You are currently impersonating another WORD user - bad translation 🇵🇱
Hi, I'd like to suggest changing the wording of the impersonation banner. The current message: „Obecnie podszywasz się pod innego użytkownika.” has a rather negative connotation. The phrase „podszywasz się” is commonly associated with fraud or unauthorized access, even though that's not what this feature does. I would suggest replacing it with: „Przeglądasz konto klienta: WORD Nauka Jazdy.” In my opinion, this wording is more natural, more user-friendly, and better describes the purpose of this feature. Thank you for considering this suggestion.
Paweł Maćkowiak about 24 hours ago
Translation
🐛 Bug Reports
You are currently impersonating another WORD user - bad translation 🇵🇱
Hi, I'd like to suggest changing the wording of the impersonation banner. The current message: „Obecnie podszywasz się pod innego użytkownika.” has a rather negative connotation. The phrase „podszywasz się” is commonly associated with fraud or unauthorized access, even though that's not what this feature does. I would suggest replacing it with: „Przeglądasz konto klienta: WORD Nauka Jazdy.” In my opinion, this wording is more natural, more user-friendly, and better describes the purpose of this feature. Thank you for considering this suggestion.
Paweł Maćkowiak about 24 hours ago
Translation
🐛 Bug Reports
"Mention score over time" chart renders empty in AI Search view
In the AI Search option, the "Mention score over time" section (subtitle: "Track your AI presence week over week") displays no content. The card header and subtitle render correctly, but the chart/data area below is blank — no graph, data points, or empty-state message.
Jean-Gabriel 1 day ago
General
🐛 Bug Reports
"Mention score over time" chart renders empty in AI Search view
In the AI Search option, the "Mention score over time" section (subtitle: "Track your AI presence week over week") displays no content. The card header and subtitle render correctly, but the chart/data area below is blank — no graph, data points, or empty-state message.
Jean-Gabriel 1 day ago
General
🐛 Bug Reports
Unnecessary character appears in a AI-generated reviews
When consumers generate reviews using AI-Review Assistant, an extra character “ . “ (a period mark) is always added at the end of the review content. This issue has been raised by several clients, which is quite an annoying issue.
Kevin Huang 2 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Unnecessary character appears in a AI-generated reviews
When consumers generate reviews using AI-Review Assistant, an extra character “ . “ (a period mark) is always added at the end of the review content. This issue has been raised by several clients, which is quite an annoying issue.
Kevin Huang 2 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
🇫🇷 Request for French agencies
I noticed a translation trouble in the customer sidebar. "récolte" is an agricultural word. So it is really weird to read this. It sounds bad translation. So would you mind to say yes in order to replace "récolte" by "collecte". It is more accurate. Moreover, the initial name of the section in the English version is 'Review tools', so a more accurate translation would be 'Collecte d’avis'.
Romaric 3 days ago
General
💡 Feature Request
🇫🇷 Request for French agencies
I noticed a translation trouble in the customer sidebar. "récolte" is an agricultural word. So it is really weird to read this. It sounds bad translation. So would you mind to say yes in order to replace "récolte" by "collecte". It is more accurate. Moreover, the initial name of the section in the English version is 'Review tools', so a more accurate translation would be 'Collecte d’avis'.
Romaric 3 days ago
General
💡 Feature Request
Search AI report & missing categories (GBP)
Hello, could you please add the main categories as provided by Google in GBP? I would like to create a Search AI report for a prospective pharmacy client, but I cannot select this category because it doesn't exist in the list.
Romaric 3 days ago
General
💡 Feature Request
Search AI report & missing categories (GBP)
Hello, could you please add the main categories as provided by Google in GBP? I would like to create a Search AI report for a prospective pharmacy client, but I cannot select this category because it doesn't exist in the list.
Romaric 3 days ago
General
💡 Feature Request
Way to sort or filter campaigns by active/paused
Way to sort or filter campaigns by active/paused in the campaigns section.
Nalu Okimoto 6 days ago
💡 Feature Request
Way to sort or filter campaigns by active/paused
Way to sort or filter campaigns by active/paused in the campaigns section.
Nalu Okimoto 6 days ago
💡 Feature Request
Agency Dashboard
Has anyone else seen a difference in the agency Reporting dashboard, where the number of active subscriptions, ARR, and MRR is way off from what is actually verifiable account data? I went through each customer account to make sure that they were in 'good standing' and clicked the SYNC with Stripe button for good measure.
