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.

Is it possible to increase the bulk search limit from 50? We often have to peform bulk search a number of times to retrieve the data that we're looking. 

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

The vendor/supplier's email should be copied when sending any type of response to the customer regarding a return.  This includes the RMA confirmation of return, tracking label and when it is received, refunded and resolved.   We/supplier are getting chargebacks through Shopify from customers stating that their returns are not refunded in a timely manner and we have no way to get the email to show that it was processed in Aftership and to dispute a chargeback with shopify.   We have no copies sent to us.   Please fix this issue in Aftership/Shopify immediately.  Thank you. 

Would be a great feature if there was a link to the returns status page within the returns dashboard.   And if this link can be easily copied so we can share to the end consumer if they call through the contact center/help, then our agents can quickly copy the link and then email/share to the end consumer

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.

I would like to include the RMA number barcode on the returns label. This way, upon receiving the returns label at my warehouse, I can simply scan the barcode to retrieve the RMA number. Subsequently, I can use this number to efficiently locate the corresponding RMA information within the returns system. This process will significantly enhance the operational efficiency of our RMA procedures.

I am utilizing Smile to develop the Reward program for our business. This year, I aim to motivate members to increase their reviews by integrating Reviews into the reward system as bonus incentives. This will allow our members to accumulate extra points by sharing feedback for their purchases.

Would you be able to: 1. Add a functionality that restricts order views based on a ship from location or/or login? We have multiple ship from locations and we are 100% manula orders; it creates confusion when one warehouse sees orders from another warehouse.  2. Have a ship to address book and have that be varied based on ship from locations. We have set ship to locations and it doesnt change often.