What is the proposed idea/solution? ... I often use the 'modify' function when using automations (especially for creating/updating). It would be super helpful if we could set this on the preferred fields in tables so that every record - even for records that are already in the table - is modified automatically.  I use the formula field for LOWER and UPPER functions - however, title case is one that I use frequently, but it isn't available. How does is solve the user problems? ... Saves time & confusion on automation set up as well as increases data validation & reliability. Who is the target audience? ...anyone ... View more

This is very useful for multiple nested conditions, and is basically a string of multiple IF-conditions, with the 'ELSE" condition being another IF.   The google sheets documentation for the IFS function clearly explains this.   It would be very helpful to make long nested formulas much more readable! Thanks for the great work with Airtable 🙂 ... View more

What is the proposed idea/solution? Enable date formatting on formula columns How does is solve the user problems? My use case for this would be to insert templates or build template tables for project management on events we do over and over again. For example, if we plan a webinar, we know which tasks need to get done in what order and how many days apart. We have a formula for how many days before or after the live webinar date each task needs to be done. If I include a column for the live date and include the variance to live date, I should be able to auto calculate the due date for each task but there isn't a format that allows for this. ... View more

Enable a formula on a record level (like gsheet). My use case for this would be to insert templates or build template tables for project management on events we do over and over again. For example, if we plan a webinar, we know which tasks need to get done in what order and how many days apart. We have a formula for how many days before or after the live webinar date each task needs to be done. Since it's not always the same number of days for each record I can't use a formula in the current set up.  ... View more

What is the proposed idea/solution? A Project Archive Feature to make it easy to 'deactivate and hide a project when certain criteria are met. An archived project would be grayed-out, hidden completely everywhere in the base or moved into an Archive Table.  It would no longer affect any rollups or calculated fields.  To make it active again, the user goes to Archive settings, click 'Show Archived Projects' then changes the criteria back to active.   How does is solve the user problems? Current solutions only hide the project from view. it is still active and you need to consciously filter it from view everywhere in the base. Or you need to manually copy the project to an Archive table and delete from active which is tedious.  How was this validated? No validation has been performed. Who is the target audience? Project managers with multiple projects that have a lot of fields/data.  Their organization is known to pause or cancel a project and re-activate it again at a later date. Or they simply want to save old projects for reference.  ... View more

Airtable's power really shines when structuring a base in a relational way. In my experience working with many new Airtable users, this is not always immediately obvious and takes education (especially for users coming from Excel). Instead of requiring some mindset shifts and a (small) learning curve to get the most out of Airtable, it would be helpful to have some quick and powerful options when working with flat data in a single table, such as aggregations on all records in a view. What is the proposed idea/solution? A formula that returns a comma separated list of all values across records in a view for a given field: ALL({some field}) Some name suggestions: ALL() ALLVALUES() LIST() CSV() How does is solve the user problems? Allows creation of "share of..." calculations like: {sales} / SUM(ALL({sales})) or using record counts in the same table like: COUNT(ALL({Project Name})) or get a distinct list of field values existing across all other sibling records like: ARRAYUNIQUE(ALL({Part List})) How was this validated? n/a Who is the target audience? Everyone, business users coming from Excel that aren't yet thinking about their data in relational terms ... View more

What is the proposed idea/solution? My proposed idea, I suggest for create the date option more can write in multi choose. How does is solve the user problems? They can use whatever the local country use for clear date and type of date they want. How was this validated? Have our users to select the kind of date they want and can creative by themself to be used in their origination.  Who is the target audience? Mostly for project management and timeline template.  ... View more

What is the proposed idea/solution? Update the roll-up field to return expandable linked record values when rolling up a linked record list How does this solve the user problems? The roll-up field currently returns comma-separated text when rolling up a linked record field/lookup. Unlike the lookup field which does return expandable records, roll-up fields can also remove duplicates using ARRAYUNIQUE(values). This is extremely useful when drilling up or down multiple levels of a linked record hierarchy because if any level has a one-to-many/many-to-many linked record relationship, duplication/redundancy will occur at the destination roll-up field (similarly with lookups). With ARRAYUNIQUE() and a roll-up field, users can remove this unwanted duplication BUT at the loss of expandable record links. The solution is to make the roll-up field return expandable records, just as the lookup field can. Some other benefits from this: adds the ability to group by rolled-up unique linked records in the timeline view using the split multi-selects group by option can quickly count distinct bottom-of-hierarchy items with top-of-hierarchy items using a count field How was this validated? Let's say we have the following hierarchy of linked tables: Departments <-(one-to-many)-> Teams <-(many-to-many)-> Projects ...and I want to know which projects involve each department via the Projects table's "teams involved" field. Approach A) In Departments, use a lookup field on the Teams table's linked record field to Projects this could yield unwanted duplicate project records in the lookup if two or more teams in the same department are involved with the same project. - not good Approach B) In Projects, use a lookup field on the Teams table's linked record field to Departments  this could yield unwanted duplicate department records in the lookup if two or more teams involved with the same project are in the same department. - not good Approach C) In Departments, use a roll-up field on the Teams table's linked record field to Projects and use ARRAYUNIQUE(values) for the aggregation function this returns a comma-separated list, albeit with unique values - better, but not ideal Approach D) In Projects, use a roll-up field on the Teams table's linked record field to Departments and use ARRAYUNIQUE(values) for the aggregation function this returns a comma-separated list, albeit with unique values - better, but not ideal The solution is to make the roll-up field return expandable records, just as the lookup field can. Who is the target audience? Everyone, base builders ... View more

What is the proposed idea/solution? It would be a game changer when working with hierarchical data for the roll-up field's ARRAYUNIQUE(values) function to return clickable linked record values instead of a comma-separated string when aggregating a linked record field from the source table. Currently, users can only represent one level of a linked record hierarchy as linked record values using lookup fields without risking duplicate linked record values. Multi-selected linked record lookups/roll-ups can lead to confusing UX and fewer group-by options. How does is solve the user problems? This would serve as a workaround for the strange user experience that occurs when using a roll-up field to return a lookup field of multi-selected linked records. This can duplicate of the same record referenced in the roll-up/look-up field. How was this validated? For example: Let's say you have a base with three tables containing linked records in this hierarchy: Dashboards -> Data Sources -> Tables and you want to see a list of Dashboards related to each Table. In Tables, you would normally create a lookup field to a linked record field in Data Sources that is linked to Dashboards. The duplicated values problem occurs when a single table record is linked to multiple data source records, which are also linked to multiple dashboard records. This results in duplicated dashboard records appearing in your lookup field (which creates confusing UX in general, but also makes grouping by this field even more problematic than usual for multi-selects). Who is the target audience? Intermediate base builders, everyone. ... View more