Review Pulse 360 7 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Agency Dashboard
Has anyone else seen a difference in the agency Reporting dashboard, where the number of active subscriptions, ARR, and MRR is way off from what is actually verifiable account data? I went through each customer account to make sure that they were in 'good standing' and clicked the SYNC with Stripe button for good measure.
Review Pulse 360 7 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
UX Issue: “Content & Flow” shows unrelated sections
Description The “Content & Flow” area shows sections that do not belong to the selected form/funnel type. Example When creating a testimonial form, sections such as “Private Feedback” or other review-flow settings are still visible, even though they do not clearly belong to testimonials. Actual result Different form/funnel types appear to overlap in the UI. Users may not understand whether they are creating a testimonial form, private feedback form, public review request flow, or a mixed flow. Expected result Only settings relevant to the selected form/funnel type should be shown. For example: Testimonial form → only testimonial settings Private feedback → only private feedback settings Public review request → only review-platform settings Impact The current UI is confusing for customers and agencies and makes it difficult to understand which settings affect the published form. Suggested improvement Hide irrelevant sections dynamically or separate the form/funnel types more clearly.
J.D 13 days ago
💡 Feature Request
UX Issue: “Content & Flow” shows unrelated sections
Description The “Content & Flow” area shows sections that do not belong to the selected form/funnel type. Example When creating a testimonial form, sections such as “Private Feedback” or other review-flow settings are still visible, even though they do not clearly belong to testimonials. Actual result Different form/funnel types appear to overlap in the UI. Users may not understand whether they are creating a testimonial form, private feedback form, public review request flow, or a mixed flow. Expected result Only settings relevant to the selected form/funnel type should be shown. For example: Testimonial form → only testimonial settings Private feedback → only private feedback settings Public review request → only review-platform settings Impact The current UI is confusing for customers and agencies and makes it difficult to understand which settings affect the published form. Suggested improvement Hide irrelevant sections dynamically or separate the form/funnel types more clearly.
J.D 13 days ago
💡 Feature Request
Form preview shows wrong flow or content
Description The form preview does not always match the selected form type or the current configuration. In some cases, the preview shows content from a different flow or displays fields/pages that do not belong to the form being edited. Steps to reproduce Open the form editor. Go to the “Content & Flow” tab. Open the relevant configuration sections in the left-hand sidebar. Create or edit a testimonial form. Configure testimonial-specific fields/content. Check the preview on the right side while editing and switching between sections. Actual result The preview sometimes displays unrelated review-flow content, wrong thank-you pages, platform options, or fields that are not part of the current form. Examples observed: A testimonial form preview shows a review/thank-you page with Kununu as a platform option. The preview shows fields that were not created in the testimonial form. The editor and preview appear to show different form states. Expected result The preview should always reflect the currently selected form type and its active configuration. Impact Users cannot reliably see what the published form will look like, which creates confusion and increases the risk of publishing the wrong flow.
J.D 13 days ago
General
🐛 Bug Reports
Form preview shows wrong flow or content
Description The form preview does not always match the selected form type or the current configuration. In some cases, the preview shows content from a different flow or displays fields/pages that do not belong to the form being edited. Steps to reproduce Open the form editor. Go to the “Content & Flow” tab. Open the relevant configuration sections in the left-hand sidebar. Create or edit a testimonial form. Configure testimonial-specific fields/content. Check the preview on the right side while editing and switching between sections. Actual result The preview sometimes displays unrelated review-flow content, wrong thank-you pages, platform options, or fields that are not part of the current form. Examples observed: A testimonial form preview shows a review/thank-you page with Kununu as a platform option. The preview shows fields that were not created in the testimonial form. The editor and preview appear to show different form states. Expected result The preview should always reflect the currently selected form type and its active configuration. Impact Users cannot reliably see what the published form will look like, which creates confusion and increases the risk of publishing the wrong flow.
