Mary Giraulo

My feedback

  1. 23 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Planned  ·  18 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Mary Giraulo commented  · 

    I'm not personally interested in a payment installment reminder email for most of our processes (I assume it could be turned on/off by process?) - but it might make sense to add this to the dashboard (a number for imminent/overdue payments, like submitted applications etc). Or to add a popup when entering Foundant that x payments are imminent/overdue, and a button in the Payment Tracker that brings up a list of imminent/past due payments. (The Payment Tracker currently only lets you search by start and end date, which I guess at, and then I have to sort by the paid column to find the ones that are due... I'd rather be able to pull the unpaid ones only.) Just a few ideas...

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Mary Giraulo commented  · 

    ...And... if an administrator wants to receive the "report is overdue" email, there's an easy workaround. Once the auto email is available for the applicant, you can just set the email template to BCC yourself. That way, you get the email at the same time that the applicant does.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Mary Giraulo commented  · 

    I would love to see an "overdue follow up" automatic email! Great idea. Some of our grantees need multiple pushes to get something done.

  2. 5 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    4 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Mary Giraulo commented  · 

    Big caveat: we have often worked outside of the evaluation system, due to the fact that scores and comments for some grant programs are finalized in a meeting and not entered into the system, so don't make any decisions just based on us!

    We don't want evaluators to see the whole application - to save them time and avoid confusion - so for now, we're sticking with merge templates to customize what they're able to see (we send a folder of PDFs to the evaluators via Dropbox). I was excited about the possibilities for in-line evaluation with the new ability to add application elements, until I realized that documents were not included... I feel like allowing questions to be added and not documents is only going halfway, since it still makes the panelist go hunt for the rest of the information. The PDF side by side with evaluation form would work well for us IF the PDF was a merge template, not the full application.

    I would restrict the evaluator's view even more. In the list of evaluations accessed from the dashboard, I would rather give the evaluators just a link to the PDF of the application (merge template) and a link to the evaluation form (with side by side view, this could be just one link) - removing the link to the organization summary, and removing the link to the request summary. I wonder if other Foundant users find those summary links useful for their evaluators? I think the extra links invite confusion.

  3. 60 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    17 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Mariah,

    Thank you for weighing in on the other side of this suggestions.
    Do you want to control adding people OR if there was an email to the site administrator when a change was made would this be helpful in your situation?

    thanks
    sammie

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Mary Giraulo commented  · 

    So, now that applicants can correct their organization information (thank you Foundant!), there is one other item that applicants contact us about - in the same vein - correcting the primary contact selection. This is probably a different story technologically since it's a radio button selection and in a separate place than the organization info... but it would be nice if applicants could change this as well, causing an email update to come to administrators. To be turned on/off by foundation, of course.

  4. 5 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Under Consideration  ·  9 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Mary Giraulo commented  · 

    Reviewing one of our biggest grant programs this month... wondering if there's been any more thought about this? We will be spending a LOT of time in the next few weeks downloading documents one by one, saving to our computers and printing them... so that we can have a stack of all the budgets, all the request calculation forms, all the statistics forms, and so on. And also so that we can edit them in their original formats as needed. I have a corollary idea that I will post elsewhere (here)...

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Mary Giraulo commented  · 

    Rather than a batch print packet - which would pull ALL the attachments - I would prefer to be able to download a packet of one type of attachment for all the requests selected. Budgets are a perfect example. I like to review all the budgets together so that I can remember all my checkpoints, and backtrack if I realize I've been missing something. As for the size of the document being a problem, the software could include a warning message that you recommend only downloading x number of documents at a time... the max I would be downloading at a time is around 50 1-3 page docs, but I would be happy to do it in smaller batches (maybe 20 at a time?). This would be a GREAT help to us.

  5. 24 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    8 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Mary Giraulo commented  · 

    Agreed... Similarly, "Un-Select All" would be helpful. :)

  6. 30 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    7 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Mary Giraulo commented  · 

    I can imagine this will be different for every funder. We would prefer to have the print packet (and merges, for that matter) default to the name of the organization, not the applicant or project name. In our programs, each organization can only apply once per year, and we save files with the organization's name and put them in the same folder. But... again, I'm sure everyone has a different preference. If needed, we will just keep renaming our files.

  7. 13 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    9 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Mary Giraulo commented  · 

    Where: in "Search Requests & Decisions," as a link at the bottom (like Quick Export)? Or in Export Data, as a column that could be selected? I would suggest in the GuideStar link on the left sidebar, but that doesn't seem to have a way to search by process, and brings up organizations that aren't in our system.

    What: I know I would want the organization name (from our Foundant record, not Guidestar). I think in addition to that I would just want the date the check was generated and whether the verdict came back with the two logos. I am not sure how others use the extra data (dates of each IRS publication) - I just look for the checkmark.

  8. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    8 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Mary Giraulo commented  · 

    On the other hand... looks like mebibytes are bigger than megabytes, which is a good thing, because we already have applicants unable to upload files that should be small enough... so I agree, change the naming only to MB.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Mary Giraulo commented  · 

    Oh my! I was not even aware that it was a different measurement - I thought it was an (annoying but harmless) typo. Now I know why applicants complain that they are trying to upload 3MB documents to a 3MB file upload and can't... WHY is it MiB? Can this be changed (truly changed, not just named) to MB? I can't imagine that any of our applicants even know what a mebibyte is, much less how to determine what size their documents are. It's so strange to have this be the measurement on the software.

  9. 66 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Under Consideration  ·  23 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Mary Giraulo commented  · 

    I would think the flag could be a single red exclamation point, to save the most space. I'd actually be more likely to want to flag an installment than an organization. I type conditional payment comments in the decision comments and the request comments, but that's not a guarantee that other staff reviewing a follow-up/"payment request" will see my note. Hey... what about adding comments to an installment?

  10. 6 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    6 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Mary Giraulo commented  · 

    Forgot to mention why the question list PDF link is important - a query from one of our grantees just reminded me - grant writer Dan wants to see the narrative pieces and finance director Dana wants to see the financial requirements in the same report. I can't assign the report to both people but both really do need at least a read-only view of the follow-up.

    Mary Giraulo shared this idea  · 
  11. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Mary Giraulo commented  · 

    Applicants should not be able to edit the name fields. When staff leave an organization, they tend to pass on their username and password, and new staff go in and change the name. This means we have no consistent record of who submitted the application. If they couldn't edit the name fields, it would force them to contact us for help, and we could direct them in the process of creating a new account (after which we would transfer reports to the new account).

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Mary Giraulo commented  · 

    Background: Applicants currently have edit capabilities on their own profile information. This works great for phone, address, etc.

    Problem: Some are editing the name and email to be someone else, so that it's no longer obvious who submitted past applications. I would prefer that they not be able to edit the name, at the very least, and email ideally. But I'm not sure if you are able to restrict edit permissions for part of the profile and not the rest.

    It's particularly bothersome when the person changing the applicant info already has their own account, for the SAME email address, and just doesn't know their password because they haven't bothered to press "forgot my password."

  12. 21 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    16 comments  ·  GLM & SLM Idea Lab  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Mary Giraulo commented  · 

    Wonderful, thanks!

Feedback and Knowledge Base