Can you share a list of our competitors where Multiple Entity Views exist and are part of basic plan?
I donât know any competitor that offers the exact same functionality as Fibery myself.
But almost all competitors offers a way to split an entity view in tabs, that results in âmultiple views for an entityâ to avoid information overload on an a page.
That can currently only be achieved via a pro account. Which is hard to explain to the clients that I onboard.
3 Likes
I am not sure this is correct. Do you have any examples?
1 Like
I think that you are right that itâs not on entity level. In Notion and Clickup the tab functionality is on view level.
I also made tabs in Notion per client. By creating a page and create different views on that page. So that I had one tab with tasks, one with appointments, etc. But that worked based on manual filters.
So itâs not the same as the entity views in Fibery. But itâs still very handy for a user since it avoids complete information overwhelm.
The way multiple entity views currently work, are not that handy if you want them to use as âtabsâ in my opinion. Since you canât see at glance which views there are.
Especially when no competitors offer this functionality, this can be another real strong USP of Fibery.
In my dream world âtab functionalityâ belongs to a basic plan. And all other cool stuff like access management en conditional logic for showing entity views based on fields belong to pro.
Just my two cents.
And listing meaningless SaaS âcertificationsâ isnât posturing? 
Weâre all fans of Fibery and want it to succeed and grow, so I would want to absolutely encourage more posts and feedback from anyone, as long as theyâre respectful and constructive. If you feel that this topic crosses that line then youâre free to say that, but lets not discourage conversation on legitimate concerns.
As @YvetteLans has mentioned, the issue is less about how the feature exactly functions and more about the solution the feature is designed to solve.
Helping users focus and be less confused/overwhelmed by information that isnât relevant to them is the goal of this feature, no?
Most similar tools offer that functionality in some form- whether it be via customized layouts on a single screen (like Jira and now Fibery) or via tabs/pages (like ClickUp/Monday/Notion/etc) -without the need of a high subscription tier, because itâs essential functionality of every planning/execution tool used by a team of more than 1.
If the custom layout was applied automatically based on a user/team role or some other complex logic, I could understand it being locked behind a bigger plan, but as it is now it feels like it should be core functionality to everyone.
Ultimately, if it was mentioned during development that it would be a premium feature (and maybe it was but I just missed it), instead of being launched as a premium feature after many of us had been looking forward to it and had discussed with our teams, it would be essentially a non issue.
Iâm trying to help Fibery avoid the same issues that ClickUp historically has had when communicating with their community, which is one of the primary reasons we dropped them.
The âthe feature youâve been asking for and weâve been hyping for months is finally here!â with the fine print of âoh by the way you canât have it without increasing your subscription by 66%â really sucks.
2 Likes
Stats
- Fibery has been struggeling to adopt new users.
- This top feature (entity views) apparently is the most wanted (7.9K Views, top of views âAll Timeâ)
- So it would be a very smart move for the Fibery strategy team to not only keep the entity views feature free, but also promote it at the top of their front page of the Fibery.io website as the most significant and game changing feature (next to highlights).
As a side note: At this point in the way Entity Views is implemented is very limited and I donât use it at all because it cannot be changed using automations, which of course is the whole benefit it would give eventually. I understand this is intentional to have progressive development of the feature based on use case feedback. So I think its important for us users to keep on sharing these use cases.
1 Like
The functionality proposed by Fibery is very useful for splitting an entity with many fields into lighter views, as mentioned. However, in my opinion, the most important feature in the realm of knowledge management is the ability to transition from a general entity to multiple specific entities. For example, the entity [information source] can be divided into several views: [book], [website], [magazine], [video], each with its specific fields. In database theory, through generalization, one can also proceed in the opposite direction, obtaining the more general entity from specific entities. This latter activity cannot currently be performed in Fibery (though I have read that it may be possible in the future), but the first one, transitioning from general entities to specific ones, is now achievable with multiple views. This is a significant step forward. I observe, however, that other competing systems achieve the same result with templates, such as Anytype and Entities. For instance, one defines the entity [information source] and specifies it with templates [book], [website], etc. However, templates are not dynamic; I cannot change the template dynamically in Anytype as I can with multiple views in Fibery. I acknowledge this distinction, but for my objectives, essentially, the two functions are equivalent. My suggestion is to make this important function available in the basic version.
1 Like
I totally understand what you mean, but if you check Fibery Pro you will not find many features here. Fibery always tended to add most features into Standard (cheapest) plan, and now we feel some correction is needed.
However, I donât think we ever come close to ClickUp monetization schemes.
I think this is the root of the problem for Multiple Entity Views in Pro plan.
We considered this as a unique feature that no competitors have (Coda is an exception). Since indeed no tools allow you to create several views of a single entity.
So we considered that it will be helpful in some scenarios where an entity is large with dozens of fields, etc.
You frame this problem differently, like there is no enough ways to manage Entity View complexity. I think we provided almost all the tools with maybe one exception - group fields into collapsible groups (or tabs, it is a similar mechanism). Note that Tab is not a new Entity View, it is just a subset of fields.
So do you think Tabs/Groups will solve the problem? @YvetteLans @interr0bangr @DiegoKamp
1 Like
@mdubakov First of all: thank you for listening and opening this discussion!
I think it solves it, if I understood you correctly.
The main things we want to achieve
- Avoid really long pages (also because of performance â some pages do need some time to load)
- Structure information (so on a contact page one tab/group for contact data, one for company data, one for orders/offers, one for tasks/projects/appointments etc.)
