Task Record Associations Don't Have Enough Information

[JMusser]

When associating records from a Contact, Company, Deal, or Ticket, you can hover over a record's Name to see selected information about that record to confirm it's the intended record. 

In Tasks and some other modules, the hover-over is not available, and the options are not otherwise clickable. This presents a huge problem when you have multiple identically-named options. 

It would make sense for most industries/companies that you should not have identically-named Company records, but in our industry, it's incredibly common. 
For example, all of the "Montgomery County Sheriff's Office" Companies are different agencies in different cities with different website domains. 

Due to our industry, we cannot store those names differently than they are provided to us on official documentation, resulting in an inability to accurately associate a Task without trial and error. Thus, the best option is to create Tasks directly from the Company record.

So the ask here is to use the same type of association process found on the other record types across the board or add the hover-over cards where they do not currently exist.

[Brenner · Accepted solution]

Hi, @JMusser ! 

Great question here.

Yeah, unfortunately the task isn't available to show details. 

But, you can set tasks enrolling the company or contact in a specific sequence to set all tasks you need to do. In this way, you can see all details from company or contacts to ensure you're setting up tasks correctly. 

Make sense?

PS: Thank you @PamCotton  for tagging me here. 

[PamCotton]

Hey @JMusser, thank you for posting in our Community!

Since the hover-over details aren’t available in Tasks, a workaround is creating tasks directly from the correct Company record to ensure accurate associations.

 You might also consider using unique identifiers, such as location or domain, in a secondary field to differentiate records. To our top experts @Brenner and @
Lucila-Andimol, any other recommendations for @JMusser matter?

Thank you,

Pam