Skip to main content

Noobie question: I need help from airtable experts, Currently I'm not able to followup on my leads properly


Forum|alt.badge.img+13
  • Known Participant
  • 62 replies

Currently, I have my data in multiple tables (20)
Each table has the exact same table structure. Please dont tell me to put all data in same table. I can’t do it.

& I don’t get much time to go into each and every table to check which leads I have to followup on.

I need a way by which I can view all the records that have the status ‘Negotiation State’ in all the tables to be displayed in one place so I can be more efficient with my work.

I make chnage in this view and the chnage should be implemented at the original table.

I see in other softwares like Asanas the pipeline thing is built in. How can i make my airtables more efficient ?

56 replies

Forum|alt.badge.img+19
  • Inspiring
  • 3264 replies
  • September 28, 2020

I think you need to look at the new sync feature that allows you to aggregate multiple tables into a single table.


Forum|alt.badge.img+13
  • Author
  • Known Participant
  • 62 replies
  • September 28, 2020
Bill_French wrote:

I think you need to look at the new sync feature that allows you to aggregate multiple tables into a single table.


i tried that, Problem with that is , it creates a seperate tables for each tables.

When I need all the records in single Table.


kuovonne
Forum|alt.badge.img+27
  • Brainy
  • 6002 replies
  • September 28, 2020
Bill_French wrote:

I think you need to look at the new sync feature that allows you to aggregate multiple tables into a single table.


@Bill.French I don’t think that syncing will aggregate multiple tables. For me, a synced table show up as a new table in the target base.


ScottWorld
Forum|alt.badge.img+33
  • Brainy
  • 8795 replies
  • September 28, 2020
kuovonne wrote:

@Bill.French I don’t think that syncing will aggregate multiple tables. For me, a synced table show up as a new table in the target base.


Correct. Syncing tables is designed for having completely different bases communicate with one another. In fact, the syncing feature will not work if you try to sync tables within the same base.


Forum|alt.badge.img+13
  • Author
  • Known Participant
  • 62 replies
  • September 28, 2020
kuovonne wrote:

@Bill.French I don’t think that syncing will aggregate multiple tables. For me, a synced table show up as a new table in the target base.


Great. I’ll try again!
I appreciate your reply !


Forum|alt.badge.img+13
  • Author
  • Known Participant
  • 62 replies
  • September 28, 2020
ScottWorld wrote:

Correct. Syncing tables is designed for having completely different bases communicate with one another. In fact, the syncing feature will not work if you try to sync tables within the same base.


Thats a bummer,

I have all tables within the same base.

so whats the solution for my case ?


Forum|alt.badge.img+19
  • Inspiring
  • 3264 replies
  • September 28, 2020
Jay_P wrote:

Thats a bummer,

I have all tables within the same base.

so whats the solution for my case ?


Clearly, not listening to me. :slightly_smiling_face: But, I thought sync also supported aggregation. Wrong.


kuovonne
Forum|alt.badge.img+27
  • Brainy
  • 6002 replies
  • September 28, 2020
Bill_French wrote:

Clearly, not listening to me. :slightly_smiling_face: But, I thought sync also supported aggregation. Wrong.


@Bill.French Maybe you were thinking how you can add new fields to a synced table?

@Jay_P I hope that you find the answers you seek. However, you might not be able to do all that you want in Airtable with your current set of requirements.


Forum|alt.badge.img+19
  • Inspiring
  • 3264 replies
  • September 28, 2020
kuovonne wrote:

@Bill.French Maybe you were thinking how you can add new fields to a synced table?

@Jay_P I hope that you find the answers you seek. However, you might not be able to do all that you want in Airtable with your current set of requirements.


Nope - I just didn’t think the solution through. I thought it was possible for Base(1)/Table(A) and Base(2)/Table(A) to be aggregated via synch to Base(0)/Table(A). I think got this impression from the understanding that synchs are uni-directional.


