Global Disable Option for Trustpilot Review Display (Agency Level)
1. Objective Implement a new feature within the agency-level administration panel to globally disable the display of Trustpilot reviews in all reputation widgets. This change must be strictly surgical: the ability to request/collect Trustpilot reviews (via automated email or SMS workflows) must remain fully active, but their visual rendering within widgets embedded on client websites must be blocked. 2. Technical Description and System Behavior UI Location: Agency Settings Panel Visual Component: A logical toggle switch labeled: "Allow Trustpilot reviews to be displayed in widgets". System Behavior: Enabled State (Default): Current software behavior is maintained. Trustpilot reviews are fetched and displayed in the widgets of all sub-accounts. Disabled State: The system immediately stops rendering any reviews originating from Trustpilot across all widgets generated by the software for any agency client. Previously stored Trustpilot reviews in the database must be retroactively hidden from widgets. The automation workflow for sending collection links (review requests directing the end-consumer to the company's Trustpilot page) continues to function normally. 3. Justification and Legal Implications (Critical Risk Mitigation) Displaying Trustpilot data through third-party widgets poses a severe and immediate legal risk to the agencies. Trustpilot aggressively protects its business model based on intellectual property and database rights (Sui Generis Right). The platform explicitly prohibits the display of reviews, TrustScores, or stars outside of their official widgets (TrustBoxes). Real-World Market Precedents and Legal Actions: The Reputon Precedent (Forced Removal): The reputation management brand Reputon was targeted with legal measures and Cease and Desist notices by Trustpilot's lawyers due to its application "Trustpilot Reviews by Reputon". As a direct consequence of this legal pressure, the display app was entirely removed from the Shopify App Store. The Elfsight Precedent (Lawsuit): Trustpilot has successfully pursued formal legal action against other major widget software providers (such as Elfsight) for creating unauthorized display extensions, resulting in restrictive court injunctions and brand damage payouts. The London Intellectual Property Court Case: Trustpilot states that it successfully sued a well-known fake widget provider in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in London in 2022 and obtained an order preventing unauthorized display of Trustpilot stars. Active "Whistleblower" System: Trustpilot has implemented a dedicated global reporting channel for "Fake TrustBoxes." Through this system, competitors or users can anonymously report any website displaying reviews outside the official ecosystem, accelerating automated legal action. 3.1. Why the Target is "Display" (Frontend) and not "Scraping/Fetching" (Backend) Market analysis and developer consensus show that Trustpilot rarely initiates litigation over data fetching or scraping itself, but strikes with maximum force against visual widgets. This strategic enforcement is driven by four factors: The Burden of Proof (Invisible vs. Public): Scraping happens silently on the backend (server-to-server) and can be easily masked using proxies and rotating user-agents, making it technically difficult for Trustpilot to legally link the scraping activity to a specific company. A widget, however, is rendered on the frontend. It is completely public. Trustpilot only needs a single screenshot of a client's website to have irrefutable legal proof of an infraction. Trademark Infringement vs. Terms of Service: Pursuing a company for scraping relies on standard website Terms of Service (ToS), which holds weak legal standing in international courts (e.g., the hiQ vs. LinkedIn precedent ruling that scraping public data is generally legal). However, when an unauthorized widget displays reviews, it inevitably uses Trustpilot's Green Stars, Registered Logo, and the trademarked term "TrustScore". This upgrades the case from a minor ToS violation to an explicit Trademark Infringement, which is drastically faster and easier for Trustpilot to win in court. The Trigger of Economic Damages: Simply storing text in a database does not cause quantifiable financial harm to Trustpilot. Financial and commercial damage occurs the moment a business uses that data on their frontend to avoid buying a Premium Plan. Trustpilot's legal department targets the display because it is where their commercial revenue is being bypassed. Automated Footprint Detection: It is incredibly cost-effective for Trustpilot to deploy web crawlers (similar to Googlebot) to scan the internet for specific code signatures or HTML structures associated with third-party widgets. When a crawler flags a domain displaying their brand assets without an active license, a Cease and Desist notice is triggered. 3.2. Direct Evidence of Aggressive Legal Enforcement: A Real-World Case Study To illustrate that these are not empty threats, an attached email exchange (June–July 2021) between a business owner (me) and a Trustpilot Account Development Representative serves as direct proof of their enforcement tactics. During a standard sales outreach, the Trustpilot representative attempted to upsell paid features, quoting a price of 109 EUR a month for a Standard Plan. When I declined the offer explicitly because the price was too high, the sales representative immediately pivoted to an aggressive legal threat. The Trustpilot employee stated that he had checked the company's site and found that we were "showcasing reviews with a fake widget". Using the platform's terms and conditions as leverage, the representative issued a direct ultimatum: "I would definitely encourage you not to do so and take it down before our legal reach out". The "fake widget" in question was, in fact, the widely used Shopify app 'Trustpilot Reviews by Reputon'. Just a few months after this documented threat, the app ’Trustpilot Reviews by Reputon' was completely purged from the Shopify App Store and unilaterally removed from merchant websites without prior notice. This incident unequivocally demonstrates that Trustpilot actively weaponizes its sales team to audit frontends, uses legal threats as a punitive measure when businesses refuse to upgrade to paid plans, and successfully forces platforms like Shopify to terminate display applications. Up to today (5 years later), all the rest of Reputons’ Shopify apps for displaying reviews from Google, Facebook, Amazon, eBay, and Etsy are still active and in good shape. 