I would love to see implemented a feature that helps when filtering via the “last activity date” setting (e.g. before date xx.xx). Currently it is no possible to also include the companies that have and empty “last activity date”.
Rather there needs to be set a new filter to include companies without “last activity date”.
If you have multiple “OR” groups this blows up the search since now everything needs to be doubled.
Would be great if there would be a box that you can tick to include those companies without last activity date directly - similarly as handled in other filters.
Further - ANY date field should allow you to filter based on “if blank” or “if not blank” versus only being able to select specific date ranges in relation to the date showing in the field. Very frustrating. Any property that exists should, by default, allow for filtering on “if blank” or “if not blank.” No exceptions. Thanks!
Hi @SH99 & @Dean123! - Thanks for sharing this feedback around property filters! I wanted to point you towards the ‘is unknown’ filter that all properties should have available in the lists tool. The ‘is’ filter option will always point to specific date options, but there is another filter option in the dropdown for ‘is unknown’ that will look for records that have a blank ‘last activity date’ property. Here is a screenshot as an example:
With that said, the ‘last activity date’ dropdown on an object dashboard doesn’t have ‘is unknown’ as an option, but you can click ‘Advanced Filters’ and apply ‘Last activity date is unknown’ that way on an object dashboard. I hope this helps in the meantime!
Aha. I didn’t catch there are TWO filters for dates. You have to select the “is” filter first before selecting the next drop down. I was looking for “is blank” in the second drop down filter and not the first one. Would have been more intuitive if 1 didn’t default to “Is” as I didn’t catch there were more options from which to choose under that first filter - even though the drop down arrow is right there! Sometimes it’s hard to see the forest for the trees. Now I know. Thanks!
