This will allow users to @ mention an entire group/team in a comment to notify all individuals at once.
Depending on which route you choose to go with this, may I suggest that PRD-I-4154 (Ability to @mention a team inbox) is separated back to its own Idea? I think @mentioning a team / group will quite possibly require a different solution to @mentioning an inbox...?
First of all, I agree with both points made in one of the previous replies about rules being a workaround that is not sustainable, and that moving a conversation is also not a viable option due to accountability.
I have to point out that I don't have a suggestion for an actual solution here, but I would like to explain what I would like to achieve, and then leave it up to Front to come up with something clever, as I believe there is a key element that has not been mentioned yet. :)
One of Fronts' strengths is how incoming conversations to a team inbox are handled; you get accountability (assign) and no more people than necessary are involved (when a conversation is assigned, it disappears from the "open" list in the inbox).
I would like to see the same mechanism for situations where I need to loop in a group of teammates in a conversation. I might have a conversation assigned to me, and I need input from the accounting team, but it makes no difference to me who on that team gives me the answer. So when I @mention the team (or the group or the inbox or whatever the solution may be), I need a way for all members of that team / that group of people to have access to answer my question, but also for the conversation not to be left in everyones inboxes after the question has been answered.
To summarise, I think it's key to maintain the concept of accountability and "as few people as possible involved" in dealing with this.
Would really like to see this as a general tag, we understand this will tag everyone and clutter their inboxes. But we still want it!! Pretty please!
Thanks everyone for the feedback on this — we understand the frustration! There are some risks that make this more complex to build than it seems, and we wanted to share some context on why we haven't moved forward on this. When you mention large groups of teammates, you add potentially dozens of participants to your conversations. This clutters teammate inboxes making it harder to prioritize work. It also means teammates added to a teammate group after the @mention happened would not have access to the conversation. In many ways it recreates the distribution list effect that teams often come to Front to solve. That said, we also understand the use case where you are looking to get input from a small group. For this, here are two workarounds we suggest:
Setting up a notify rule for a teammate group or certain teammates. You can trigger this with a comment like #sales to loop in members of your sales team for input.
Moving the conversation to another inbox managed by the people you're looking to mention. They can take the next steps on the conversation, and you'll stay in the loop as a participant.
We'll continue to explore this, and please keep the feedback coming on your use cases.
Thanks,BaptisteProduct Lead @ Front
This would be a great addition. While growing our company we need this function more and more to avoid tagging multiple users every single time
This seems like inboxing 101. we are being forced to add hundreds of contacts to discussions a day. 30+ names 10x day. lets go guys time to add this.
How is the most upvoted product request almost 3 years old? The customers know what they want on this one...
This would be about the first option Front should have since the very beginning. Not having it is like developing and selling a navigation system without the option to fill in a destination. PRIO1.
Without making a rule (define teams in settings) and also to be applied (to field) when starting a new discussion.
This can be handled easily and effectively through rules. IE. Commenting #Sales -> Triggers rule to loop in the sales team.