4. Expected Impact and Risk Mitigation This feature will give agencies the power to immediately mitigate compliance risks, effectively protecting their business model: Protection Against Client Churn: If Trustpilot detects the use of unofficial widgets, it applies an infamous red "Consumer Warning" badge directly onto the business's public profile and/or send a Cease and Desist notice to the software provider/marketplace. Focus on Open Platforms: Agencies can continue using EMR for the permitted and safe portion (inviting customers to leave reviews on Trustpilot), while safeguarding their websites from legal penalties by focusing visual widget displays on more open, free platforms, like Google, Facebook, etc. 5. Impact Statement: The Ethical Paradox vs. Legal Reality Commercial Context Note: There is a widespread sense of injustice shared by thousands of businesses regarding Trustpilot's business model. The platform directly capitalizes on the effort and operations of legitimate brands, using those brands' customers and service history to fuel and monetize its own database. In essence, they centralize a business's reputation (often creating automatic profiles without prior consent) and subsequently charge steep fees to allow the business to display its own hard-earned merit outside of their ecosystem (1, 2). No matter how commercially predatory or unfair this dynamic feels to agencies and SMEs, Trustpilot operates under a legal shield that validates its actions across three legal fronts: The Consumer's Distribution License: Legally, the text of a review belongs to the customer who wrote it, not the business being reviewed. By publishing on Trustpilot, the user accepts the platform's terms, granting it a hosting and distribution license. The reviewed business gains no intellectual property rights over the comment. The Database Sui Generis Right: The law protects the financial and technical investment made by Trustpilot to collect, verify, and organize data. What the platform legally prohibits is not access to public opinion, but rather the misappropriation of their technological effort through automated third-party tools for external display. Freedom of Expression and Public Interest: The automatic creation of business profiles (even without authorization) is protected by the right to information. As long as a company operates publicly in the market, case law dictates that consumers have the right to a neutral space to voice their opinions about it. 6. Conclusion While our clients' frustration is entirely legitimate, given they feel "held hostage" by a platform using their own name to generate revenue, our software cannot absorb the civil litigation risk. Implementing this agency-level global disable feature is an important compliance and security requirement. It allows us to continue supporting the legitimate flow of feedback capture while drastically decrease exposure to Cease and Desist notices. 7. Strategic Extension: Scaling to a Multi-Platform Compliance Architecture While this feature request was specifically triggered by Trustpilot’s aggressive sales-to-legal tactics, the underlying risk is a systemic industry standard. To provide our agencies with maximum security and compliance autonomy, this global disable option should be designed to extend across any major third-party review platform, if not all. Trustpilot is not alone in this modus operandi. Other major industry gatekeepers actively patrol the web and enforce severe restrictions on unauthorized widgets to safeguard their monetization models: Yelp: Known for extreme frontend enforcement. Yelp strictly prohibits scraping or using non-official components to display the full text of user reviews. They leverage trademark law regarding their iconic red stars and logo, rapidly issuing Cease and Desist letters to force businesses into their ad ecosystem or restrictive, low-cap official APIs. TripAdvisor: In the hospitality and restaurant sectors, TripAdvisor mirrors Trustpilot's aggressive behavior. They systematically hunt down unauthorized WordPress, Shopify, or custom CMS plugins that bundle their scores with other providers, enforcing removal to protect their highly regulated B2B subscription and connectivity fees. Glassdoor / Indeed: In the corporate and B2B space, these platforms aggressively block automated review extraction on recruitment or "Careers" pages. They mandate the use of their official ecosystem to compel companies into purchasing "Enhanced Employer Profiles" costing thousands of dollars annually. Final Product Recommendation: Instead of building a hyper-specific "Trustpilot-only switch," the development team should implement a Global Multi-Platform Compliance Matrix at the agency level. This will feature individual toggle switches or dropdown list with checkboxes for major third-party review platform, if not all. By allowing agencies to dynamically shut down the frontend display of high-risk platforms at their own discretion, we transform EMR into a proactive and more legally adaptable tool. Agencies will gain the flexibility to securely redirect their clients' display strategies toward more open networks (like Google Reviews) while allowing collection pipelines to remain fully unrestricted.
