We use Airtable as a CRM and event management. These uses have been accomplished using separate bases but there’s been a growing desire for this process to be streamlined with an emphasis on leveraging the data already in the CRM. Ultimately, what I’m suggesting is Lookup Fields displayed on a Form View once a Link to Another Record Field is populated. Here’s a use case: CRM has a Table containing contacts with contact information (phone number, email address, etc.) and a Table for an event’s participants. The participant table has a Form View. The first field/question on the form is a Link to Another Record Field where the registrant selects their name. The next field/question would be a Lookup field displaying the phone number found on the linked record. The next field/question would ask if the phone number was still correct. The next field/question could be a question conditionally visible if the phone number was incorrect. We’d then repeat the process for the other data displayed by the Lookup fields. ... View more

Airtable finally added this calendar month as a date filter option which is great, however there needs to be a last calendar month instead of just last month. We need to submit every month our expenses from the previous month. So for example today, I need to be able to see all expenses from January (i.e. last calendar month). How it is now if I do last month, it will show me expenses from Jan 14 - Feb 14 which is not useful. ... View more

What is the proposed idea/solution? Reading through the available rollup field formulas, I'm surprised there's no Mode() or Median() available for use. https://support.airtable.com/docs/rollup-field-reference How does is solve the user problems? Mode and Median are a staple in 6th grade mathematics, and I can't even begin to summarise how they solve countless user problems that they're used for. The target audience is anyone working with a rollup field wanting to quickly extract mode and medium data from their linked record array. In my current example, I have a Rollup containing several dates, and I need the most common date - IE, the mode(values) needs to return the date that occurs most often within the array. mode(["2023-01-09" , "2023-01-09", "2023-01-08" , "2023-01-09"]) returns "2023-01-09", similarly how max() returns 2023-01-09 and min() returns 2023-01-08. So importantly, Mode() needs to work not only on numbers and integers, but also dates as well - or possibly even strings. For example, a Rollup mode(values) of ["Dog", "Dog", "Dog", "Cat", "Dog", "Cat", "Cat", "Dog", "Mouse"] returns "Dog". ... View more

Hey there, I want to first off note that I don’t want this to sound like a complaint. :pray: I love Airtable, and I have used it now for 3 years across countless large organisations and medium-sized clients. I use it for everything I do. But there was always one part of the UX that I always saw stressing users out, and that was the way you can just click and accidentally add a brand new record at the bottom without ever meaning to. The process to create a record was so easy it was overwhelming, because to non-experienced, pressing command + z is often not learned, so they’d see Airtable as a place where it wasn’t safe to click anywhere (A problem later solved, in part for teams, by restricting people’s ability to add records in a base, or just using a sync so nobody can create records), and let’s not even talk about creating a record which is part of a filtered view because that’s just madness squared … But when teaching Airtable, all I’ve ever heard for 3 years now is a lot of “Whoops”…“Didn’t mean to do that”…“Whoops, where did that go?”, “Whoops, how do I?”/… etc etc etc And even to experienced users, the daily mini-frustrations I, myself, have when accidentally creating a record and having to command + z was one thing I was sure that Airtable would fix sooner or later, so I didn’t let it bug me, and went on my merry way… Loving pretty much everything else about Airtable, creating thousands of accidental records along the way…“Whoops, command+z” Then August 2020 hit, and they let a team mess around with the record creation flow, causing mayhem among my clients, and colleagues alike, creating, what I think is one of the longest threads on this community yet. We all had a little moan, a little joke, and I think for the most part they changed the functionality back - even though, it’s still, in my opinion, clunkier than it was before it was messed with. But then something happened about a month back… Whereby Airtable have given the field creation process the record treatment and made all sides of their app complete and utter minefields. So today, as I created my 10th accidental field of the day, I decided to write a polite petition to ask the UX designer and Product team…nay, BEG them to fix this! Here’s my suggestion as an alternative: Keep the Plus signs. They’re nice and clear. Everyone is happy :green_circle: Please for the love of god stop messing with this empty space - This is important space that doesn’t need to be clickable 🔴 and … If you really, REALLY have to…Why not add a little friendly round button that a user can click on, so that we can all be very comfortable that this behaviour was intentional :large_blue_circle: It feels like this decision was made to increase field creation, which just seems mad to me. I typically want less fields…Not more! This is the graph of user frustration that I imagine the analytics doesn’t show: Please say it’s not just me :cry: As a side note, I’ve actually been building my bases in Google Sheets recently, and my stress levels have been decreasing as a consequence, but it still feels a little like this And as another side note…Airtable Product team - Sorry for the rant. I rant because I care :crazy_face: … You all rock :metal: ! ... View more

Ability to have a default value for single select - would be perfect for forms filled by applicants in our HR process. ... View more

What is the proposed idea/solution? In the configuration screen for a linked record field, show the name of the backlink field. This could be either read-only or editable.  For same-table links, state that the field is a same-table link and does not have a backlink field. When creating a new linked record field to a different table, state that a backlink field will be created and display the name that will be used (or let the user enter a name for the backlink). How does is solve the user problems? Many novice creators do not realize that a back link field is created when they create a new linked record field. This would let them know. Once users are accustomed to the creation of backlink fields, some are surprised and confused when same table links do not have backlink fields. This would make things clearer for them. Creators often don't think about naming the backlink field, as the default name usually works when there is only one linked between two tables. However, sometimes the default name doesn't work and should be changed, especially when there are multiple links between tables. Showing the name reminds creators to pay attention to the backlink field name. When deleting a linked record field, the backlink field also often needs to be deleted as well (versus hanging around as a single line text field). Showing the name of the backlink field will make creators more aware that they should delete the backlink field, and also make it easier to find the backlink field to delete it. When there are multiple links between tables, especially in legacy bases where backlinks were not named well, it can be difficult to figure out relationships. Although the Base Schema extension shows which linked record fields go together, in a large base, the diagram is a huge tangled mess and too hard to work with. It is also possible to identify backlinks by looking at field data, but this is cumbersome and depends on knowing the data values or having the ability to put in test data. The "Show Dependencies" tool lists the backlink field among all the other field dependencies. This is probably the easiest way to see the name of the backlink field, but the nature of the dependency is not obvious to new users. Scripting is another way of identifying backlinks, but that is also a niche skill.  How was this validated? Personal experience maintaining bases. Who is the target audience? People with creator permissions who will be creating and maintaining linked record fields, including both novice and experienced creators. ... View more

Love the long text field rich text options. Can we extend markdown to formulas as well? Why The usage could extend way beyond this, but my use cases are summary fields using rollups and formulas. Right now it looks like this: But as ‘Satuses’ scales to track more complicated lists, I’d like it to look more like: Complete 001: Modeling (someone’s name) 002: Modeling (someone’s name) Incomplete 003: Modeling (someone’s name) 004: Modeling (someone’s name) The bold formatting really makes a difference from a readability standpoint. Monospace or tab characters \t would also be lovely to ensure consistent formatting. ... View more

Have you ever found yourself asking these questions? “Why did I create this field?” “Why do have a ‘Name - Status’ formula in this field?” “Can I delete this field?” "What’ll break if I delete this field? It’d be nice if we could see where our fields are being used. Perhaps a third tab in the “Customize Field Tab” area, right next to “Formatting.” Where it would list dependent fields! BOOM. DO IT! 🙂 ... View more

It would be great to be able to add labels (plain text) and read-only fields (to be able to prefill them) in the forms. Is anything planned in this direction? ... View more