Share your ideas with us

Brand noted they’d like to be able to clearly communicate why certain Products are on the Blocklist - instead of the general text we have in place, without specifically making the customer review the Policy as a whole. Asking if we could define the error at the Blocklist Product Tag entry level. If the value is left blank, use default content.   Current state: After end consumer logs in with Order, non returnable items are greyed and out and we show at the line level a message that states "Does not comply with our return policy."   Desired State: After end consumer logs in with Order, non returnable items are greyed and out and we show at the line level a message from a configurable setting within RC where we can pass SKU or Product Category specific messages that state why an item is nt returnable like "Digital Goods are not returnable" or "Bundled Item cannot be returned" or "Last years models are not returnable but warranty available".   We'd like to be able to configure our own blocklist message for order item display when the end consumer logs into RC.

Currently it's possible to view returns analytics only per 1 store at a time. It would be great to be able to select multiple stores and have a consolidated view on returns. 

Hi AfterShip Community, Context: I run a small Shopify store (~50 orders/month) using AfterShip’s free plan to track shipments (USPS, UPS). While the free plan offers basic tracking (Web:10), there’s no way to analyze tracking page performance (e.g., visitor clicks, engagement) without upgrading to premium plans, which can be costly for small businesses (Web:18). Issue: Small merchants lack access to basic analytics on the free plan to understand how customers interact with tracking pages, limiting optimization efforts. Outcome: I propose a lightweight analytics dashboard in the free plan, showing metrics like tracking page visits and click-through rates (e.g., to return portals). This would help optimize post-purchase experiences without needing a paid plan. Beneficiaries: Small e-commerce businesses, startups, and solo entrepreneurs using the free plan would gain insights to improve customer engagement and retention. What do you think? Any similar needs or suggestions to refine this idea?

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.

I'd like to log an enhancement request for the Tracking page editor. Currently the section where we add social media connectors is limited in connection options. Specifically for Instagram (which is a really cool feature) the only way to connect is using our own credentials (user name/password login). This is an unacceptable option as it exposes us to being hacked and is a security concern obviously. The better way to do this is via Instagram's API connection: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/instagram-platform. Can you please log that as a high priority enhancement request? Should we decided to stay with AfterShip, this will be a critical branding requirement.

I hope to insert a form in the email, allowing customers to fill out the form directly within the email.   For example, if there are some events or new product launches, I would like to invite users to participate and collect information on whether they are interested or not.

I see that Aftership is already having public api end points available for tracking and returns. i would like to have similar one for reviews.

When I receive tracking from suppliers, I add manually to AfterShip.  Usually there's more than 1 tracking number, for the same courier, so it would be great to able to add multiple tracking numbers at the same time as comma separated.   When clicking Save, it would then use all the information entered, for example; Customer name, order number etc etc.   Below example for tracking number 123456789 and 987654321  

the only customization allowed is subject line and preview text for the reminder email, can't change the body copy of the reminder email.    benefit would be to add a secondary reminder of receiving loyalty points/an incentivization 

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.