ScottWorld
Forum|alt.badge.img+33
  • Brainy
  • 8795 replies
  • September 28, 2020
Bill_French wrote:

Nope - I just didn’t think the solution through. I thought it was possible for Base(1)/Table(A) and Base(2)/Table(A) to be aggregated via synch to Base(0)/Table(A). I think got this impression from the understanding that synchs are uni-directional.


That would be kinda cool!


Forum|alt.badge.img+19
  • Inspiring
  • 3264 replies
  • September 28, 2020

I’ll take another run at this. Have you considered simply adding an automation (to all 20 tables) that dispatches an email message when the data in a records meets the reviewable conditions?


Justin_Barrett
Forum|alt.badge.img+20

Could you please explain why having everything in a single table won’t work for your use case? I’m not trying to be confrontational. I genuinely want to know, because more often than not, combining similarly-structured data into one table vs keeping it spread across several tables ends up solving more problems than it creates. It would make this setup that you want to build pretty trivial, compared to the non-trivial solution that we haven’t yet figured out.


kuovonne
Forum|alt.badge.img+27
  • Brainy
  • 6002 replies
  • September 29, 2020

What about this workflow:

When you are ready to review leads, you click the run button in Scripting app. The script then populates a “working” table with copies of records from the 20 other tables. You make your changes to the “working” table, and an automation script copies the changes back to the original tables.

The actual code to implement this would probably be far more difficult than combining the data into a single table. It is hard to say since we don’t know why you cannot use a single table.


kuovonne
Forum|alt.badge.img+27
  • Brainy
  • 6002 replies
  • September 29, 2020

Do you know how Asana stores its data under the hood? Would you have 20 tables in Asana? Is there a reason you are using Airtable instead of Asana?


Forum|alt.badge.img+13
  • Author
  • Known Participant
  • 62 replies
  • September 29, 2020
Justin_Barrett wrote:

Could you please explain why having everything in a single table won’t work for your use case? I’m not trying to be confrontational. I genuinely want to know, because more often than not, combining similarly-structured data into one table vs keeping it spread across several tables ends up solving more problems than it creates. It would make this setup that you want to build pretty trivial, compared to the non-trivial solution that we haven’t yet figured out.


Becuase leads in one state are of higher priority than other states. & its more cleaner way of doing the things. Otherwise I’d keep on creating 50 views for 50 states.


Forum|alt.badge.img+13
  • Author
  • Known Participant
  • 62 replies
  • September 29, 2020
kuovonne wrote:

What about this workflow:

When you are ready to review leads, you click the run button in Scripting app. The script then populates a “working” table with copies of records from the 20 other tables. You make your changes to the “working” table, and an automation script copies the changes back to the original tables.

The actual code to implement this would probably be far more difficult than combining the data into a single table. It is hard to say since we don’t know why you cannot use a single table.


Great! where is that automation script ? Can the script do something like, Look into 20 tables and if the status is changed to ‘xyz’ it puts the record in the new table and I can access the original record from this new table and when I make changes to it, it saves the changes from where it picked the record.


Forum|alt.badge.img+13
  • Author
  • Known Participant
  • 62 replies
  • September 29, 2020
Bill_French wrote:

I’ll take another run at this. Have you considered simply adding an automation (to all 20 tables) that dispatches an email message when the data in a records meets the reviewable conditions?


Yes, The problem with email automation is, The option is half baked. I only want to be notified when the status changes to specific value i.e ‘negotiation’ but I dont think i can run the email automation against a single status value. Otherwise it sends me a barrage of emails.


Forum|alt.badge.img+13
  • Author
  • Known Participant
  • 62 replies
  • September 29, 2020
Jay_P wrote:

Yes, The problem with email automation is, The option is half baked. I only want to be notified when the status changes to specific value i.e ‘negotiation’ but I dont think i can run the email automation against a single status value. Otherwise it sends me a barrage of emails.