J.D 13 days ago
General
🐛 Bug Reports
Multiple message fields in testimonial forms overwrite/misroute input
Description We wanted to use a testimonial form for an employee survey. For this, we added multiple “Message” fields, where each message field represented a separate question. Example questions: “How satisfied are you with your current work environment?” “How do you rate the opportunities for professional development within the company?” “What could be improved in internal communication?” Steps to reproduce Create a testimonial form. Add multiple “Message” fields. Use each message field as a separate question. Open the public form link. Try to answer the first message field. Actual result Input entered into one message field appears in another message field instead. The individual questions cannot be answered separately. Expected result Each message field should work independently and save the answer for its own question. Impact Customers cannot use testimonial forms for structured employee surveys or feedback forms with multiple open questions.
J.D 13 days ago
General
🐛 Bug Reports
Multiple message fields in testimonial forms overwrite/misroute input
Description We wanted to use a testimonial form for an employee survey. For this, we added multiple “Message” fields, where each message field represented a separate question. Example questions: “How satisfied are you with your current work environment?” “How do you rate the opportunities for professional development within the company?” “What could be improved in internal communication?” Steps to reproduce Create a testimonial form. Add multiple “Message” fields. Use each message field as a separate question. Open the public form link. Try to answer the first message field. Actual result Input entered into one message field appears in another message field instead. The individual questions cannot be answered separately. Expected result Each message field should work independently and save the answer for its own question. Impact Customers cannot use testimonial forms for structured employee surveys or feedback forms with multiple open questions.
J.D 13 days ago
General
🐛 Bug Reports
Organization invite links sometimes redirect to 404
Description Invitation links for newly created organizations do not reliably open the correct join page. Invited users are often redirected to a 404 page after clicking the link in the invitation email. Steps to reproduce Create a new organization. Invite an employee. Send the invite from either the organization/customer view or the agency view. Open the invitation link from the email. Actual result The invitation link redirects to a 404 page. This happened with customer invites, agency-view invites, and a self-invite test. In one case, incognito mode worked once, but for other users incognito mode still led to a 404 page. Expected result The invite link should always open the correct join/setup page for the invited organization, regardless of login status or browser mode. Impact Employees cannot reliably join new organizations, which blocks customer onboarding.
J.D 13 days ago
General
💡 Feature Request
Organization invite links sometimes redirect to 404
Description Invitation links for newly created organizations do not reliably open the correct join page. Invited users are often redirected to a 404 page after clicking the link in the invitation email. Steps to reproduce Create a new organization. Invite an employee. Send the invite from either the organization/customer view or the agency view. Open the invitation link from the email. Actual result The invitation link redirects to a 404 page. This happened with customer invites, agency-view invites, and a self-invite test. In one case, incognito mode worked once, but for other users incognito mode still led to a 404 page. Expected result The invite link should always open the correct join/setup page for the invited organization, regardless of login status or browser mode. Impact Employees cannot reliably join new organizations, which blocks customer onboarding.
J.D 13 days ago
General
💡 Feature Request
MCP Connection is limited to local machine
The MCP connection is currently limited to a local machine on which the config file is configured. Hence, the MCP connection does not work when used on mobile devices app (e.g. Claude iPhone app) or on Claude.ai. The MCP connection when configured and set up, it only shows up as connector listed under the connections list only on the Desktop App where it was configured. This limits not able to use from our mobile devices. Request to consider expanding the MCP setup to be a “web'“ type. PS: Attached are some screenshots of conversation with Claude AI. Thanks, Anil
Anil Agrawal 22 days ago
📥 Feedback
MCP Connection is limited to local machine
The MCP connection is currently limited to a local machine on which the config file is configured. Hence, the MCP connection does not work when used on mobile devices app (e.g. Claude iPhone app) or on Claude.ai. The MCP connection when configured and set up, it only shows up as connector listed under the connections list only on the Desktop App where it was configured. This limits not able to use from our mobile devices. Request to consider expanding the MCP setup to be a “web'“ type. PS: Attached are some screenshots of conversation with Claude AI. Thanks, Anil
Anil Agrawal 22 days ago
📥 Feedback
Wall of Love Enhancement
I would like to request a configurable Wall of Love (WOL) that displays only video submissions. Mixing written and video reviews can be overwhelming, and a dedicated video-focused view would improve clarity. My preferred options are: A filter control to view only video testimonials (e.g., a “Video Only” filter). Alternatively, a standalone “Video Testimonial” feature within the Integrations section. Lastly, could it be possible to rename it from WOL to something less Campy and more broader in reach: Suggested options with rationale: Video Testimonials Wall: instantly communicates the primary content type and preserves “wall” as a recognizable UI metaphor. Video Spotlight: conveys a curated, highlighted set of video reviews, implying quality and focus. Video Reviews Hub: signals a centralized, easily navigable collection of video feedback. Video Moments Gallery: adds a dynamic, human touch by framing entries as moments. Video Feedback Wall: maintains familiarity with “wall” while explicitly calling out video feedback.
