. Current Behaviour - None available

Allow the selection of Email channel configurations in the OCM UI even if they contain more than one target dimension. Why is this feature important to you Enterprise setups often utilize configurations with a target plus secondary dimensions. Forcing architects to change their design and create a dedicated channel setup specifically for OC adds administrative overhead and fragments channel governance. How would you like the feature to work The OCM UI should gracefully handle and permit the use of channel configurations that include multiple target dimensions without causing canvas failures. Current Behaviour Orchestrated Campaigns require a channel configuration with exactly one target dimension, and configurations with a secondary dimension fail in the campaign canvas

Workfront Planning currently offers the ability to share a public link to anyone without a Workfront license. The link allows them to access our information without being directed to our SSO. This is security issue for Marriott and we would like to turn this capability off.We would like an enhancement to be done to have this capability turned off.

A simple toggle button on the timesheet page to enable/disable completed tasks/issues.

Enhancement idea to add WF Boards filter (on the left hand side) to allow to filter by custom field.We have a board with advanced input filter (in the board configuration) that pulls in cards from a custom field that is a user field. While this pulls in the right cards, it doesn’t allow the left hand side filter to filter by the custom user field. The idea is to allow a left hand side filter to be setup, similar to how assignment would work. This would allow users to just see their own cards. Let me know if any questions.

  First, the new business rule feature is extremely helpful as it greatly enhances the user experience and strengthens various processes tremendously.     Idea:  Allow for multiple business rules with the same object and operation (trigger)Current Behavior:  System will not allow multiple business rules on same object and trigger Benefits of this idea: Allows enterprises to create multiple simple rules instead of extremely large and complex formulasEnables quicker implementation with simpler testingMultiple administrative team usage - ability to separate business rules by different areas in an organization (limits risk from other teams impacting your rules)Description and title could be customized for each rule for ease of understanding, expansion and correctionsMove from potential large formula chaos to simplified manageable and searchable lists of rules _____________________________________________________________________&nb

Hi, it'd be super helpful if we could clone reports in Advanced BI Analytics.

Hi there,recently we have had huge spikes in our SFDC to Marketo sync which has lead to significant delays in receiving key data points such as contact sales requests from customers, additionally this impacted our business reporting. We only noticed the issues after it was highlighted to us that some very costly high pri leads were not assigned to sales reps due to these data delays and we realised we have no effective way to view these sync backlogs in Marketo. We have no access to see: The size of the sync backlog in detail The source of the backlog What records are in the backlog  How long it will take those records to sync The current metrics under the “Sync Throughput and backlog” & ‘Sync backlog trend” are not detailed enough. In order to see in detail what was happening regarding our sync we had to have a call set up with a Marketo field engineer, this should not be needed and this data should be available to us within Marketo.  Thanks, Diarmuid 

Description - It would be really nice if sections and custom fields edit and/or view capabilities could be controlled via a specific user, team, or group on a custom form.  Why is this feature important to you -  We are working on a way to have multiple people with edit permissions on a form be able to edit only one field or one section of a form, unique to each user/role, while the other fields and sections can either be only viewed or do not display at all.  This is all based on the specific user that is viewing the form.How would you like the feature to work -  This feature would allow us to control which sections or fields a specific user could edit or view.  Different users would look at the form and for each user, a different section or field would be editable, view only, or wouldn't appear.  This would greatly reduce the number of forms that we would need to create.Current Behaviour -  You can set display logic based on field values in the

Enhancement SummaryRequesting a product enhancement in Adobe Tags to support the ability to transfer, copy, or promote selected components from one library into another library within the same property. This capability would allow users to move changes such as data elements, rules, extensions, and related configurations between libraries without manually recreating or porting them.Current StateAdobe Tags currently allows teams to create and manage libraries as part of the publishing workflow. However, when changes are created in one library, there does not appear to be a native way to push or transfer those changes into another existing library.As a result, teams are required to manually recreate or port data elements, rules, and other configuration changes from one library to another. Business ProblemThe current manual process introduces unnecessary operational risk and inefficiency.Manual porting between libraries can result in:Missed data elements or rules Inconsistent configuration