- Only show relevant information (some marketing channels do need content items, some donât; if we put content items in a different tab then itâs not odd because they will only go there if itâs applicable)
For the above situations, I think groups/tabs would solve it.
To optimize UI I think that:
- A user need to be able to switch between groups/tabs easily
- A user need to see all tabs at once (so they can distinguish which information they can find in a group/tab)
What can be a real nice feature (only part of pro?)
- Make some tabs conditionally based on fields/filters (i.e. âonly when a contact has a company, show company tabâ / âonly when marketing channel is also a content channel, show content tabâ)
- Permissions/access rights per tab (i.e. some user can see financial information, other donât) â maybe you can also achieve âpermission per fieldâ (although that can be a tough one)
Agree. A lot of the clients that we will onboard do have some sort of âmultiple entity viewsâ in the tools they currently use (like I used to have in Notion). But with a lot of manual filters, copying templates etc.
Thatâs okay if you work with 15-20 clients at the same time (like I used to with my first company) but not when you have hundreds of contacts. Then Fiberyâs context/relation views are a real USP.
1 Like
Yeah, I think expandable/collapsible field groups would be very helpful!
The reason of clutter and confusion as far as I hear myself and others, is seeing empty fields, which I donât want to see. I hope that if expandable/collapsible fields groups or tabs are implemented, this is taken care of, its my number one pain with the entity view.
You can choose to hide fields when empty. Does this not help?
I see you can hide fields in the sidebar and pinned fields when empty, but not the collection fields in the main body of the entity view, which is visually most important to keep clear.
Hello I discover this announcement coming back from holidays.
I think this is a logical evolution of Fibery that we waited for some times.
What I canât understand is the decision to restrict it to the âpro planâ.
To my mind, this is a core feature of what Fibery do really well : the ability to display the same data in different ways to allow for different people or context to collaborate.
The way you do it for collections with tables, lists, calendars and particularly with named views of related collections is very advanced and way ahead of competitors.
From the begining, I tought it was the DNA of Fibery. So I was quite shocked to learn that this extension to the entity views was restricted to pro plans.
I can afford a pro plan for this feature, this is not the problem. But I would like to understand the motivations behind this decision : it is a technical one, a marketing one, a financial one ?
For what I understood up until now, the pro plan, was dedicated to big teams with advanced needs in term of security and access management. But now, I understand it is becoming the basic plan with higher pricing⌠or am I wrong ?
Thanks for your clarification on this and the futur of the different plans
2 Likes
I agree that the multi-entity view in the pro plan was a non-starter - I didnât even look too closely at it when I saw that. And I donât agree with this:
The feature of restricting the viewable history has almost made my team depart Fibery:
Itâs another thing that I think should be standard and costs 66% more, and Iâm not the only one expressing this opinion:
Disturbing to see this trend of adding key features to the pro planâŚand in case you want to remind me again that you intended to limit activity log to 90 days 3 years ago, that doesnât change the fact that you didnât charge for it until recently.
So count me among those very disappointed to see a big release move into the pro plan - makes me wonder what else will wind up there.
Thatâs a rather selective choice of post to quote, given that when the functionality of version history was explained, @Simon_JB followed up by writing
1 Like
Not exactly Chris, because if you look at his last statement:
the way I read that is he is glad he has full access to docs/entities, but earlier he talks about other aspects of lack of history:
Another example is in my own case, Initiatives that last more than 3 months. This is typical if ou track OKRâs, etc - they are often quarterly or bi-annually. But you canât see past 90 days the specifics of what happened now unless you got a pro plan where ALL the users are charged for something this is probably essentially to a few manager types that might be on a teamâŚ
And Iâll add that itâs really interesting that in spite of your guysâ supposed âencouragementâ of unfiltered feedback, you have put a target on my back to make a distinct effort to prove me wrong just about every time I post something these days. Iâm pretty much brace myself to get somebody from the team jumping in after my posts to say how wrong I am. Really disappointing given how much Iâve tried to support you guys for years - I have been here longer than you! Would it kill you to acknowledge the full context of my post, that I am making a comment that others are echoing that some features that I think are key are now finding their way into the higher tier plan, and thatâs disappointing?
In fact let me add that I took some time to point out that recently when you closed out the ability to link to comments here:
And I asked for clarification because it seems clear that you canât actually link to comments, I got no response from anybody on the Fibery team. Seems you donât want to spend time responding to that type of feedback. Yet if I jump in to make what you perceive a critical comment, there is no hesitation to come in and disprove what I am saying, and in fact state nothing more! As I just mentioned, no greater context - just prove me wrong! This has happened multiple times for months, or longer evenâŚ
And Iâm sure youâre going to refute me again now, instead of - as I actually thought you guys genuinely encouraged once upon a time - accepting this âunfilteredâ feedback and responding to it in good faith.
Cheers.
We listen to all the comments, but we donât have to agree with all the comments.
I personally think that some points about Entity Views in Pro are valid and I am thinking how to make it better. On the other side, I disagree that 90 days of history limitation is bad. For example, ClickUp has 7 days of activity, and Notion has 30 days.
Some things (not many) will be moved to Pro plan in near future as well, we are thinking about Two-Ways sync, HubSpot sync, Database Size (for example, now we have accounts with 1M records in a single database in Standard plan, it is not viable longterm), some security things.
3 Likes