Review Pulse 360 23 days ago
📥 Feedback
Wall of Love Enhancement
I would like to request a configurable Wall of Love (WOL) that displays only video submissions. Mixing written and video reviews can be overwhelming, and a dedicated video-focused view would improve clarity. My preferred options are: A filter control to view only video testimonials (e.g., a “Video Only” filter). Alternatively, a standalone “Video Testimonial” feature within the Integrations section. Lastly, could it be possible to rename it from WOL to something less Campy and more broader in reach: Suggested options with rationale: Video Testimonials Wall: instantly communicates the primary content type and preserves “wall” as a recognizable UI metaphor. Video Spotlight: conveys a curated, highlighted set of video reviews, implying quality and focus. Video Reviews Hub: signals a centralized, easily navigable collection of video feedback. Video Moments Gallery: adds a dynamic, human touch by framing entries as moments. Video Feedback Wall: maintains familiarity with “wall” while explicitly calling out video feedback.
Review Pulse 360 23 days ago
📥 Feedback
Wall of Love Widget
We noticed that when customizing the WOL widget and choosing to remove the customer's thumbnail, the grey outline remains, throwing off the overall design. This is the only widget where this happens.
Review Pulse 360 23 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Wall of Love Widget
We noticed that when customizing the WOL widget and choosing to remove the customer's thumbnail, the grey outline remains, throwing off the overall design. This is the only widget where this happens.
Review Pulse 360 23 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
SEO Rich Snippets
Is it possible to have the form for the SEO / Rich Snippets formatted for the US instead of the UK? Business Name Address Line 1 Address Line 2 City State Country Telephone Category
Review Pulse 360 23 days ago
💡 Feature Request
SEO Rich Snippets
Is it possible to have the form for the SEO / Rich Snippets formatted for the US instead of the UK? Business Name Address Line 1 Address Line 2 City State Country Telephone Category
Review Pulse 360 23 days ago
💡 Feature Request
Trafft Integration
Trafft is a booking app similar to Calendly. Trafft has been on AppSumo several times in the past and it is popular with many service-based businesses. Booking integration would allow EMR agency owners and customers to fetch their customers booking data for further automation to request reviews with more accuracy and timing. Not sure if this could be achieved via Pabbly Connect integration.
Anil Agrawal 24 days ago
💡 Feature Request
Trafft Integration
Trafft is a booking app similar to Calendly. Trafft has been on AppSumo several times in the past and it is popular with many service-based businesses. Booking integration would allow EMR agency owners and customers to fetch their customers booking data for further automation to request reviews with more accuracy and timing. Not sure if this could be achieved via Pabbly Connect integration.
Anil Agrawal 24 days ago
💡 Feature Request
Native Integration with Quickbooks Online or Quickbooks
MANY small businesses use quickbooks - migrating away from current provider to you and several of my customers use Quickbooks Online.
Gino Petitti 25 days ago
💡 Feature Request
Native Integration with Quickbooks Online or Quickbooks
MANY small businesses use quickbooks - migrating away from current provider to you and several of my customers use Quickbooks Online.
