Why can't additional fields be shown when dynamic filters are applied?

Thanks for that explanation. That makes sense to me. If you're right, this is one of those cases where I'd prefer to be able to make my own call about tolerable performance levels, especially since there are probably fairly simple conditions you can set, and limiting to 1 or 2 visible fields seems like it shouldn't tax the system much more than having ID and name. I'll put in a feature request.

Frank, can you please link to the feature request? I want to support it. I just encountered this issue as well.

Hey, just after sending this, I noticed that I can remove the limitation in the field itself, and add it inside the form instead. This worked for my use case, since users would only be adding this record through this form anyways.

Thanks for the vote of support Xaviero. Unfortunately, I don’t see a way to link to a feature request. I don't know that Airtable is making those public. If you know otherwise, please tell me where to find them!

"Additional fields cannot be shown when dynamic filters are applied" is a harmful restriction.

I think the issue described above is a newer restriction because I remember having additional fields and dynamic filtering on my card in my CRM prototype in the past.

The additional fields are necessary because the primary fields for most of my tables are numbers and my users need the additional field to connect the number to the Customer, Contact or Product Name.

This makes my CRM unusable as the only options it gives my users 2 bad options

1. memorize Contacts by ID of which there are hundreds if I'm to keep dynamic filtering, or
2. scroll through hundreds of contacts to find the contacts they need up to 5 times if I take off dynamic filtering.

I'm within a week of getting this updated prototype validated so we upgrade to Enterprise and now I can't show it because of this.

Please remove this restriction. You've removed functionality for the purpose of putting safety rails on performance? We're capable of making those performance calls ourselves.

​@MattPowerhouse 

In your screenshot, you can choose what fields you want to display by choosing fields from the “fields” option in the right margin.

However, you’ll notice that you can only choose a few fields before Airtable starts cutting off the data in those fields, so your best workaround for this would be to use Fillout’s advanced forms for Airtable.

Fillout never cuts off the data from your fields, and you can choose to display an unlimited number of fields. Fillout is also 100% free.

- ScottWorld, Expert Airtable Consultant

No thanks. A workaround that adds another layer of SaaS to manage is not something I’m interested in. I’m looking for the problem to be fixed by Airtable.

As I mentioned above, Airtable has already addressed it, although it’s not ideal. You can choose fields from the “fields” option in the right menu.

You can also create a formula field for your primary field that shows all the fields that you’d like to see. That’s the more common workaround for this.

- ScottWorld, Expert Airtable Consultant

I can’t choose any fields (greyed, mouse-over provides message shown in OPs screenshot) because of the restriction added to field with dynamic filtering. The problem isn’t cutoff. It is totally restricting a useful function for the purpose of (we’re guessing?) micromanaging performance choices that should be left to the user.

I appreciate you trying to help, but this is something Airtable needs to remove. It’s unacceptable.

​@MattPowerhouse 

Oh, damn… I see what you’re saying! I didn’t fully understand what the problem was.

That’s nuts! I can’t believe that Airtable disables that if you have a dynamic linked field! That doesn’t even make any sense.

Yeah, I would agree with you that this needs to be fixed by Airtable. I would definitely submit this as a feature request to support@airtable.com, and also fill out the feature request form at this link.

I suppose your only workaround for now would be to make your primary field a formula field that shows you everything you want to see, but that could break other things in your base.

And of course, there’s always the Fillout solution.

But yes, I agree with you — this is a problem! Hopefully Airtable will fix it on their end.

- ScottWorld, Expert Airtable Consultant

I submitted it as a feature request, but it’s going to take more than me submitting to change things.

I don’t like the lack of transparency in this new feature request setup. I understand the goal is to get more digestible data but there’s got to be a compromise where the Community can have a chance to upvote some of these issues. Thanks again Scott.

Yeah, sadly, Airtable has always had lack of transparency with feature requests and their upcoming roadmap. They don’t even really pay attention to our posts in this forum. It would be nice if there could be an “upvoting” mechanism or a way for us to engage in public discussions with their product team. 

From Airtable Support(Edited):
“Hi Matt,

Thanks for reaching out about this! You’re correct — this is a recent change. In the past, additional fields could be shown on linked record cards even when dynamic filters were applied. We updated this to prevent the possibility of unintentionally exposing data to interface-only collaborators.

When dynamic filters are in play, showing additional fields could expose information that certain users (like interface-only collaborators or those filling out a shared form) shouldn’t have access to. To keep data secure and ensure the right level of visibility for all collaborators, additional fields can no longer be selected in dynamically filtered linked record fields in interface forms.

I completely understand that this change may impact how you’ve been using interfaces, and I know it can be frustrating to lose flexibility in your setup. Our engineering team is actively exploring ways to improve this experience while still protecting sensitive data, but I don’t have a specific timeline to share.”

“You're absolutely right that avoiding dynamic filters isn't a viable solution for all workflows, especially in cases like yours where selecting from hundreds of records would be impractical. I understand how this change has introduced friction for your team, and I can see how an admin-level toggle, with proper visibility warnings, could strike a better balance between flexibility and security.

While I can’t make any guarantees about changes to the current behavior, I’ve gone ahead and submitted your request to our Product team for review. Feedback like this is incredibly helpful as we continue to improve the platform and prioritize updates that align with real-world use.”