Leandro Teixeira about 19 hours ago
💡 Feature Request
Global Disable Option for Trustpilot Review Display (Agency Level)
1. Objective Implement a new feature within the agency-level administration panel to globally disable the display of Trustpilot reviews in all reputation widgets. This change must be strictly surgical: the ability to request/collect Trustpilot reviews (via automated email or SMS workflows) must remain fully active, but their visual rendering within widgets embedded on client websites must be blocked. 2. Technical Description and System Behavior UI Location: Agency Settings Panel Visual Component: A logical toggle switch labeled: "Allow Trustpilot reviews to be displayed in widgets". System Behavior: Enabled State (Default): Current software behavior is maintained. Trustpilot reviews are fetched and displayed in the widgets of all sub-accounts. Disabled State: The system immediately stops rendering any reviews originating from Trustpilot across all widgets generated by the software for any agency client. Previously stored Trustpilot reviews in the database must be retroactively hidden from widgets. The automation workflow for sending collection links (review requests directing the end-consumer to the company's Trustpilot page) continues to function normally. 3. Justification and Legal Implications (Critical Risk Mitigation) Displaying Trustpilot data through third-party widgets poses a severe and immediate legal risk to the agencies. Trustpilot aggressively protects its business model based on intellectual property and database rights (Sui Generis Right). The platform explicitly prohibits the display of reviews, TrustScores, or stars outside of their official widgets (TrustBoxes). Real-World Market Precedents and Legal Actions: The Reputon Precedent (Forced Removal): The reputation management brand Reputon was targeted with legal measures and Cease and Desist notices by Trustpilot's lawyers due to its application "Trustpilot Reviews by Reputon". As a direct consequence of this legal pressure, the display app was entirely removed from the Shopify App Store. The Elfsight Precedent (Lawsuit): Trustpilot has successfully pursued formal legal action against other major widget software providers (such as Elfsight) for creating unauthorized display extensions, resulting in restrictive court injunctions and brand damage payouts. The London Intellectual Property Court Case: Trustpilot states that it successfully sued a well-known fake widget provider in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in London in 2022 and obtained an order preventing unauthorized display of Trustpilot stars. Active "Whistleblower" System: Trustpilot has implemented a dedicated global reporting channel for "Fake TrustBoxes." Through this system, competitors or users can anonymously report any website displaying reviews outside the official ecosystem, accelerating automated legal action. 3.1. Why the Target is "Display" (Frontend) and not "Scraping/Fetching" (Backend) Market analysis and developer consensus show that Trustpilot rarely initiates litigation over data fetching or scraping itself, but strikes with maximum force against visual widgets. This strategic enforcement is driven by four factors: The Burden of Proof (Invisible vs. Public): Scraping happens silently on the backend (server-to-server) and can be easily masked using proxies and rotating user-agents, making it technically difficult for Trustpilot to legally link the scraping activity to a specific company. A widget, however, is rendered on the frontend. It is completely public. Trustpilot only needs a single screenshot of a client's website to have irrefutable legal proof of an infraction. Trademark Infringement vs. Terms of Service: Pursuing a company for scraping relies on standard website Terms of Service (ToS), which holds weak legal standing in international courts (e.g., the hiQ vs. LinkedIn precedent ruling that scraping public data is generally legal). However, when an unauthorized widget displays reviews, it inevitably uses Trustpilot's Green Stars, Registered Logo, and the trademarked term "TrustScore". This upgrades the case from a minor ToS violation to an explicit Trademark Infringement, which is drastically faster and easier for Trustpilot to win in court. The Trigger of Economic Damages: Simply storing text in a database does not cause quantifiable financial harm to Trustpilot. Financial and commercial damage occurs the moment a business uses that data on their frontend to avoid buying a Premium Plan. Trustpilot's legal department targets the display because it is where their commercial revenue is being bypassed. Automated Footprint Detection: It is incredibly cost-effective for Trustpilot to deploy web crawlers (similar to Googlebot) to scan the internet for specific code signatures or HTML structures associated with third-party widgets. When a crawler flags a domain displaying their brand assets without an active license, a Cease and Desist notice is triggered. 3.2. Direct Evidence of Aggressive Legal Enforcement: A Real-World Case Study To illustrate that these are not empty threats, an attached email exchange (June–July 2021) between a business owner (me) and a Trustpilot Account Development Representative serves as direct proof of their enforcement tactics. During a standard sales outreach, the Trustpilot representative attempted to upsell paid features, quoting a price of 109 EUR a month for a Standard Plan. When I declined the offer explicitly because the price was too high, the sales representative immediately pivoted to an aggressive legal threat. The Trustpilot employee stated that he had checked the company's site and found that we were "showcasing reviews with a fake widget". Using the platform's terms and conditions as leverage, the representative issued a direct ultimatum: "I would definitely encourage you not to do so and take it down before our legal reach out". The "fake widget" in question was, in fact, the widely used Shopify app 'Trustpilot Reviews by Reputon'. Just a few months after this documented threat, the app ’Trustpilot Reviews by Reputon' was completely purged from the Shopify App Store and unilaterally removed from merchant websites without prior notice. This incident unequivocally demonstrates that Trustpilot actively weaponizes its sales team to audit frontends, uses legal threats as a punitive measure when businesses refuse to upgrade to paid plans, and successfully forces platforms like Shopify to terminate display applications. Up to today (5 years later), all the rest of Reputons’ Shopify apps for displaying reviews from Google, Facebook, Amazon, eBay, and Etsy are still active and in good shape. 