Share your ideas with us

Change the update indicator Dot from the light blue color to the orange color you already use in your iOS app. It is hard to pick out the dot if you have a long list of shipments. If it was the orange color you already use in the app it should be a simple change to make for an updated version. Also so carriers on the list of carriers to pick from are now asking for receiving zip, so those carriers never update now.  Thanks

The background is that I sell my products on multiple marketplaces, and each has different return flows that the aftership Returns page cannot handle. It would be much easier if there is a Returns API that can meet my requirements below.   Need: - I need a Returns API to allow creating RMA/return requests without having to use the Returns Page to file it.  - I can call the API and pass the information regarding the Return Reason Resolution, etc in one go.  - Once I call this API, it will return creation in Pending or Auto-Approved Status.

The website is in dutch but then after login, the portal is in english.

Honestly, this would help us to ease our shoppers through possible delays proactively.

Related to BOPIS Track - set a Pickup deadline date and use it as a Merge Tag on Notifications.   Ideally, set a date and time expiration date so the end consumer know when they need to pick up their order. If the end consumer doesn't pick up their package before the expiration date, then cancel the order, notify the client and possibly refund the end consumer.

What is the context  When using AfterShip Returns with the "Shop Now" / "exchange for anything" option that redirects customers to shop on the merchant's own store, customers can select any product available on the store as their exchange item. What issue do you want to address? There is currently no way to exclude specific products from being selectable as exchange items in this flow. The existing exclusion controls (the block list and excluding products from recommendations via product tags) only apply when AfterShip is recommending products or when "Exchange on AfterShip returns page" is selected. When customers shop directly on the merchant's own website via "Shop Now," these exclusions do not apply, so restricted products remain selectable. This allows customers to exchange low-value items for high-value products, resulting in margin loss and exchange abuse. The only current workaround, switching to "Exchange on AfterShip returns page," removes the on-store shopping experience the merchant wants to keep.   What outcome do you expect? The ability to exclude specific products from being eligible exchange items while still using the "Shop Now" flow where customers shop on the merchant's own website. Ideally the exclusion could be defined by SKU, in addition to collection or product tag, since some merchants do not have the relevant products grouped in a collection and may not have access to create collections in Shopify.   Who will benefit from your idea? Merchants using the "Shop Now" exchange flow who need to prevent certain products from being selected as exchange items, protecting their margins and preventing exchange abuse while preserving the branded on-site shopping experience during exchanges.

Compared to AfterShip Tracking, Returns currently lacks key customization capabilities: * No page segmentation (by market, country, store, customer type, etc.) * No way to associate a return with a specific store * No configurable notification flows based on return status or parameters The absence of these settings significantly limits customization for clients and prevents them from offering tailored return experiences. Suggestion: Introduce advanced configuration options similar to Tracking, including: * Segmented return pages based on defined parameters * Store-level return association and rules * Conditional notification flows triggered by return events and attributes These improvements would greatly enhance flexibility, customer experience, and alignment across the AfterShip product suite.

Could you please make a slight programming change, could you please allow swipping back to the main list of packages once you looked at a package info    iOs

As a loyal Aftership customer, I am extremely disappointed to learn that integrating a new carrier requires an additional fee—a neither transparent nor customer-friendly policy. Carrier expansion should be a standard improvement to Aftership’s platform, not an extra cost passed onto paying customers. Why This Needs to Change: Improving Aftership Should Be Your Priority, Not an Upsell Adding new carriers benefits all Aftership users. Expanding carrier integrations should be part of Aftership’s ongoing development efforts, not a hidden fee imposed on individual customers. Hidden Costs Undermine Customer Trust Nowhere in Aftership’s pricing model is it clearly stated that carrier integration comes with additional fees. This lack of transparency frustrates users and creates an unexpected financial burden. Loyal Customers Deserve Better Customers who have trusted Aftership for their business operations should not have to pay extra to access a fundamental feature like carrier support. Proposed Solution: Aftership should eliminate extra fees for new carrier integrations and invest in expanding its platform instead of charging individual users. This would be part of its commitment to improving service for all customers. Clear, upfront disclosure of costs should be required if Aftership maintains this fee structure. If Aftership truly values its customers, this change must ensure a fair, transparent, and customer-centric experience.

Currently, AfterShip's webhook outgoing IP list is only available on an HTML documentation page (https://www.aftership.com/docs/tracking/webhook/webhook-outgoing-ips). This makes it impossible to automate IP allowlist management in infrastructure-as-code (IaC) workflows.   Problem: Teams that use IP-based firewalls to secure their webhook endpoints must manually monitor the documentation page for any IP changes and update their firewall rules accordingly. If a change is missed, it can cause webhook delivery failures and broken integrations.   Request: Please publish the webhook outgoing IP list as a dedicated plain-text endpoint — similar to how Cloudflare publishes theirs at https://www.cloudflare.com/ips-v4 — where each IP is returned on a separate line.   This would allow teams to: * Fetch the IP list programmatically as part of their CI/CD or IaC pipelines * Keep firewall allowlists automatically in sync without manual intervention * Avoid service disruptions caused by missed IP changes This is a standard practice among major API providers and would significantly improve the developer experience for customers who manage network security programmatically.