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

What is the proposed idea/solution? Allowing forms to create NEW linked records, rather than only allowing to select from a list of already existing linked records. In other words, the ability for a form to have its Parent form submission, and one or multiple Child form submissions (for the linked records). See Fillout's solution as an example. Dummy scenario: If I want to submit information for a Family (Family table) and for the members of the Family (Members table) which can be one or multiple, I would not be able to do this from only one Airtable Form. I would need to submit one form for the Family information, and separate forms for each Member. How does is solve the user problems? Would avoid having to integrate different softwares, build dirty automations, or handling re-directs, just for the sake of creating linked records. How was this validated? This issue comes up with plenty of my clients, multiple questions have been asked on the Community on how to handle this, and it has been a topic of discussion with fellow builders and consultants. However, I'm not sure whether it has been actually submitted as a "New Idea"/Feature Request (if it was already, I'm super sorry -however it might be useful to bring it up again!). Basically, Airtable forms do not allow to create NEW linked records from the form itself (i.e. we can currently only select from a dropdown of already existing linked records). There are obviously several different workarounds such as: (i) using other form softwares (e.g. Fillout which I really love, but is still a pain to need additional integration just for this); (ii) handling the creation of new linked fields from interfaces rather than forms (i.e. would mean treating the interface itself as a pseudo form); (iii) having temporary fields on the main table which are only used to push data via an automation for the creation of the linked field (super dirty solution which I would almost never recommend); and (iv) others. However, all of those solutions are far from ideal. Who is the target audience? Airtable users who need to capture information via forms for a base with multiple linked tables (I'd say almost every Airtable user). Thanks!! ... View more

What is the proposed idea/solution? Add a Feature so you can change the background color of cells and whole colums manually or based on condition matching.  How does is solve the user problems? Design of Tables and List Views will get more clean and easier to use / navigate. Also Users can color cells based on their content (like positive=green, negative=red, ...) How was this validated? It's basic visual Design theories.  Who is the target audience?  Nearly everyone, at least every user who needs to navigate through big airtable bases & list views. ... View more

What is the proposed idea/solution? Add a 'Download All' button to attachment fields, which would enable users to download all of the attachments that have been uploaded to a given field in a record. This button could be located next to the current 'Attach File' button. How does is solve the user problems? Currently, you have to download each attachment individually by hovering over the attachment so the download icon appears, click the download icon and then repeat this process for each attachment. This is very time consuming and allows room for error (e.g. accidentally missing an attachment when trying to download all). Who is the target audience? Everyone can benefit from this feature, as it is a fairly useful, basic functionality request that would enhance efficiency. As social media managers, we would use this feature daily and our clients would also benefit from this. ... View more

When an automation uses a repeated group, it can run for an extended period of time. Currently, there is no option to forcefully stop the automation midway, leaving users waiting for it to finish. Additionally, while the automation history displays the start time, it does not show the end time, making it difficult to determine the total runtime. It would be highly beneficial to provide the end time and total elapsed time in the automation history to enhance usability and monitoring capabilities.   ... View more

What is the proposed idea/solution? Airtable desperately needs more options for date filtering. Most importantly the following: within next calendar week/month within past calendar week/month on or before the end of this calendar week on or before the end of next calendar week Airtable barely has filters for calendar weeks which is extremely frustrating because most program managers are looking at the tasks for the given week and it is super annoying to have to make it a custom between 2 date fields because saying on or before one week from now will show tasks from the following week within the first few days. How does is solve the user problems? This makes searches more automated so they will automatically show you what is happening in the given calendar week/month without having to do the current way which is: Date is on or after 11/1/2024 or date is on or before 11/30/2024 (which has to manually be changed every month). It just makes things unnecessarily difficult when it should just be simple to add these date filters.  ... View more

Nested records don't currently have a great way to view, as the list view hierarchy only supports nested records in some contexts, and has a limited number of levels shown when it is supported. Implement a view or add to an existing view (e.g. list) the ability to have nested records of the same type and infinite (or at least more) levels of nesting displayed. The ability to fold nested levels to better navigate the list would make this very manageable for large datasets with several layers of nesting.  ... View more

I'd love to be able to designate universal variables that could be referenced from any table in a base. So, for example, if I have a sales tax rate of 8%, I'd like to set that sales tax rate in one single place and then be able to reference that in formulas across the entire base. Currently, if I want to set up this type of variable, I need to 1) create a table of variables then 2) make sure every single record in the other tables is linked to the variables table 3) add a lookup field to every table that looks up this universal variable 4) create a formula which references this variable in the lookup field. For each universal variable, one should be able 1) give it a unique name that could be referenced in formulas across the entire table 2) set a data type (number, currency, percentage, etc) Then, if the sales tax rate changes, I just update the reference variable, and the changes propagate to all the formulas in the base that reference it. It's true that this could be done with manual copy paste or automations, but that's a LOT of work or automations for a very basic bit of functionality. It could easily eat into an automations cap on an AirTable plan. I imagine that it is pretty easy to script for someone who knows how to code, but that's a lot of work (or vendor cost) just to set a variable. I'd love to be able to tell AirTable: "I'm creating a universal variable called "SalesTax". It is a percentage variable." Then enter the number 8% and be done.   ... View more

What is the proposed idea/solution? In interface page layouts, add the ability to collapse groups so that the header is visible but the fields nested beneath are not. An added bonus would be the ability to select whether a group is expanded or collapsed by default in the page template.... How does is solve the user problems? I have several interface page views that are quite long, and not all groups are applicable to all records. Allowing me to collapse the groups that are not relevant would make it easier for me to see and edit the most important information efficiently. How was this validated? This is generally accepted as useful functionality and exists in other places in the Airtable app. Google docs just recently added this functionality as well.  Who is the target audience? Anyone using interface page views with many forms/groups ... View more