# Group user feedback without losing the original requests

Read feedback from connected support and project tools, group related reports, and prepare issue drafts that retain the original conversations.

Canonical page: https://beeuni.ai/blog/group-user-feedback-with-ai

Feedback lives in support threads, team channels, and issues. The same problem appears in different words, one message contains several requests, and a long thread can look like many separate complaints.

Choose the support inbox, channel, or project the agent should read, then specify the date range and filters. Have it save the retrieved message IDs, source links, and retrieval time before grouping the reports. This gives the review a fixed set of inputs even as new replies arrive.

```
Read last month’s conversations in the connected support inbox about booking times.
Follow the replies in each matching thread. Save the source IDs and links.
Propose groups, distinguish feature requests from reported bugs, and count distinct accounts where IDs are available.
Compare the groups with issues in the connected project tracker.
Show likely existing matches and draft new issues for review. Do not send customer replies.
```

Search results are only the starting point. Reading the surrounding conversation can reveal that a reported bug was resolved, that a customer changed their request, or that two apparently separate reports concern the same incident. Keep the relevant excerpts in the working file, without copying contact details the review does not need.

## Three messages, two different problems

Consider these invented examples from a scheduling product:

| Source ID | Feedback | Proposed group |
| --- | --- | --- |
| F01 | I cannot tell which time zone the booking uses. | Time-zone visibility |
| F02 | Please show the visitor’s local time. Also, the confirmation email never arrived. | Time-zone visibility; missing confirmation email |
| F03 | The booking screen only shows office time. | Time-zone visibility |

The time-zone group has three source messages. The email problem has one. Across both groups there are four mentions but only three messages, because F02 contains two issues. If the report uses “requests,” define whether that means messages, mentions, or distinct accounts.

Keep a short excerpt beside every classification. “The booking screen only shows office time” might describe confusing labels or a missing conversion feature. Put that ambiguity in a review column rather than silently choosing one interpretation.

## Count affected customers as well as messages

Suppose F01 and F02 came from the same account, while F03 came from another. The time-zone group still contains three messages, but represents two known accounts. If the retrieved records do not expose account IDs, the account count is unknown. Similar wording cannot establish that two messages came from the same person.

A set of support tickets tells you what people contacted support about. It does not tell you what proportion of all customers encountered the problem. Even “two of ten accounts in this review” describes only the selected conversations. Put the collection period, filters, and channels near the counts so readers know what the numbers cover.

You can ask Beeuni to compare themes across periods, but keep the basis comparable. If last month contains only support tickets and this month includes an in-product survey, a larger count may reflect the new source. Preserve channel labels so you can compare support with support before drawing a conclusion about a trend.

## A follow-up can split an apparently clear theme

Continue the fictional scheduling example. The team asks the authors of F01 and F03 which screen they used and what time they expected. One reply says the displayed time was correct, but the time-zone label was hidden below the fold. The other says the booking remained in office time after the visitor selected a different zone. These reports now point to different work.

Keep “time zones” as the broader topic, then separate label visibility from a possible conversion failure. Attach the replies to the original source IDs. The first issue might need a design change. The second needs reproduction to establish whether the calculation, saved preference, or display is wrong. Neither report should disappear when the group names change.

F02’s missing email needs its own follow-up. Ask whether the booking completed and which confirmation was expected. A missing confirmation could prevent someone from finding the appointment details, even though it has fewer mentions. You can investigate it first while leaving time zones at the top of the frequency table. State why you chose that order.

## Build a report you can question

- An annotated source file with group labels and a review flag.
- A group summary with message counts, distinct account counts when available, and example source IDs.
- An unresolved list for vague comments, conflicting reports, and possible duplicates.

Separate requested behavior from reported failures. “Add another export format” and “the existing export fails” may belong to the same area, but they need different follow-up. Preserve both labels if a message contains both.

Before creating a new issue, have the agent search the connected tracker for the same behavior. It may belong on an existing issue with the new source links attached. Review those matches and the proposed issue text, then ask for the specific updates you want. Keep the retrieved source file alongside the annotated report so a later review can distinguish new feedback from a change in grouping.