4. Expected Impact and Risk Mitigation This feature will give agencies the power to immediately mitigate compliance risks, effectively protecting their business model: Protection Against Client Churn: If Trustpilot detects the use of unofficial widgets, it applies an infamous red "Consumer Warning" badge directly onto the business's public profile and/or send a Cease and Desist notice to the software provider/marketplace. Focus on Open Platforms: Agencies can continue using EMR for the permitted and safe portion (inviting customers to leave reviews on Trustpilot), while safeguarding their websites from legal penalties by focusing visual widget displays on more open, free platforms, like Google, Facebook, etc. 5. Impact Statement: The Ethical Paradox vs. Legal Reality Commercial Context Note: There is a widespread sense of injustice shared by thousands of businesses regarding Trustpilot's business model. The platform directly capitalizes on the effort and operations of legitimate brands, using those brands' customers and service history to fuel and monetize its own database. In essence, they centralize a business's reputation (often creating automatic profiles without prior consent) and subsequently charge steep fees to allow the business to display its own hard-earned merit outside of their ecosystem (1, 2). No matter how commercially predatory or unfair this dynamic feels to agencies and SMEs, Trustpilot operates under a legal shield that validates its actions across three legal fronts: The Consumer's Distribution License: Legally, the text of a review belongs to the customer who wrote it, not the business being reviewed. By publishing on Trustpilot, the user accepts the platform's terms, granting it a hosting and distribution license. The reviewed business gains no intellectual property rights over the comment. The Database Sui Generis Right: The law protects the financial and technical investment made by Trustpilot to collect, verify, and organize data. What the platform legally prohibits is not access to public opinion, but rather the misappropriation of their technological effort through automated third-party tools for external display. Freedom of Expression and Public Interest: The automatic creation of business profiles (even without authorization) is protected by the right to information. As long as a company operates publicly in the market, case law dictates that consumers have the right to a neutral space to voice their opinions about it. 6. Conclusion While our clients' frustration is entirely legitimate, given they feel "held hostage" by a platform using their own name to generate revenue, our software cannot absorb the civil litigation risk. Implementing this agency-level global disable feature is an important compliance and security requirement. It allows us to continue supporting the legitimate flow of feedback capture while drastically decrease exposure to Cease and Desist notices. 7. Strategic Extension: Scaling to a Multi-Platform Compliance Architecture While this feature request was specifically triggered by Trustpilot’s aggressive sales-to-legal tactics, the underlying risk is a systemic industry standard. To provide our agencies with maximum security and compliance autonomy, this global disable option should be designed to extend across any major third-party review platform, if not all. Trustpilot is not alone in this modus operandi. Other major industry gatekeepers actively patrol the web and enforce severe restrictions on unauthorized widgets to safeguard their monetization models: Yelp: Known for extreme frontend enforcement. Yelp strictly prohibits scraping or using non-official components to display the full text of user reviews. They leverage trademark law regarding their iconic red stars and logo, rapidly issuing Cease and Desist letters to force businesses into their ad ecosystem or restrictive, low-cap official APIs. TripAdvisor: In the hospitality and restaurant sectors, TripAdvisor mirrors Trustpilot's aggressive behavior. They systematically hunt down unauthorized WordPress, Shopify, or custom CMS plugins that bundle their scores with other providers, enforcing removal to protect their highly regulated B2B subscription and connectivity fees. Glassdoor / Indeed: In the corporate and B2B space, these platforms aggressively block automated review extraction on recruitment or "Careers" pages. They mandate the use of their official ecosystem to compel companies into purchasing "Enhanced Employer Profiles" costing thousands of dollars annually. Final Product Recommendation: Instead of building a hyper-specific "Trustpilot-only switch," the development team should implement a Global Multi-Platform Compliance Matrix at the agency level. This will feature individual toggle switches or dropdown list with checkboxes for major third-party review platform, if not all. By allowing agencies to dynamically shut down the frontend display of high-risk platforms at their own discretion, we transform EMR into a proactive and more legally adaptable tool. Agencies will gain the flexibility to securely redirect their clients' display strategies toward more open networks (like Google Reviews) while allowing collection pipelines to remain fully unrestricted.
Leandro Teixeira about 19 hours ago
💡 Feature Request
Auto-reply
Hi guys, what’s happening with the auto-reply for reviews? I have an issue with it. It has been 5 days or more, and there have been no replies to the reviews at all. I checked the activity, and it looks exactly like what is shown in the screenshot. Can you please check what is causing this and fix it as soon as possible?
Shark 2 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Auto-reply
Hi guys, what’s happening with the auto-reply for reviews? I have an issue with it. It has been 5 days or more, and there have been no replies to the reviews at all. I checked the activity, and it looks exactly like what is shown in the screenshot. Can you please check what is causing this and fix it as soon as possible?
Shark 2 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Review Velocity Display Bug
Instead of the past 12 months, it’s now showing each month twice for the past 6 months.
Kevin Huang 3 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Review Velocity Display Bug
Instead of the past 12 months, it’s now showing each month twice for the past 6 months.
Kevin Huang 3 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Response rate on the analysis report keeps coming up as 0%
https://www.loom.com/share/ea541434ba7540619d25a1ae74fdb08d https://app.topfeedback.co.uk/business-report/Oe2wqHNc1SDmBEPIDLC3jkXC8JgzvAHg7xIACPt1ruF37EymyHaBc03LMMKPzIqJ https://app.topfeedback.co.uk/business-report/4zODLcRQZNNoNrtkJd0ISZ7bNrljbNHxZ4M2rvG1pA84takKwMNgSLFTSW2HIOWe
Joshua 7 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Response rate on the analysis report keeps coming up as 0%
https://www.loom.com/share/ea541434ba7540619d25a1ae74fdb08d https://app.topfeedback.co.uk/business-report/Oe2wqHNc1SDmBEPIDLC3jkXC8JgzvAHg7xIACPt1ruF37EymyHaBc03LMMKPzIqJ https://app.topfeedback.co.uk/business-report/4zODLcRQZNNoNrtkJd0ISZ7bNrljbNHxZ4M2rvG1pA84takKwMNgSLFTSW2HIOWe
Joshua 7 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
SI Report Full Analysis AI Section
For some reason, i cannot edit the previous report so had to create a new report with some extra info. Previous report can probably be deleted or rejected in favour of this one. Previous report is here → https://roadmap.embedmyreviews.com/p/si-report-full-analysis The AI section sill has some errors The CTA text is stating the business is visible when the AI Model results state that it is not visible on any. Possible hard coded CTA text - not sure if this could be made dynamic if no AI visibility across all 3 models or not. Also when 1/3 models is showing as recommended, the overview card still states not being recommended. Maybe we need some text that is something like “Only visible in some models” or “Partially Recommended” for 1/3, 2/3 models.
