Feature Requests

Sort by

• Newest Reply
• Newest Topic

We have rates for periods of time like "spring break" or "fall break" that occur every year but don't necessarily start on the same date.  We currently use spot rates for those but I'd rather be able to use recurring seasons and set the start and end time to relative dates like "second Saturday of the March"

Devin

No, that's a misunderstanding - Glamping Hub does not have an internal channel messaging system like Airbnb and Vrbo do.  OwnerRez communicates with Glamping guests in the same way as it does with direct-book guests - email and (perhaps) SMS texting.

Quick question on Glamping Hub: I just added my cabins to Glamping Hub.  I assume that I need to set up my templates and triggers for "channel" communication as opposed to "email" communication, similar to Airbnb.  Is that correct?  Thanks!  

I have a reminder to check every 2 months. Been checking for a year so far :)

Adding our support for this feature - PriceLabs has the ability to push this but OR has to be able to accept it. Sounds like it might be complicated but would love if this were available!

I would prefer to see the first feature introduced as soon as possible

Realistically, that won't happen, because that alone is not in demand by enough people, nor is it likely to be.  By combining what you define as the first two features (which I still view programmatically as being simply different aspects of the same feature, much more efficiently coded together), the feature request becomes more popular and therefore more likely to get on the schedule.  Even as it is, I don't anticipate that happening in the near term.

In my personal opinion, this functionality overall is a valuable and useful idea, so I'd like to see it available sooner than later.  It's just in competition with a great many other feature requests, internally and externally, that are also valuable and in-demand.

Sorry Ken, but I disagree with your contention about photos being swapped in and out of the active set being inherent to which ones get sent to a channel. In a global perspective it may be, and I understand why you say this, but that isn't the point.

1st Feature: Store and swap photos in and out of the active set, which appears on own site and gets sent to all channels.

2nd Feature: Have photos added to and removed from active set on a schedule.

3rd Feature: Have photos tagged by channel to control which 'set' or subset of the main currently active set gets sent to a particular channel.

The first is inherent within the second, and the third feature would inherently cover the first. BUT... combining them together, makes them (I suspect) a bigger project, and more difficult to do. And this being the case, the likelihood of the first feature NOT being introduced (being delayed or simply taking longer) because its been linked to also only being able to provide the 2nd or 3rd feature, becomes much more likely.

Personally, and I suspect for many other users as well, I would prefer to see the first feature introduced as soon as possible, without the second feature (and/or the third) holding it up because doing so has made it a much larger developmental chore. (This also means combining features which I also suspect are of less value to most users.)

I also think that as far as the forum and feature votes go, most users would't be looking to control which photos get sent to each channel (and thus wouldn't search for that) nearly as much as would simply want to be able to store and swap photos in and out of the main set. That being the case, you'll likely find yourself with additional feature request threads being started all over again.

The other requests are not all duplicates of this one... Baby steps.

"The more they over-tink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain." Scotty, Star Trek III

the ability to swap photos in and out of the active set is ALSO a different feature than being able to have it done automatically on a schedule.

Well, yes, those are indeed two separate features.

The ability to swap photos in and out of the active set, for each channel as well as for the website, is inherently part of this feature request, as I mentioned.

To have that done automatically on a schedule, is NOT part of this specific feature request - it's the other one I linked to.

I realize we're on the wrong thread for this part of the discussion, but the ability to swap photos in and out of the active set is ALSO a different feature than being able to have it done automatically on a schedule.

Swapping stored photos in and out of the active set (which I would only need to do manually) is one feature.

Having it done automatically according to a preset schedule is an additional feature that only becomes relevant once the swap feature is available.

I wouldn't want the scheduling facility to hold up introducing the ability to simply just swap photos in and out of the active set, hence my mentioning the distinction.

There are currently two related, but separate, feature requests active.

One is this one, which relates to assigning different photos to different channels.  To me, logically, this would also include the ability to assign a photo to no channels at all.

Then, there's this other one:

https://www.ownerrez.com/forums/requests/display-hide-gallery-photos-by-datemonthseason

Which relates specifically to a scheduling capability, allowing photos to be swapped in and out with the seasons.  I agree with you, that is a separate feature, and I've left it so.

