How can we make Microsoft Teams better?

Search Public and Private Teams

Users report its very difficult for their peers to find a team that they have created. This hinders their ability to increase team membership.

---

Other users report its frustrating that they can't just search ALL the teams at their organization -- that only a small fraction are surfaced to them in their "Suggested" view.

---

The capability to view Public Teams when you click on "Create Team" is great.

HOWEVER... it would be a better user experience if there was a prominent button or link called "Search for Teams".

Teams needs this discovery capability to avoid the duplication of Team areas for large organisations.

Further to this it would be advantageous to list not only public Teams but also private Teams.

388 votes
Sign in
(thinking…)
Sign in with: Facebook Google
Signed in as (Sign out)

We’ll send you updates on this idea

Simon shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
working on it  ·  Warren responded  · 

Unfortunately we hit some snags and this has moved back to “working on it”. The team is working to make some corrections and I hope to have a release date in the near future. I’ll keep you posted with what I hear.
-Warren

64 comments

Sign in
(thinking…)
Sign in with: Facebook Google
Signed in as (Sign out)
Submitting...
  • Stace Hamilton commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    The ability to list public teams to join in a directory format would be beneficial to our new hires who have no idea what is available to them.

  • James commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    "Users can opt to search for the team directly using the search bar on the top right by using typing in the exact name of the Public Team.”"
    Why do we have to type the exact name? It's as if Google or Bing would tell us that we need to type in exact strings to find anything. I'm so confused as to why search is still so deficient. I hear daily from people who complain that they can't find a certain public team or create a duplicate team because they have no way to find out if that team already exists.

  • Loren Clevenger commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    This is by far the largest pain of the product. Not allowing partial matches makes it totally unusable to find teams. You literally have to know the team name to find it

  • Jamey Steinmann commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    This would be great to have and for those orgs that don't want it, I think a global toggle in the admin dashboard and an override on the team/365 group level would be the perfect compromise for it.

  • Adam Duggan commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Our users can't find teams to join - even when they are public! This is a critical feature for driving adoption.

    And as others have pointed out, the teams search should be intelligent, not requiring an (almost) exact string match.

  • Francis Laurin commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Same question: I tested it on my tenant today and still can't find private Teams. Found somewhere it was postponed because of feedback (fear to discover really private Teams with suggestive title): https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/Microsoft-Teams/Private-Microsoft-Teams-will-shortly-be-discoverable-in-Search/m-p/177495/highlight/true#M12728
    At the same time, every Team is discoverable via the Office Group "discover" feature in Outlook Online, so no Team is safe... :-S

  • Paul Day commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Currently, its only works with an exact prefix which is crazy! It should search words, partial words in the name plus ... the content too please.

  • Todd M commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    There definitely needs to be some better way to find public teams. ‘Add a team’ is not the same as ‘find a team’ in my mind. Very different tasks. Add a find team or ‘view all teams’ button that shows all public ie published teams. Boom, done. User adoption way up.

  • Wes commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Joining this thread hoping to be emailed when an improvement is released. I see very light adoption, in large part to the inability to find public teams.

  • James commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    This is arguably the worst feature of Teams. The whole point of public teams is to get people to discover them and then join if they'd like. One should be able to browse all teams easily and then filter by keyword. The proposed solution will not solve this at all, so very disappointed!

  • DCorbett commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    This is absurd. I just signed my company up to this and now we have this ridiculous setup where you can't see all the public teams unless you know the name of them in advance. So multiple teams with identical purpose are being created. Fix.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    If the invite link is the "answer" to this, you are definitely not listening to what everyone is saying. To drive adoption, we want people to find the Team, request access vs. having to invite someone. This is the methodology used in many public Group scenarios (facebook, LinkedIn, etc) - maybe the core code could be borrowed from LinkedIn to accelerate availability

  • Sami A. commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Have you considered having two sections within the "Add Team" section: "Suggested teams" at the top, which filters out what Exchange thinks would be most relevant to the user searching for a team, and then "All organization teams" below, with filters available like "Public", "Private", as well as "Sort by" features so team titles can be listed in ascending alphabetical or descending alphabetical.

    I also agree that the current thinking of the developers is overthinking. Users in a company should be able to track down teams that they believe would be relevant to their work (since Teams is all about collaboration in one place and visibility, right?). Having users jump through hoops to find a team adds to time spent on finding a team. The invitation link could be useful but it still does not solve for users being able to just discover a useful team to join. Think about a new employee at a company trying to delve into things and not wanting their hand held along the entire orientation process. The invitation links would have to be requested from every team owner/department lead (equaling more time spent yet again) rather than just searching, seeing options, joining, and getting straight to work.

    As for the search issue a few comments back, we should 100% be able to search teams from an part in the team title, especially if team naming conventions aren't always followed with best practices. Otherwise, searching is pointless. You may as well just list out every team title instead for someone to sift through.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    You guys are way over thinking here. This is trivial app 101 concept. List the teams and let us find them. I get your new "minimally viable" work effort here, but you have missed the mark on what minimal is.

  • Mike commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    You should at least fix Searching because currently you can only search off the first word in a team name which is just dumb. If a Team is called Software Deployments and I search for Deployments I get no results. I have to search for Software in order to find it. That's just a horrible implementation.

  • Estolpe commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    easily one breaking point right now why our internal user adoption is really slow for teams - people come in and it's empty and they have no way of browsing interesting public channels available. And why have two different searches... if I use the regular search it wont look for the public channels, please rethink this

Feedback and Knowledge Base



You are about to visit the UserVoice site for Microsoft Teams

We have partnered with UserVoice, a 3rd party service providing public discussion forums for product-specific feedback.

By clicking "Continue to UserVoice" you agree to UserVoice's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.