Daniel Fawcett 11 days ago
General
🐛 Bug Reports
SI Report Full Analysis AI Section
For some reason, i cannot edit the previous report so had to create a new report with some extra info. Previous report can probably be deleted or rejected in favour of this one. Previous report is here → https://roadmap.embedmyreviews.com/p/si-report-full-analysis The AI section sill has some errors The CTA text is stating the business is visible when the AI Model results state that it is not visible on any. Possible hard coded CTA text - not sure if this could be made dynamic if no AI visibility across all 3 models or not. Also when 1/3 models is showing as recommended, the overview card still states not being recommended. Maybe we need some text that is something like “Only visible in some models” or “Partially Recommended” for 1/3, 2/3 models.
Daniel Fawcett 11 days ago
General
🐛 Bug Reports
SI Report - Full Analysis
The AI section, the CTA text is stating the business is visible when the AI Model results state that it is not visible on any. Possible hard coded CTA text - not sure if this could be made dynamic if no AI visibility across all 3 models or not.
Daniel Fawcett 12 days ago
General
🐛 Bug Reports
SI Report - Full Analysis
The AI section, the CTA text is stating the business is visible when the AI Model results state that it is not visible on any. Possible hard coded CTA text - not sure if this could be made dynamic if no AI visibility across all 3 models or not.
Daniel Fawcett 12 days ago
General
🐛 Bug Reports
MCP returning wrong verification data
The AI Hub MCP currently returns "verified": false for many reviews, which are considered verified on widgets, when cross-checked. Some findings: All Google reviews are "verified": false All Testimonials reviews are "verified": false All Tripadvisor reviews are "verified": false All Trustpilot reviews are "verified": true Yet all of these show verified on widgets.
Severi 13 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
MCP returning wrong verification data
The AI Hub MCP currently returns "verified": false for many reviews, which are considered verified on widgets, when cross-checked. Some findings: All Google reviews are "verified": false All Testimonials reviews are "verified": false All Tripadvisor reviews are "verified": false All Trustpilot reviews are "verified": true Yet all of these show verified on widgets.
Severi 13 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Testimonials review source name
Please allow us to configure the name of this feature by ourselves (on agency level), or at least give an option to change the source name “Testimonials” to our agency name instead, which would make much more sense. Currently it is set to exactly “Testimonials” on all languages, even on widgets, which is not good, and will just cause confusion among clients and their customers.
Severi 13 days ago
General
💡 Feature Request
Testimonials review source name
Please allow us to configure the name of this feature by ourselves (on agency level), or at least give an option to change the source name “Testimonials” to our agency name instead, which would make much more sense. Currently it is set to exactly “Testimonials” on all languages, even on widgets, which is not good, and will just cause confusion among clients and their customers.
Severi 13 days ago
General
💡 Feature Request
Sales CRM tagging / stages not working
Leads dont seem to appear when filtering through the stages on the pipeline. https://www.loom.com/share/c68c6415c5054e3fa9637018cb76523c
Joshua 13 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Sales CRM tagging / stages not working
Leads dont seem to appear when filtering through the stages on the pipeline. https://www.loom.com/share/c68c6415c5054e3fa9637018cb76523c
Joshua 13 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Sales Intelligence CRM UPdate
I’m trying to use the sales intelligence to reach out to potential customers, but I find the user interface clunky, which is slowing down the process. I have a few suggestions on how this could be much more intuitive for the user in the video below. A few small tweaks could make a big difference! https://www.loom.com/share/f64fed8873694941ac86366a75072730
Joshua 13 days ago
General
💡 Feature Request
Sales Intelligence CRM UPdate
I’m trying to use the sales intelligence to reach out to potential customers, but I find the user interface clunky, which is slowing down the process. I have a few suggestions on how this could be much more intuitive for the user in the video below. A few small tweaks could make a big difference! https://www.loom.com/share/f64fed8873694941ac86366a75072730
Joshua 13 days ago
General
💡 Feature Request
intel-request: Enter key submits form when using Chinese IME — issue still exists
When using a Chinese IME, pressing Enter to confirm character selection unexpectedly triggers form submission. Steps to reproduce: Open the form Focus on a text input field Switch input method to Chinese IME Type Chinese characters Press Enter to select a character Expected result: Pressing Enter should confirm the IME character selection and NOT submit the form. Actual result: The form is submitted immediately when Enter is pressed. Environment: OS: macOS Browser: Edge IME: Chinese IME (Traditional) https://roadmap.embedmyreviews.com/en/p/enter-key-submits-form-when-using-chinese-ime
Support Team 14 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
intel-request: Enter key submits form when using Chinese IME — issue still exists
When using a Chinese IME, pressing Enter to confirm character selection unexpectedly triggers form submission. Steps to reproduce: Open the form Focus on a text input field Switch input method to Chinese IME Type Chinese characters Press Enter to select a character Expected result: Pressing Enter should confirm the IME character selection and NOT submit the form. Actual result: The form is submitted immediately when Enter is pressed. Environment: OS: macOS Browser: Edge IME: Chinese IME (Traditional) https://roadmap.embedmyreviews.com/en/p/enter-key-submits-form-when-using-chinese-ime
Support Team 14 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Custom MMS Image Editing With Tags For Each Customers Name
Hey Mannie, my request for the platform is to have the first name tag seen in the text message be able to be added to the image (the piece of paper in the text message). I’m Pretty sure Go high level has this feature so I reckon this would be a great one to keep up with them and other competing reputation management platforms.