For your purposes, you would want to vote up both of them.

This is NOT the same feature request.

Being able to send different photos to different channels (this thread) is a different facility than being able to upload additional photos and have the extra ones stored on OwnerRez, with some being active, and others not, and the ability to swap the stored ones in and out of the active set. As already explained, some photos may be seasonal, and used only at certain times (Christmas or WinterTime for example) of the year. They may go back up each year, and should not need to be resubmitted (along with the ones they replace).

It shouldn't be necessary to delete a photo to replace it with another one that has to be re-submitted, and vice versa to change it back, as seasons come and go during the year.

Deleting that feature request because this one exists makes no sense.

Or have I missed something?

[This topic has been closed as a duplicate of another topic (Display / Hide Gallery Photos by date/month/season)]

[Another topic was closed as a duplicate of this topic (Ability to schedule different descriptions or photos for posting)]

[This topic has been closed as a duplicate of another topic (Select which photos are sent to the difference channels and our own website.)]

[Another topic was closed as a duplicate of this topic (Disable Property Photos)]

[This topic has been closed as a duplicate of another topic (Select which photos are sent to the difference channels and our own website.)]

[Another topic was closed as a duplicate of this topic (Photo - Active/Hide)]

[This topic has been closed as a duplicate of another topic (Select which photos are sent to the difference channels and our own website.)]

[Another topic was closed as a duplicate of this topic (Property Photo Storage)]

[This topic has been closed as a duplicate of another topic (Select which photos are sent to the difference channels and our own website.)]

[Another topic was closed as a duplicate of this topic (Separate photo albums for Airbnb and VRBO)]

If we had the ability to handle photos like we do with descriptions -- overrides or some similar feature (tags? checkboxes?) it would be very useful.

For example: People seem to like lifestyle photos. They are very effective, but they are also, justifiably, against the Terms of Service or Content Policy of every major OTA for copyright and model permission reasons. But I use them in Social Media and I would like to have them on our own website. 

See screenshot of Streamline VRS software with the ability to select flexible dates when searching:

Can you please summarize the steps to take prior to re-enabling a property to ensure that it does not show up on the website (and available for booking)?

You cannot - see my previous response.  The change can only be made while the property is enabled.  But if you're quick about it, the likelihood of a spurious booking is minimal, and once you have made the setting, it will be remembered even if the property is disabled again, re-enabled, etc. going forward into the future.

Hi Ken, thanks for your reply. Can you please summarize the steps to take prior to re-enabling a property to ensure that it does not show up on the website (and available for booking)? Your previous message alluded to something that could be done in the Hosted Websites & Widgets area. To the extent I could do this before it's re-enabled, that would be great to ensure that I can do this all "in the background" without anything changing to anyone external to the business. Thank you.

I was shocked to discover that I don't automatically have access to all the data for the history of my account.  I would expect to have this.  I recently disabled a property that the owner decided to switch to a long term rental.  I assumed that I would always have easy access to all my data from the time I began using OwnerRez.

OwnerRez' Unified Inbox is a HUGE step forward!  A few things that would be very helpful to the inbox would be a few additional filters. 

Here are a few Unified Inbox Search Filter Suggestions:

By Property or Property Group:  (We have 30 properties and this would be very helpful for us)

Reservation Status:  Upcoming, Current, Past

Communication type:  Airbnb, Booking.com, VRBO, SMS, Email, etc.

Team Member:  Search by which team member was communicating with the guest.

Unified Inbox is such an incredible tool, and we are thrilled that it's here!  With some finesse to its impressive core structure, I have no doubt it'll become a second-to-none PMS Tool for OwnerRez users.

Here is the current Inbox Search Filter:

We need year end statements for owners tax purposes.  I have a friend with LODGIX and she can do a report, why cant we.  This is critical and as i read through the thread, it has been going on for awhile.  Why is there no priority in this?

Not sure what you're referring to, can you give a specific detailed example of a use case you have in mind?

filler