Skip to main content

Filter by idea status

Filter by product

2558 Ideas

DavidSpector
DavidSpectorEmployee

Improve the functionality of manual order addressingNew

Currently, existing name/address blocks of text cannot simply be pasted into a manual order (as they could, for example, in the DAZzle app of Endicia, now long gone).They cannot simply be pasted because ShipStation (ss) insists on parsing them into separate fields. If ss simply added another name/address block input field, all the problems would be solved by simply sending the block as-is to the shipping provider.It is impossible to list all the problems with the current input field, but some are as follows:International addresses are not actively rejected, but often difficult manual intervention is needed to fit a UK or Canadian or Hong Kong addressing scheme into fields meant only for U.S. addressing: address, city, state, zip code. It is ridiculous that a shipping product has a policy of not providing any way to enter international addresses properly, without meddling. Sometimes the name is parsed into the name field correctly, sometimes into the Company field. This choice seems random. An internal handling code appended to the end of the name often disappears or is moved to another field. No provision is made to accept internal handling codes. We pack different contents according to the code we provide in the name/address block. Once in a long while, no manual intervention is needed to correct ss’s meddling. Addressing is done perfectly. This is occasion for great celebration in our office. Our parties at these times are memorable.

delslp
delslpEmployee

Digital Products Are Omitted From ShipStation Orders, Causing Inaccurate Order Totals and DocumentsUnder Review

Currently, products identified by the ecommerce platform as digital products are not synced to ShipStation as line items.While I understand that digital products do not require physical shipment, excluding them entirely from the ShipStation order creates a significant data-integrity problem.When an order contains both physical and digital/non-shippable products:The digital products do not appear in the ShipStation order details. The order total displayed in ShipStation does not reflect the customer's actual order total. Packing slips and other ShipStation-generated documents do not show all products the customer purchased. Documents generated from ShipStation can therefore contain incomplete itemization and totals that do not match the originating ecommerce order. Other applications and automations that rely on ShipStation order data also receive incomplete or inaccurate information.There is an important difference between not requiring shipment of a product and removing that product from the order record entirely.Ideally, digital/non-shippable products should still sync to ShipStation and remain visible as order line items, while simply being identified as non-shippable or excluded from shipping calculations.I have discussed this issue extensively with ShipStation Support and was advised that customers need to submit this as a feature request. Support also suggested manually monitoring incoming orders for digital products and then manually editing each affected ShipStation order to add the missing items and correct the order total.For businesses processing a significant volume of orders, this is not a practical or scalable workaround. It would require staff to compare ShipStation orders against the originating ecommerce orders simply to verify that the imported data is accurate, and then manually correct any discrepancies. In addition to the administrative burden, this introduces another opportunity for human error. One of the primary purposes of an ecommerce integration is to eliminate this type of manual reconciliation.Customers should not have to manually verify and reconstruct imported orders in order for ShipStation's order records and documents to match the ecommerce transaction.I believe this goes beyond simply adding support for digital products. When ShipStation imports an ecommerce order, the resulting order record should accurately represent the transaction that occurred in the ecommerce platform. A customer purchasing four products should not appear in ShipStation as having purchased only three simply because one product does not require physical fulfillment.Please consider allowing all order line items to sync to ShipStation, including digital/non-shippable products, while separately identifying which items require fulfillment. This would preserve accurate order totals, customer-facing documents, reporting, and downstream integrations without requiring digital products to be treated as shippable items.

LukasB
LukasBEmployee

Insurance automation based on “Amount Paid” instead of “Order Total”Under Review

Hello ShipStation team,We would like to request a new automation option for insurance value calculation.🚨 Current limitationAt the moment, ShipStation insurance automation only allows:“Automatically insure all shipments” Insurance value is calculated based on Order Total (pre-discounts / system total) There is no automation option to use Amount Paid as the insured valueThis creates inconsistencies across multi-channel orders.⚠️ Problem we are facingWe sell across multiple platforms (WooCommerce, Amazon, Walmart, TikTok Shop), and we rely on accurate insurance based on the actual amount paid by the customer.However:Order Total ≠ Amount Paid (due to discounts, promos, taxes, partial adjustments) Manual edits are currently required to correct insured values Automation is not reliable or consistent across channels Some orders appear correct only after manual adjustment, which is not scalable🎯 Desired functionalityWe would like ShipStation to support:✔ Insurance automation based on Amount Paid✔ Option to select insurance calculation source:Order Total Amount Paid Item Subtotal Custom field (advanced/API if available)✔ Consistent behavior across all sales channels and marketplaces📌 Why this mattersFor high-volume multi-channel sellers, using Order Total can lead to:Over-insurance (extra unnecessary cost) Under-insurance (financial risk in claims) Manual corrections that do not scale Inconsistent insurance logic across ordersA simple field selector would fully solve this.🙏 RequestPlease consider adding “Amount Paid” as an available field for insurance automation rules, or exposing this via API/advanced configuration.This would significantly improve accuracy and automation reliability for multi-channel merchants.Thank you.