Changelog

Have something to say?

Tell us how we could make the product more useful to you.

Feature Request – AI Fake Review Detector & Google Flag Assistant

This is just a suggestion from a platform user, I hope it’s useful for the roadmap. A quick feature idea that I think would be a real differentiator for EMR: An AI layer that automatically scans incoming reviews, detects potential Google policy violations (fake reviews, competitor attacks, spam, hate speech), scores each review with a Flaggability Score (0-100%), and generates a ready-to-submit flag report citing the exact Google policy being violated. Why it matters: • Most businesses never flag violations because they don’t know how • A structured, policy-cited report gets significantly better results from Google than manual flags • Fake and competitor reviews are a growing problem in many markets • Adds clear, defensible value that helps agencies justify their monthly retainers Thanks for everything you’re building.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Sultan Alharbi about 6 hours ago

💡 Feature Request

Webhook event for opt-in submissions + API access to consent records

Currently the platform stores opt-in consent data behind the scenes, but there's no way for agencies to access it programmatically. For US agencies operating under TCPA rules, having a real-time and exportable consent trail is becoming a hard requirement. Two requests: Add a new webhook event (e.g. "optin-created") that fires when a customer submits the campaign opt-in page. The payload should include: contact name, phone/email, timestamp, IP address, and the consent text they agreed to. This would let agencies automatically store consent records on their side without needing to raise a support ticket each time. As a simpler first step, include consent record fields (opted-in timestamp, IP, consent language) in the API response when listing campaign contacts. This would be a strong differentiator for EMR — most competing platforms don't offer webhook-level consent tracking, and US agencies are increasingly looking for this as TCPA enforcement tightens. Having it built in would give EMR a compliance edge that competitors like Birdeye and Podium don't currently offer.

Yoan Pumar about 21 hours ago

💡 Feature Request

Custom Package Visibility

Hi, I would like to submit feedback regarding Custom Package visibility. Right now, whenever a Sales Agent attempts to add a new account to his/her dashboard, they can see all of the available custom plans - even those that are designated as ‘hidden’. It would be helpful if we could designate certain plans to ONLY sales agents, and other plans to the general public. Secondly, it would also be useful if we could toggle off any client-facing visibility to the billing section. When our agency is fully responsible for managing customer reviews and direct billing, it becomes a challenge for/when they see the available plans (with pricing). Hiding the custom plans only solves half the problem, because now those customers who have signed up directly can no longer see the other plans to upgrade to. https://www.loom.com/share/5dcb9289baea4aac85642747214efe86

Review Pulse 360 2 days ago

📥 Feedback

Further Search AI bugs/issues

➡️ Sometimes it happens that instead of answering the question the AI will reply with something like this: Would you like me to find and list the one clearly best-rated garage door installer in Tampere, or would you prefer a short top-3 list (company + rating + source and contact information)? I'll tell you the search criteria (for example, Google/Fonecta/Urakkamaailma ratings) before searching, if you'd like. This is probably just a prompt issue, maybe embedded in the prompt should be instructions to answer directly and to not ask followup questions? ➡️ What causes this outcome? Should this not be the raw output even for non-detections? Happens mostly with Gemini and ChatGPT, but also with Perplexity even though much more rare. ➡️ Still plenty of prompts with mixed English and profile language. Or are the prompt templates in English and we see the translations just in the UI?

Severi 3 days ago

1

🐛 Bug Reports

Stats for Weekly AI Analysis Reports

When setting up reports to be sent on a weekly basis for AI analysis, the reports seem to reflect the entire GBP history, not specifically the past week. What my clients would be interested in knowing: Summaries of both good and bad reviews from the past week, instead of minor changes from the entire GBP history. Thanks for your consideration.

Kevin Huang 4 days ago

🐛 Bug Reports

Set the default Opt-in Page Welcome Message

It would be helpful to have the ability to change the default Welcome Message on the Opt-in Page, so that when our client’s create a new Opt-in Page that message says exactly what we want it to say. I personally would want to change it to something more universally applicable. For example, “Review Request Opt-in Form.” My example:

STEVE SOLER 6 days ago

💡 Feature Request

Feedback on AI review flow

Hi team, First, the AI-generated follow-up questions are excellent. The contextual analysis by sector is very strong and becomes even better with proper briefing. However, I have an issue with the current review flow. When a customer gives a high rating (e.g. 5 stars), the system still allows follow-up answers that include clearly negative wording (e.g. “waiting time was disappointing”). The AI then combines positive and negative feedback and suggests copying this directly into a public Google review. This creates a problem: A satisfied customer can unintentionally publish a mixed or negative review on public platforms. In my view, this is not ideal for two reasons: It distorts the initial high rating (NPS-style inconsistency). It increases the risk of users posting unintended negative public reviews. What I would suggest instead: The AI should detect negative sentiment keywords in follow-up answers. If negative sentiment is detected after a high rating, the flow should switch from “public review generation” to an internal feedback form (private feedback / support loop). Ideally, there should be a final AI “review check” step before anything is sent to Google, to validate consistency between rating and text. In short, the system is very powerful, but it needs a stronger gating logic before publishing public reviews. Happy to discuss if needed. Best regards, Rudy Mence

Rudy Mencé 10 days ago

📥 Feedback