We would love to see the Team Requests widget in the New Home Screen improved so it is functional and relevant for our teams.  Right now, not all teams show. There is also a reported bug where some users only see one team (not even their home team) that is not on Workfront's current roadmap to fix in the near future. Although users could view this information in a report, the New Home should be able to cover all bases the old Home Screen can. For now our users prefer to stay in old Home since their Team Requests are not functional or relevant.  We would love for all of the user's teams that have requests/tasks assigned to them to show properly in the widget. An improvement would be to also have some filtering/sorting allowing user to see more relevant information or to slightly customize.  Thank you! 🙂

Allow system administrators to customize where the Quick Actions direct the users within the My Projects widget.  System administrators would also need the ability to hide/remove certain quick actions that are not in use at their organization.  This feature would be extremely helpful in streamlining regular project updates for users, so that they could jump right to specific areas of their projects to make changes all from their home workspace. Today the Quick Actions only allow the user to "upload a file", "edit a project custom form", "add a new project update", or "add a new project task".  If a system administrator could modify or add quick actions, then a user could potentially open a status update form, add a risk to a project, or run a project report.

Description - The Task Summary is available when looking at tasks in a project and is really useful for allowing team members to comment and interact with tasks. It would be great if this feature was available in reports. This way you could get this useful feature when managing work across projects. Why is this feature important to you - when reviewing work the task summary is useful because users do not need to click into the task (and away from the task view) to comment or see key details. This makes it easier for our team to do work. How would you like the feature to work - transpose the Task Summary and make it available on reports with tasks. Current Behaviour - Task summary only available when viewed in a project      

Currently I can pull bot name as a dimension and bot pageviews as a metric in Analysis Workspace.  And I can pull IP address or user agent in Data Warehouse.  But I can't pull bot name or bot pageviews in Data Warehouse and I can't pull IP address or user agent in Analysis Workspace (at least out of the box) and breakdown bot name by IP. I would love the ability in either Workspace or Warehouse, (but ideally both), to be able to breakdown bot name by IP address/user agent, but right now there's not a great way to do that.Customer care confirmed this was the case.Here's a brief summary of our discussion for future references:You were looking to pull out bot reports in Data Warehouse. I informed you that its not possible as bots are excluded from the reporting. The Bot reports are only available in the Workspace and that too, separate from rest of the report suite data. Further, you wanted to enquire if its possible to pull out Bot Reports with IP Address or User Agent. Un

Recently I had several users ask me why the Mentions widget was not showing all of the comments in which they were tagged, and I realized that replies to threads do not get brought to the top of the widget. As a result, if someone is using the widget to track conversations (which, ostensibly, is one of the main purposes of the widget), they could very easily lose track of updates. It would be nice if the users could sort their mentioned comments by Original Post Date, Last Updated, Object status, etc. or barring that, if new replies at least caused older threads to be brought to the top.

It would be extremely helpful to be able to make choices able to be hidden per form, so you don't have to make an entirely new field when you want to adapt existing fields to different forms. This would allow us to create fewer fields and reuse the ones we have.

Description - Home team and home group names should be available fields for reporting in addition to home team and group IDs. Text mode should not have to be used to create views with group and team names. Why is this feature important to you - Home team and group association are extremely important for effective reporting. Our leadership team is relying on Workfront to understand what is happening within their remits, and what teams/groups have upcoming, current, and overdue tasks. No one is able to identify what the team/group is by the ID. Reports are supposed to be clear and concise, which is why actual names should be made available instead of IDs How would you like the feature to work - Home team and group names should be available fields for all applicable reports without using text mode. Current Behaviour - Only IDs are available; no one is able to identify what the group/team is by a "random" group of letters and numbers.

we have +60 languages to select but many times we just need some of them and we always know it is around 22 as exampleI could be really cool with a kind of counter of selected language, to help us verify if we have selected the right amount of languages  