Gino Petitti 25 days ago
💡 Feature Request
When sending multiples requests : Pre-send summary showing how many contacts will actually be invited
Context / User need: The client wants to invite customers who are not automatically solicited by EMR (e.g. those who don't book online). To do this, he exports his full client file from his software and uploads the entire CSV into EMR. He does this because full export is the fastest option — manually sorting/filtering the CSV beforehand is time-consuming. He relies on the campaign's deduplication filter to exclude contacts already solicited within the configured time window (e.g. 120 days). Problem: Before sending, the client doesn't know how many contacts will actually be invited. He knows the deduplication filter will block a portion of his list, but he has no visibility on how many will be filtered out vs. actually sent. This makes it hard to anticipate SMS/credit usage. Proposed solution: Add a pre-send confirmation screen (after clicking "Importer et commencer à envoyer") that shows the result of the deduplication filter before the actual send, e.g.: 2,500 contacts already solicited in the last 120 days (excluded) 150 contacts will be solicited (included) (Optional) reminder of available SMS/email credit balance Value: Gives the client visibility on real volume and credit usage before confirming Avoids confusion around "pending" vs "not sent" statuses Removes the need to manually pre-filter the CSV
Jean-Gabriel 25 days ago
General
💡 Feature Request
When sending multiples requests : Pre-send summary showing how many contacts will actually be invited
Context / User need: The client wants to invite customers who are not automatically solicited by EMR (e.g. those who don't book online). To do this, he exports his full client file from his software and uploads the entire CSV into EMR. He does this because full export is the fastest option — manually sorting/filtering the CSV beforehand is time-consuming. He relies on the campaign's deduplication filter to exclude contacts already solicited within the configured time window (e.g. 120 days). Problem: Before sending, the client doesn't know how many contacts will actually be invited. He knows the deduplication filter will block a portion of his list, but he has no visibility on how many will be filtered out vs. actually sent. This makes it hard to anticipate SMS/credit usage. Proposed solution: Add a pre-send confirmation screen (after clicking "Importer et commencer à envoyer") that shows the result of the deduplication filter before the actual send, e.g.: 2,500 contacts already solicited in the last 120 days (excluded) 150 contacts will be solicited (included) (Optional) reminder of available SMS/email credit balance Value: Gives the client visibility on real volume and credit usage before confirming Avoids confusion around "pending" vs "not sent" statuses Removes the need to manually pre-filter the CSV
Jean-Gabriel 25 days ago
General
💡 Feature Request
Bug Report: "vs last month" delta is inverted / miscalculated ?
The number contradicts reality and undermines trust in the dashboard. A new onboarded client (Salon le W /) flagged it during a review meeting: he collected far more reviews this month than last, yet every Time Period filter shows a large negative delta. Likely cause The current window counts only dated reviews (48 in 2026, avg 5.0), but the baseline seems drawn from the full All Time set (179, avg 4.6, inflated by undated imported Google reviews). A small numerator over a large baseline yields a negative percentage on every window. Not confirmed — a plain inverted sign or a wrong reference month would also fit. Summary The "% vs last month" delta shown under "Total Reviews" is wrong for every Time Period filter. It displays large negative percentages while the underlying data shows strong positive growth. The sign appears inverted and/or the comparison baseline is incorrect. Notably, the "Great Momentum! You're collecting more reviews than last month" banner in the same UI shows the correct positive direction, so two components are reading the same data with opposite results. Ground-truth data (from API) Monthly review counts, 2026: Jan: 1 Feb: 4 Mar: 1 Apr: 0 May: 3 Jun: 32 Jul (1-6): 7 Correct month-over-month delta, June vs May: +966% (32 vs 3). This matches the "Great Momentum! / 1200% increase" banner (Last 30 Days: 39 vs Previous 30 Days: 3), which uses the correct direction.
Jean-Gabriel about 1 month ago
General
🐛 Bug Reports
Bug Report: "vs last month" delta is inverted / miscalculated ?
The number contradicts reality and undermines trust in the dashboard. A new onboarded client (Salon le W /) flagged it during a review meeting: he collected far more reviews this month than last, yet every Time Period filter shows a large negative delta. Likely cause The current window counts only dated reviews (48 in 2026, avg 5.0), but the baseline seems drawn from the full All Time set (179, avg 4.6, inflated by undated imported Google reviews). A small numerator over a large baseline yields a negative percentage on every window. Not confirmed — a plain inverted sign or a wrong reference month would also fit. Summary The "% vs last month" delta shown under "Total Reviews" is wrong for every Time Period filter. It displays large negative percentages while the underlying data shows strong positive growth. The sign appears inverted and/or the comparison baseline is incorrect. Notably, the "Great Momentum! You're collecting more reviews than last month" banner in the same UI shows the correct positive direction, so two components are reading the same data with opposite results. Ground-truth data (from API) Monthly review counts, 2026: Jan: 1 Feb: 4 Mar: 1 Apr: 0 May: 3 Jun: 32 Jul (1-6): 7 Correct month-over-month delta, June vs May: +966% (32 vs 3). This matches the "Great Momentum! / 1200% increase" banner (Last 30 Days: 39 vs Previous 30 Days: 3), which uses the correct direction.
Jean-Gabriel about 1 month ago
General
🐛 Bug Reports