@MalathiVangalapati from your responses to this thread, it is clear that the Atlassian Marketplace team is taking an iterative approach to refactoring the vendor reporting pages.
However, what is not clear is whether Atlassian has heard and understood what the Atlassian Marketplace Partner community is trying to say in this thread.
We understand that Atlassian is dealing with a legacy tech stack and that it is imperative that this needs to be resolved. But there is no reason to decouple this from a complete rethinking of the Atlassian Marketplace vendor reporting pages.
The RFC tries to sell an intermediate solution as a given: we need to do A in order to be able to do B. But that is a false dilemma. You can actually come up with a meaningful dashboard, SaaS metrics, reporting, etc AND combine that with the tech stack upgrade.
The current proposed (intermediate) solution brings little to no benefit and potentially a worse experience than the current situation. There is no gain for us.
Based on the responses in this thread, I think Atlassian should be open to the idea that the Atlassian Marketplace Partner community would rather wait another 6 months for a significant redesign than have the proposed (intermediate) solution now.
Thanks @MalathiVangalapati focusing the RFC format (being an early adopter is never easy) and for continuously driving the improvement of partner experience for reporting in the past years. As for RFC-3 I have only a few remarks:
1) Priority
I understand that Atlassian invests in unified partner experience and different partners will see different value in that. You list “The implementation of the “Atlassian Design System” to ensure uniformity and consistency in all the marketplace touch points.” as the first (primary?) reason for this change and “Consistent partner experience” as the first (primary?) result for partners. I would have loved to see more substantial changes being proposed than fresh paint. I do, however, understand that bigger changes and more RFCs are ahead, covering some of the asks above (many of those Communardo would also back). It’s been covered above and I understand Atlassians position here although it might not be what some of us have hoped for.
2) Data changes
I understand that underlying data will not change. Neither will the API behave differently, nor will the values presented in the new UI differ from what we are seeing now. If that is indeed the case that’s great and important. Otherwise longer planing cycles for partners would be required as it’s been the case in the past.
3) Search
I’m not sure if this is covered by the point above: the search (licenses/transactions) is broken. Any special character (&, ü, ä, ß, any many others that are very common) will break the result. Will this change improve any of that?
4) Transaction details
This is a very welcome change, looking forward to play with that. Using a new tab makes sense here as it does not remove the previous search results. Thanks for that one!
We’re a little overdue but today I’m closing this thread as the discussion phase has expired. As of today, this thread had 865 views, with 46 likes. I’d like to thank the dozenish commenters who contributed 22 comments. We really appreciate that you took the time to tell us what you think about our reporting improvements in Marketplace, and to learn about the RFC process itself. For anyone with thoughts about this example in context of the overall RFC process, RFC-1 about RFCs is still open for another week (and we’ll be open to input on RFCs at any point).
I’ve had a quick conversation with @MalathiVangalapati who is preparing a resolution to this topic. Please stay tuned for that on or before 10 March 2023.
Thanks for your patience on this resolution as we’ve worked through bandwidth constraints from team changes.
What did we learn?
The community identified no serious flaws specific to this RFC
The community had much to say around significant flaws in the analytics Atlassian currently provides to vendors and how we’re falling far short of needs and expectations. There were significant requests for additional filters, more granularity of data and date ranges, search, and improved formatting. This feedback is very important to hear.
What did we change?
As no serious flaws were identified, we will be continuing this project without changes.
As a reminder, as this version of reports is rolled out, it is at your discretion to opt into the new experience. You can go back and forth between the old and new experiences, test them and understand the changes over a period of three months. We will collect continuous feedback from you through the ‘Give feedback’ option
What is coming next?
We’ve added the various valuable reporting feedback to our backlog and have additional projects being considered around reporting improvements (MRR & ARR data, Benchmarking and Customer Insights) that may become RFCs of their own if explored.
Thank you for taking out the time for giving us your feedback; it is extremely valuable to us. Your comments have helped us understand your needs and recognise additional areas for improvement.
I’m sorry, but this is just not true. You just chose ignore them.
For instance, you did not provide any response to:
Which was also mentioned as point 3 of in my 3 serious flaws:
You did not go into details with regard to that comment either, except for a blanket “thank you for your feedback, much appreciated, but we will continue with what we were planning to do”.