Spencer Ahenkan 14 days ago
General
💡 Feature Request
Custom MMS Image Editing With Tags For Each Customers Name
Hey Mannie, my request for the platform is to have the first name tag seen in the text message be able to be added to the image (the piece of paper in the text message). I’m Pretty sure Go high level has this feature so I reckon this would be a great one to keep up with them and other competing reputation management platforms.
Spencer Ahenkan 14 days ago
General
💡 Feature Request
Competitor infos don't appear sometimes on GeoGrid
I noticed on some scans that the information for the first two competitors wasn't showing up. This happens in some positions, but not all of them https://app.getcoucou.io/scans/020f69c5-1c35-460e-9f00-27a7d2dcdb08/report?snapshot_at=2026-05-19%2012%3A41%3A38
Jean-Gabriel 15 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Competitor infos don't appear sometimes on GeoGrid
I noticed on some scans that the information for the first two competitors wasn't showing up. This happens in some positions, but not all of them https://app.getcoucou.io/scans/020f69c5-1c35-460e-9f00-27a7d2dcdb08/report?snapshot_at=2026-05-19%2012%3A41%3A38
Jean-Gabriel 15 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Detect Recently Removed Reviews Without Full-History Scans
I’d like to share a possible approach for developing this feature in a way that does not significantly increase infrastructure costs. From what I can tell, detecting removed reviews would require full scans across the entire review history, because the only way to know whether a review was deleted is to check whether it is still published at the source. I understand that doing this frequently for all reviews, across all accounts, could become very expensive. However, it looks like there may already be a way to detect at least recently removed reviews without any additional full scans. My understanding is that the current sync process seems to fetch recent reviews, rather than re-scanning the full historical dataset every time. I cannot confirm the exact implementation, but I believe it may not only fetch reviews since the last sync, but rather reviews from “some time back”. The reason I say this is because I noticed that some reviews inside EMR were previously marked as responded, but now appear as not responded. After checking the source, I found that those reviews had actually been removed from Google Places / Google Maps. This is a very interesting signal. If a review was previously known by the platform, was previously marked as responded, and later the response is no longer detected during the normal recent-review sync, that may already be enough to infer that the review was likely removed / deleted, without requiring any extra full-history scan. So, at least for recently deleted reviews, this feature may already be technically feasible with little or no additional infrastructure cost. Of course, this method would not be 100% complete. Very old reviews deleted long after they stop appearing in the “recent reviews” sync window would probably not be detected this way. But the key question is: Is it better to have a system that detects recently deleted reviews, even if it is not perfect, or to have no system at all? In my opinion, a partially complete but cost-efficient solution is much better than no solution. A possible implementation could be: Detect reviews that were previously known in the system but are no longer consistently present in the source during normal recent syncs Mark them with a status such as Removed / Deleted Use that status across the product Once that status exists, it would already unlock a lot of value: Filter reviews that were removed / deleted Exclude them from analytics and review counts Exclude them from the “pending response” filter Exclude them from review display widgets Improve accuracy across multiple parts of the platform There could also be an optional complementary layer to improve historical completeness, although this would involve additional infrastructure costs. For example: Add a button to scan the full review history for removed reviews Limit its use to once per month, if triggered manually Or run it automatically once per month, if deemed acceptable from an infrastructure-cost perspective This is not intended as an alternative to the low-cost method described above, but rather as an optional way to improve accuracy if the developer wants this feature to get closer to 100% historical reliability. In other words, the current sync behavior already seems capable of detecting recently removed reviews without requiring additional full-history scans. If considered technically and economically feasible, a monthly full-history scan could then act as a complementary verification layer for older deletions that would otherwise fall outside the recent-sync window. I fully understand that this additional full-history scan may not be desirable because of the extra cost, so I am not suggesting it as mandatory. That part should of course be evaluated by the developer. The main point of this feedback is that there already appears to be a low-cost path for detecting recently removed reviews, using signals that seem to be surfaced by the current sync behavior (Specific example with images shown below). If you want to upvote the actual feature request, please do so here: https://roadmap.embedmyreviews.com/en/p/dashboard-not-synced-when-a-review-is-deleted-on-google Now let me give a practical example of how the current system has already “caught” the removed/deleted reviews: I have one client with around 100 Google Business Profile reviews, receiving roughly 5 to 7 new reviews per month. The client responds to all Google reviews. Inside EMR, if I go to the reviews section and apply the filters: Source = Google Response Status = Pending The reviews that appear there are, in practice, the reviews that were removed / deleted, because all Google reviews are actually responded to. Below I’m including: the link to that client’s Google Business Profile a screenshot of the reviews shown as “not responded” inside EMR In that screenshot, those “pending” reviews are basically the reviews that were deleted / removed, except for the last 3 reviews from C.M., Gabriel Rodríguez, and Elizabete Nogueira, which are genuinely still present in the GBP and are in fact not responded to. That seems to indicate that the current sync logic is already capable of surfacing the absence of previously known review-response data. If so, then it may also be possible to infer that the review itself no longer exists at the source. There may be some technical detail I am missing, but at first glance this seems feasible. Link to this customer GBP: https://maps.app.goo.gl/8m55LxyiBH2ryP2U8 (Order the reviews by most recent after clicking the link) Image within EMR displaying all the reviews that were deleted or removed:
