Plan requirement
| Subscription | Any plan |
| Access | Admin |
No. Article views are counted, not attributed to people, and that is a deliberate line rather than a gap.
What you do get
How often an article was viewed, how that changes over time, and how it compares with everything else. That is enough to run a knowledge base: it tells you what people read, what they never find, and what stopped being read after a change.
What you do not
A list of names. Reading is not an action somebody takes towards you, and a record of who read what is a surveillance log rather than an analytics feature.
The usual question behind the question
Most people asking want one of three things, and each has a proper answer:
- "Did this customer see the article?" Link it from the ticket, then it is in the conversation and you can see that it was sent.
- "Did staff read the policy?" That is an acknowledgement, and it needs a step where somebody confirms, not a view count.
- "Which customers care about this subject?" Ticket subjects answer that far better than article views would.
Where reading is genuinely evidence
Compliance cases where somebody must confirm they have read something. Build that as a request they submit or a field they set, so there is a record with a date and a name, produced deliberately.
Comments
0 comments
Article is closed for comments.