Mia Tamm _Simpleasyty_ Atlassian Partner

Great question @Mark Pliacnik and yes, this is exactly the kind of edge case we need to be careful about. The principle we're following is that marking a field as Incognito shouldn't just hide it in the original table. A reader who isn't allowed to receive that value shouldn't be able to recover it indirectly through…

Hi @Matthias Gaiser (K15t) +1 for this. Search alerts were one of the most useful ways to follow the Community. Following a whole forum creates a lot of noise, while following specific keywords or phrases makes it much easier to find conversations where you can actually contribute. It would be great to see this come back,…

Hi @Monique van den Berg, I’m seeing the same issue while preparing a Partner Article in App Central. I followed the workaround above and hosted the image publicly on our own website. I then tried both copying the image directly from the webpage and inserting the public image URL, but I still get “Permission Problem”. So…

Really like the shift towards rewarding helpful contributions, not just activity. The new tracks are a nice touch too, especially Product Expert and Thought Leader. It feels like there are now different ways to contribute meaningfully to the Community rather than everyone following the same path. Looking forward to seeing…

Congrats to the whole Community team on the launch! 👏 Lots to explore — the new editor and following tags already look like very welcome improvements. Time to find our way around the new home. See you in the discussions! 🚀

@Chris Rainey thanks for pointing @Jose Paz toward Marketplace options — one more that may be worth adding to the list is Simple Tables. It can use the native Confluence table as the source, and for longer tables you can paginate the result and choose how many rows to show at a time. If the table has a date column, users…

Thanks @Ricardo. Probably easiest to keep it through Simpleasyty rather than posting anything private here. If the beta requires an email invitation, you can send it to our shared contact/support address and just mention Mia + this Community thread. I’ll pick it up from there

Good catch — the 404 changes the order of operations quite a bit. Testing same-site vs cross-site first makes much more sense here. Thanks for the refinement, @Sami Shaik.

Yes, I’d be happy to take a look. The part I’d be most interested in testing is exactly what you mention: whether the surfaced conflicts feel genuinely useful or whether the noise starts creeping in once you move beyond test data. If you send me access to the private beta, I can give you feedback from that angle.

Hi @Takemaru Hirai glad that was it — and thanks for coming back with the root cause. The “1 article” counter still being stale is a useful detail too; that could easily send someone debugging in the wrong direction. Nice catch on the Japanese index setting.

Hi @Ujjavala Singh false positives would make or break this for me. I’d separate “duplicate” from “contradiction” pretty aggressively — two pages covering the same topic can be completely intentional; two pages giving opposite deployment steps is a different story. I’d also want the reviewer’s decision to stick somehow. If…

Since normal portal search can see all four articles, I’d separate KB visibility from AI Answers indexing. I’d compare the one article that gets indexed with the other three — restrictions, page status, language, anything unusual at page level. If they’re genuinely identical from an access point of view, the “1 article”…

This is super helpful, thanks @Sami Shaik, especially the data security policy angle. That gives Carol a much cleaner way to isolate whether the failure is permissions, site context or Rovo access itself.

Yes @Ben Spillane that’s the bit I keep coming back to: once AI starts acting, “probably true” isn’t good enough anymore. I also like your point about not inventing a new structure if the field already exists. The hard part may be less about creating metadata and more about making sure the agent knows which data is…

From what I’ve seen, discovery is usually the harder part. Once two conflicting pages are put in front of the right person, deciding which one is authoritative is often manageable. The real problem is that nobody knows the conflict exists until someone stumbles across it. Your prototype sounds useful because it attacks…

I wouldn’t necessarily enforce Page Properties on every page. That can get heavy pretty quickly. I’d probably define a small set of metadata only for content that actually has a lifecycle — things like record type, owner, review date and maybe status — and leave the rest alone. Your idea of classifying pages first makes…

That NZ date example is painful 😅 Out of curiosity, is the goal here really “use a Confluence Database”, or simply “keep this dataset in Confluence and let people filter/view it”? Those lead to quite different options.

Hi @Uta Samaga I’d probably avoid editing the Page Properties table itself via API if you can. It works, but it makes the page content the database. Status, last editor, review date, owner… these are the sort of values I’d rather keep as actual page-level data and just render them where needed.

Moving from outside the top 100 to #22 and getting zero installs is probably the most useful number in the whole post 😄 I’d be really curious to see the six-week follow-up. At that point you should have a much better signal on whether the bottleneck is the listing itself or simply search intent.

Hey @Steinar Line - Kantega SSO the bit I’d watch is what happens after verification. A credential can be valid when an approval happens and expire or get revoked later. For audit purposes you probably need to preserve what was verified, when, and against which issuer — not just whatever the current state happens to be.

Hi @Carol Pretorius interesting that Rovo can resolve the linked Confluence page but fails only when it tries to read the content. I’d test the same page directly from Rovo in Confluence, then repeat with a brand-new unrestricted page in the same space. If both work directly but fail only when Rovo follows the Jira →…

Hi @Maria Reisinger _MetaFrazo_ the distinction between capture and analysis is spot on. I think the same applies to metadata itself. If owner, classification, review date or approval state matters for audit, storing only the current value isn’t really enough. You also need to know who changed it, when, and ideally under…

Hi @Kama Kosznik interesting one. I’d separate policy from execution: retention and mandatory review rules can be centrally governed, while space teams own local cadence and exceptions. One thing I’d be cautious about is using a label like needs-review as the source of truth. Once review status drives automation or…

Hey @Sophia Do nice direction. I think this could become particularly powerful in Confluence once flows can be driven by structured page context. For example: “when a policy reaches its review date and still has no owner, flag it for review” is simple to describe in natural language, but depends on having reliable…

hi @Ben Spillane I really like the distinction between prompt and system state here. I suspect the same principle will eventually extend beyond status. Things like ownership, classification, review state or expiry date can also represent authoritative context that an agent shouldn’t infer from the page text. The more…

Exactly @Finn Witzenhausen. I think the “soft boundaries” part is especially interesting. Not every action needs a simple allow/deny rule. In some cases, teams may want AI to read everything but only modify content that meets certain conditions — for example based on space, content type, ownership or classification. That…

Exactly @Akankshya_M _Amoeboids_. I think the next step is making that context not only structured, but also trustworthy over time. Things like ownership, review dates, status, source and audit history can make a huge difference once AI starts relying on the data for decisions, not just summaries. Otherwise, even…

Hi @Finn Witzenhausen this feels like it will become increasingly important as agents move from answering questions to actually changing company data. “Can read but cannot modify this area” is a pretty fundamental governance boundary. I’d expect teams to eventually need this not only per space, but potentially per content…

Hi @Ankit Gupta I think the key question here is whether those 150 rows should really continue being treated as page content. If every row represents an independent requirement that later needs automation, status and a Jira work item, modelling each row as structured data would probably make the workflow much more reliable…

Hi @Christopher_Collins One distinction I’d make here is between metadata used for navigation and metadata used for governance. Labels are great for classification, but if knowing who changed a value and when matters, that value is effectively becoming auditable data. At that point I’d be cautious about relying on labels…