Leandro Teixeira 16 days ago
General
📥 Feedback
Detect Recently Removed Reviews Without Full-History Scans
I’d like to share a possible approach for developing this feature in a way that does not significantly increase infrastructure costs. From what I can tell, detecting removed reviews would require full scans across the entire review history, because the only way to know whether a review was deleted is to check whether it is still published at the source. I understand that doing this frequently for all reviews, across all accounts, could become very expensive. However, it looks like there may already be a way to detect at least recently removed reviews without any additional full scans. My understanding is that the current sync process seems to fetch recent reviews, rather than re-scanning the full historical dataset every time. I cannot confirm the exact implementation, but I believe it may not only fetch reviews since the last sync, but rather reviews from “some time back”. The reason I say this is because I noticed that some reviews inside EMR were previously marked as responded, but now appear as not responded. After checking the source, I found that those reviews had actually been removed from Google Places / Google Maps. This is a very interesting signal. If a review was previously known by the platform, was previously marked as responded, and later the response is no longer detected during the normal recent-review sync, that may already be enough to infer that the review was likely removed / deleted, without requiring any extra full-history scan. So, at least for recently deleted reviews, this feature may already be technically feasible with little or no additional infrastructure cost. Of course, this method would not be 100% complete. Very old reviews deleted long after they stop appearing in the “recent reviews” sync window would probably not be detected this way. But the key question is: Is it better to have a system that detects recently deleted reviews, even if it is not perfect, or to have no system at all? In my opinion, a partially complete but cost-efficient solution is much better than no solution. A possible implementation could be: Detect reviews that were previously known in the system but are no longer consistently present in the source during normal recent syncs Mark them with a status such as Removed / Deleted Use that status across the product Once that status exists, it would already unlock a lot of value: Filter reviews that were removed / deleted Exclude them from analytics and review counts Exclude them from the “pending response” filter Exclude them from review display widgets Improve accuracy across multiple parts of the platform There could also be an optional complementary layer to improve historical completeness, although this would involve additional infrastructure costs. For example: Add a button to scan the full review history for removed reviews Limit its use to once per month, if triggered manually Or run it automatically once per month, if deemed acceptable from an infrastructure-cost perspective This is not intended as an alternative to the low-cost method described above, but rather as an optional way to improve accuracy if the developer wants this feature to get closer to 100% historical reliability. In other words, the current sync behavior already seems capable of detecting recently removed reviews without requiring additional full-history scans. If considered technically and economically feasible, a monthly full-history scan could then act as a complementary verification layer for older deletions that would otherwise fall outside the recent-sync window. I fully understand that this additional full-history scan may not be desirable because of the extra cost, so I am not suggesting it as mandatory. That part should of course be evaluated by the developer. The main point of this feedback is that there already appears to be a low-cost path for detecting recently removed reviews, using signals that seem to be surfaced by the current sync behavior (Specific example with images shown below). If you want to upvote the actual feature request, please do so here: https://roadmap.embedmyreviews.com/en/p/dashboard-not-synced-when-a-review-is-deleted-on-google Now let me give a practical example of how the current system has already “caught” the removed/deleted reviews: I have one client with around 100 Google Business Profile reviews, receiving roughly 5 to 7 new reviews per month. The client responds to all Google reviews. Inside EMR, if I go to the reviews section and apply the filters: Source = Google Response Status = Pending The reviews that appear there are, in practice, the reviews that were removed / deleted, because all Google reviews are actually responded to. Below I’m including: the link to that client’s Google Business Profile a screenshot of the reviews shown as “not responded” inside EMR In that screenshot, those “pending” reviews are basically the reviews that were deleted / removed, except for the last 3 reviews from C.M., Gabriel Rodríguez, and Elizabete Nogueira, which are genuinely still present in the GBP and are in fact not responded to. That seems to indicate that the current sync logic is already capable of surfacing the absence of previously known review-response data. If so, then it may also be possible to infer that the review itself no longer exists at the source. There may be some technical detail I am missing, but at first glance this seems feasible. Link to this customer GBP: https://maps.app.goo.gl/8m55LxyiBH2ryP2U8 (Order the reviews by most recent after clicking the link) Image within EMR displaying all the reviews that were deleted or removed:
Leandro Teixeira 16 days ago
General
📥 Feedback
Auto-Detect Language
We mainly run the ORM business in the Traditional Chinese market. However, once in a while, prospects from overseas find us on Google, and they bounce away when the platform appears in a foreign language. I’d like to suggest the capability to auto-detect the browser language that the EMR dashboard will be showing, without forcing agencies to hard-define a default language. Thank you for your consideration.
Kevin Huang 17 days ago
💡 Feature Request
Auto-Detect Language
We mainly run the ORM business in the Traditional Chinese market. However, once in a while, prospects from overseas find us on Google, and they bounce away when the platform appears in a foreign language. I’d like to suggest the capability to auto-detect the browser language that the EMR dashboard will be showing, without forcing agencies to hard-define a default language. Thank you for your consideration.