Major draw back of SYNCH is - it only synchs from one table not from multiple tables.


kuovonne
Forum|alt.badge.img+27
  • Brainy
  • 6002 replies
  • September 29, 2020
Jay_P wrote:

Great! where is that automation script ? Can the script do something like, Look into 20 tables and if the status is changed to ‘xyz’ it puts the record in the new table and I can access the original record from this new table and when I make changes to it, it saves the changes from where it picked the record.


@Jay_P It would actually be a system of two scripts (one to populate the “working” table and another to write the changes back to the original tables.

The first script (which would require clicking a button to run) could look into the 20 tables and copy the records where the status is “xyz” into the working table. It would also copy some additional information such as the source table and original record id. The automation script would then use the information about the source table and original record id to copy changes back to the original record whenever you updated the record in the working table.

The exact scripts do not exist yet because they would need to be written to fit your base.


kuovonne
Forum|alt.badge.img+27
  • Brainy
  • 6002 replies
  • September 29, 2020
Jay_P wrote:

Yes, The problem with email automation is, The option is half baked. I only want to be notified when the status changes to specific value i.e ‘negotiation’ but I dont think i can run the email automation against a single status value. Otherwise it sends me a barrage of emails.


You can setup the email automation to only run when the single status field changes to a particular value. You would use the when record meets conditions trigger.


kuovonne
Forum|alt.badge.img+27
  • Brainy
  • 6002 replies
  • September 29, 2020
Jay_P wrote:

Becuase leads in one state are of higher priority than other states. & its more cleaner way of doing the things. Otherwise I’d keep on creating 50 views for 50 states.


Although you know your data best and you know what makes sense to you, there are ways of indicating priority for different states that don’t involve having 20 tables. Since you have 20 tables and not 50 tables, are you combining some states together or do you have data for only 20 states?


Forum|alt.badge.img+13
  • Author
  • Known Participant
  • 62 replies
  • September 29, 2020
kuovonne wrote:

You can setup the email automation to only run when the single status field changes to a particular value. You would use the when record meets conditions trigger.


I dont think email is the right solution for this. Because I should be able to see the stuff when I need to, Not dig into my inbox finding the records. Not the right way to do things.


Forum|alt.badge.img+13
  • Author
  • Known Participant
  • 62 replies
  • September 29, 2020
kuovonne wrote:

Although you know your data best and you know what makes sense to you, there are ways of indicating priority for different states that don’t involve having 20 tables. Since you have 20 tables and not 50 tables, are you combining some states together or do you have data for only 20 states?


I’m combining some states but eventually I’ll definately have minimum of 20 states / 20 tables.

Also moving future I’ll have another category of data for another 20 states.


Forum|alt.badge.img+13
  • Author
  • Known Participant
  • 62 replies
  • September 29, 2020
kuovonne wrote:

@Jay_P It would actually be a system of two scripts (one to populate the “working” table and another to write the changes back to the original tables.

The first script (which would require clicking a button to run) could look into the 20 tables and copy the records where the status is “xyz” into the working table. It would also copy some additional information such as the source table and original record id. The automation script would then use the information about the source table and original record id to copy changes back to the original record whenever you updated the record in the working table.

The exact scripts do not exist yet because they would need to be written to fit your base.


Isn’t it possible for the script to run automatically every 15 minutes and it gathers the most current data ?

If the user have to click on things, the crm isn’t doing its job.


Justin_Barrett
Forum|alt.badge.img+20
Jay_P wrote:

Isn’t it possible for the script to run automatically every 15 minutes and it gathers the most current data ?

If the user have to click on things, the crm isn’t doing its job.


I believe it’s possible to do it via automation. The automation could trigger based on the status change to “Negotiation State” that you mentioned earlier, and copy the record to the working table. Once the status changes to any other option, another automation could be triggered that removes the associated record from the working table.


Reply