Use-case / ProblemMany of us rely on the breadcrumb navigation to quickly move between Program → Campaign → Project → Task. Until recently, the Project link was always visible, making it easy to return “home” to the project page in one click. Now, the Project link is hidden under the "More" menu, requiring multiple clicks and making navigation slower — especially for those of us who pivot back to the project page dozens of times a day. Proposed SolutionPlease restore the option to see the full breadcrumb hierarchy at a glance, with the Project link always visible. Or at least allow users to choose between a condensed or expanded breadcrumb view so everyone can work the way they prefer. Benefits / ImpactSaves time by reducing extra clicks. Improves daily workflow for project managers and frequent users. Restores a familiar, efficient navigation style many teams depend on.This small change would have a big positive impact on productivity and user satisfaction.

NEW Eメールデザイナーのテスト配信機能について、旧メールエディタに比べ機能が悪化している点があるため、改善いただきたいです。 1.テスト配信先の指定をメールアドレスで一括指定できるようにしてほしい以前まで改行などで一括でテスト配信先を指定できていたが、一つずつ入力する必要がある 2.トークンや動的コンテンツを含まない場合は、シミュレート名でユーザーをしなくてもテスト送信ができるようにしてほしいNEW Eメールデザイナーでテスト配信をする際は、すべてのメールにおいてシミュレート名にリードを指定する必要があると思います。テストリードをMarketoに登録し、そのリードを各アカウントでプロフィールに登録すれば問題はないのですが、誤って本番用の顧客データをプロフィールに登録してテスト送信した場合、実際の顧客にはメールが送信されないものの、メール件名にその顧客のEメールがそのまま記載されてしまいます。例）TEST (To: xxx@xxx.xxx) | 件名自社内のみでMarketoを運用している場合は大きな問題にはなりませんが、協力会社が作業をしている場合などは、保有している個人情報がテスト送信で他社に共有されてしまうリスクが高いと考えています。※プロフィールの登録自体は、複数アカウントで共有されず各marketoアカウントでそれぞれ設定が必要という仕様であるため、誤って設定してしまう可能性も上がると考えています。 また、仮に個人情報を見れない権限で他社へのmarketo運用支援をしている場合、デザインスタジオなどでメールを作成する場合も、誰かしらのプロフィールを登録しなければならないと考えています。NEW Eメールデザイナーで作業をする場合はそのような支援自体が難しくなるため、仕様について見直していただきたいです。   

Request for Feature Enhancement (RFE) Summary: Cross Program Content Copy in AEM as a Cloud Service Use-case: We are looking to copy content between two environments across different programs, such as from Environment A in Program A to Environment B in Program B. Currently, the content copy tool only supports content transfer within the same program ID, which limits this capability. Current/Experienced Behavior: The AEM Content Copy Tool is designed for content movement within the same Cloud Manager program. Transferring content across different programs is not supported.- Adobe does not provide an out-of-the-box solution for cross-program content migration to maintain content integrity and security. Improved/Expected Behavior: We are looking to copy content between two environments across different programs, such as from Environment A in Program A to Environment B in Program B. Currently, the content copy tool only supports content transfer within the same program ID, which l

If a user is added to Workfront with the wrong email address OR their email address changes, it would be ideal to be able to delete the user OR update the users email address. Right now that is not possible if your organization has been connected to the Admin Console. 

I've had clients that would have liked to reference a unique reference number for Portfolios and Programs. However, Portfolios and Programs do not get a reference number like a Project or Issue gets upon creation.

Description - Would love to see Workfront develop logic that allows users to see only the options that are applicable for them within a field, without having to create multiple fields.  An example - I have two values that I want project owners to populate. One is Business Group and the other is Product. Each Business Group has its own products. In current state, there are two options. One is to have one Product field that lists all of the products for all of the business groups. The second is to create multiple fields - one Business Group field and then multiple Product fields (one for each business group). In the first option, project owners might have to scroll through a long list to see the one that they need, and if products are similar between business units, there could be confusion about which one to choose. There's nothing stopping them from choosing a product that doesn't match the business group. In the second option, you're maintaining extra fields even though all