Kevin Huang 17 days ago
💡 Feature Request
Disclaimer while turning on "Stop Negative Feedback"
Showing a clear Disclaimer when someone turns on “Stop negative Feedback“ in the feedback form. Something like: “⚠️ Disclaimer: Certain review platforms (e.g., Google) prohibit review gating and may penalize profiles found in violation of their policies. By enabling this feature, you acknowledge that you have reviewed the applicable platform's terms of service and accept full responsibility for any consequences, including profile suspension or review removal. ‘Agency Name‘ provides this feature as a tool and bears no liability for any action taken against your business by third-party platforms.“ and it turns on only after they click “I understand“ button on the disclaimer pop-up. Why it make sense instead of disabling it completely? We don’t offer Google only and have 60+ other platforms too, where users can implement it without any risk. We give the end user complete flexibility; if they still want to use it with Google they can use it at their own risk. Cause its still a better option than buying fake 5-star reviews to improve the rating. (In many regions where every business is buying fake reviews, Google is not strict enough to penalize them unless someone goes too extreme.) This Disclaimer will protect the agency legally from any claims afterwards and clearly warns users of the involved risks. Prevents any accidental “Turn On” by clients in blueprint setups, DIY, DWY, or even DFY setups. Other suggestions: When user creates a new form > Make “Stop Negative Feedback“ turn off by default.
Arun Saini 17 days ago
💡 Feature Request
Disclaimer while turning on "Stop Negative Feedback"
Showing a clear Disclaimer when someone turns on “Stop negative Feedback“ in the feedback form. Something like: “⚠️ Disclaimer: Certain review platforms (e.g., Google) prohibit review gating and may penalize profiles found in violation of their policies. By enabling this feature, you acknowledge that you have reviewed the applicable platform's terms of service and accept full responsibility for any consequences, including profile suspension or review removal. ‘Agency Name‘ provides this feature as a tool and bears no liability for any action taken against your business by third-party platforms.“ and it turns on only after they click “I understand“ button on the disclaimer pop-up. Why it make sense instead of disabling it completely? We don’t offer Google only and have 60+ other platforms too, where users can implement it without any risk. We give the end user complete flexibility; if they still want to use it with Google they can use it at their own risk. Cause its still a better option than buying fake 5-star reviews to improve the rating. (In many regions where every business is buying fake reviews, Google is not strict enough to penalize them unless someone goes too extreme.) This Disclaimer will protect the agency legally from any claims afterwards and clearly warns users of the involved risks. Prevents any accidental “Turn On” by clients in blueprint setups, DIY, DWY, or even DFY setups. Other suggestions: When user creates a new form > Make “Stop Negative Feedback“ turn off by default.
Arun Saini 17 days ago
💡 Feature Request
AI hub token is now showing properly
In API & Webhooks > AI hub; When we click "Create Connection” button the token/code is not visible properly, it will be shown as a flash and auto close the popup window. So, we can’t copy & use it.
Arun Saini 17 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
AI hub token is now showing properly
In API & Webhooks > AI hub; When we click "Create Connection” button the token/code is not visible properly, it will be shown as a flash and auto close the popup window. So, we can’t copy & use it.
Arun Saini 17 days ago
🐛 Bug Reports
Private Feedback Form Changes
𝗙𝗜𝗥𝗦𝗧 Can we rename Stop Negative Feedback to "Show Private Feedback" or similar? 𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗗 Could we have the Private Feedback form allowed to be triggered/shown for any rating? A potential review flow I am looking to create would be (still planning): QR Scan / NFC Tap / Link Click How would you rate us? page Show Private Feedback Form - still show link to skip form and go direct to review Feedback Thank you page with custom messaging combined with the Current Review Sites Page with option to leave a review I would like every customer no matter the review rating to get offered the chance to leave direct feedback and then the opportunity to leave a review direct on site removing the gatekeeping function of the Stop Negative Feedback but adding an option for customers to leave direct feedback. 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗥𝗗 Can we have additional fields available on the form to be added. I would like a checkbox field initially for a "I would like to be contacted about my feedback" confirmation checkbox Or if not - could we have a field that would accept a html embed so i can embed my own form created elsewhere?
Daniel Fawcett 18 days ago
General
📥 Feedback
Private Feedback Form Changes
𝗙𝗜𝗥𝗦𝗧 Can we rename Stop Negative Feedback to "Show Private Feedback" or similar? 𝗦𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗗 Could we have the Private Feedback form allowed to be triggered/shown for any rating? A potential review flow I am looking to create would be (still planning): QR Scan / NFC Tap / Link Click How would you rate us? page Show Private Feedback Form - still show link to skip form and go direct to review Feedback Thank you page with custom messaging combined with the Current Review Sites Page with option to leave a review I would like every customer no matter the review rating to get offered the chance to leave direct feedback and then the opportunity to leave a review direct on site removing the gatekeeping function of the Stop Negative Feedback but adding an option for customers to leave direct feedback. 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗥𝗗 Can we have additional fields available on the form to be added. I would like a checkbox field initially for a "I would like to be contacted about my feedback" confirmation checkbox Or if not - could we have a field that would accept a html embed so i can embed my own form created elsewhere?
Daniel Fawcett 18 days ago
General
📥 Feedback
Feature Request: Unified Multi-Location Dashboard
It would be extremely helpful to have a consolidated dashboard that shows analytics, reviews, ratings, and performance across all business locations in one view. Currently, users need to switch between locations individually, which becomes time-consuming for businesses managing multiple branches. An “All Locations” dashboard with combined insights and the ability to drill down into individual locations would provide much better visibility and reporting for business owners and managers.
Dinesh Babu Thangavel 20 days ago
💡 Feature Request
Feature Request: Unified Multi-Location Dashboard
It would be extremely helpful to have a consolidated dashboard that shows analytics, reviews, ratings, and performance across all business locations in one view. Currently, users need to switch between locations individually, which becomes time-consuming for businesses managing multiple branches. An “All Locations” dashboard with combined insights and the ability to drill down into individual locations would provide much better visibility and reporting for business owners and managers.
Dinesh Babu Thangavel 20 days ago
💡 Feature Request