How easy is it for you to access and give feedback on LogicMonitor betas?
Summary: Ted Johnsen from the product team is seeking feedback to improve the discovery, access, and feedback process for LogicMonitor beta features. They ask the community about their experiences with accessing beta features and providing feedback. Dave Lee, Dave Lee, expresses that the process lacks structure and meaningful follow-up from the product teams. He suggests creating a collaborative community forum for better communication and updates. Kel L, Kel L, was unaware of the beta program and seeks more information on available betas. The discussion highlights the need for better communication and support in the beta testing process.
As a product team, we’re looking to improve how to discover, access, and provide feedback on early-stage LM features (betas / previews).
We’d love to hear from you:
Have you ever wanted to try a LogicMonitor beta or early-access feature but weren’t sure how to get access?
How do you usually find out about betas today? (Account team, support, release notes, community, etc.)
Once you have access, how easy or difficult is it to provide feedback that you feel actually reaches the product team?
What’s been the most frustrating part of participating in betas?
What would make the experience better for you? (Discovery, enablement, documentation, feedback, turning features off, etc.)
All feedback is appreciated — we’re actively using this input to shape improvements to our beta and preview experience.
Thanks in advance for helping us make LogicMonitor better 🙏
Jan Garaj
·6 months agoI would say generally and enabling/disabling of any feature (not just beta) is very user unfriendly. There is no single page, where user can see what everything can be enabled/disabled/configured. It is not clear what is GA/beta/alpha/deprecated feature.
Power users are digging in the page source code. There can be some fragments of available features, e.g.:
or
var featureInfoObj = { "cloud recommendations kpi collection": true, "lm config": true, "property normalization": true, "lm logs patterns": true, "oci cloud": true, "cloud recommendations": true, "lm config gold standard": false, "push statsd": false, "lm logs advanced search": false, "enable security settings recommendation": true, "custom reporting": false, "push metric api": false, "chat support": 7, "enable query builder": true, "uiv4 dashboards": false, "enable diagnostic source": false, "advanced metrics widget": true, "forensics for logs": true, "reject lmsupport api token": true, "lm website (legacy)": true, "cloud visualization auto refresh": true, "ai alert suppression": true, "legacy cloud add and manage": false, "admin copilot": false, "hide plg": false, "allow websites toggle": false, "enable posh command audit log support": false, "topology": true, "force password change": false, "lm logs enterprise monthly": false, "netflow alerting": true, "autobalancedcollectors": true, "lm logs enterprise 90": true, "webex monitoring": true, "lmes data storage period": 760, "openmetrics": true, "logicmodule exchange": true, "legacy alerts": false, "one helm chart": true, "snmp trap type logsource": true, "lm config instance threshold": false, "lite devices": false, "enable access group module manage": true, "allow reports toggle": false, "lm logs unlimited": false, "tsdb data view period": 760, "max allow netflow alert rules": 25, "saml": true, "allow new alerts details toggle": true, "exchange development features": false, "stackstorm integration": true, "uiv4 websites": true, "dexda": true, "business service": true, "settings uiv4": false, "saas monitoring": true, "log query tracking": true, "wireless access points": true, "enable remediation source": false, "cloud enhanced billing": true, "zendesk chat support": "7|SUP3", "ui alert grouping": true, "cloud monitoring": true, "ai and llm monitoring": true, "websites": true, "uiv4 services": false, "enable collector publisher": false, "lm config global gold standard": false, "lm logs enterprise 7 day": false, "analysis tabs": true, "log anomalies": false, "service insights template": false, "allow settings toggle": false, "lm saas in beta": true, "disable add websites (legacy)": false, "enable multiple sso support": true, "mandate mfa": true, "netflow": true, "uiv4 topology mappings page": true, "uiv4 reports": false, "extra devices": true, "alert suppression": false, "google cloud": true, "netscan with multiple snmp v3 credential": false, "hide nda": false, "metric to metric correlation": true, "synthetics beta": false, "tracing paywall": false, "traces": false, "lm logs live profiles": false, "cloud visualization": true, "dynamic threshold upper lower bound": true, "advanced alerting status": false, "topology interface mapping": true, "force uiv4": true, "paas cloud": true, "k8s without admin permission": true, "alert dependency": true, "lm logs enterprise 2 years": false, "enterprise netflow": true, "network whitelisting": true, "lm exchange decomposition": false, "k8s argus": true, "anomaly detection": true, "lm logs enterprise": false, "saas office365 audit log": false, "light devices": false, "dynamic thresholds v2": true, "aws ou bulk management": true, "msp logos": false, "dynamic service insights": true, "topology saved map landing page": true, "slack monitoring": true, "reject oob admin api token": true, "integration audit logs": true, "lm logs ga": true, "analysis maps": true, "azure monitoring": true, "aruba central": false, "tsdb data storage period": 760, "wildvalue as uuid": true, "uiv4 alert page": false, "lm uptime": false, "log source": true, "hide financial tab": true, "saas office365 usage active only": false, "aws monitoring": true, "lmes data view period": 760, "cost recommendations preview": false, "uiv4 resources": false, "analysis graphs": true, "log partitions": true }So there is a lot of details about features available. It just needs nice UI page with additional details (human friendly feature name, feature description, doc link, feature state, ...). IMHO it is missing up selling opportunity.
Kel L
·6 months agoI didn't know there was a Beta program. Is there information about what's in Beta so we know if it's something we might be interested in checking out?
Dave Lee
·7 months ago · EditedHave you ever wanted to try a LogicMonitor beta or early-access feature but weren’t sure how to get access?
We have previously been advised about upcoming betas by our account team, so they put us in touch with the right person.
How do you usually find out about betas today? (Account team, support, release notes, community, etc.)
As above.
Once you have access, how easy or difficult is it to provide feedback that you feel actually reaches the product team?
There typically isn't any real structure to this. In some cases we have had an initial call to get us started, but that's typically it. Where I've been involved with testing Betas in the past, I've ended up compiling a Word document with detailed feedback (e.g. Log Partitioning, diagnostics modules). I've sent this back to the people at LM that were involved and I've had no feedback. In the case of Log Partitioning, that appears to have gone GA now. I'm not sure which, if any, of our feedback was incorporated or if any of it was accepted onto the roadmap. I do know that it's broken the ability for most of our users to actually access LM Logs now :(
What’s been the most frustrating part of participating in betas?
Very little follow up from the product teams in my experience. Much like feedback requests sent through the portal, it seems to go into a black hole :( Log Partitioning was a case in point... I provided significant feedback on that during the beta and none of it was followed up on. Even if it were just an email to say something like "got your feedback, points 1+2 are common feedback items and in progress, points 3+4 are roadmap items, points 5+6 we silly and we won't address them".
What would make the experience better for you? (Discovery, enablement, documentation, feedback, turning features off, etc.)
It needs to be more collaborative.... so far I've found it to be very one way. How about creating a private forum on the community when you want to get feedback from users? Those involved in the beta could then create a thread for any issues they find, product to respond there so that everyone can see. Regular updates from the product team on the progress of the beta, the timelines for release etc., could be posted there.