Log in to your Framer account to give feedback

Feature Requests

Product Feedback
Improve SEO Meta Titles and Descriptions for Marketplace Templates
Currently, the meta title does not always match the main purpose of the template or its most relevant category. For example, my "Ugency" template is categorized under Marketing, Agency, Blog, Consulting, etc., but the meta title currently shows: "Ugency: Responsive Blog Website..." This can be misleading. If someone searches for a "Marketing website template" on a search engine, the result should ideally reflect the template's primary purpose. A few examples: Ugency: https://www.framer.com/community/marketplace/templates/ugency/ The title should focus more on Marketing instead of Blog Atelier Norr: https://www.framer.com/community/marketplace/templates/atelier-norr/ The title should focus more on Interior Design instead of Agency Eco Set: https://www.framer.com/community/marketplace/templates/eco-set/ The title should focus more on Environmental instead of Agency Possible solutions Use the first selected category Generate the meta title and description based on the creator's first selected category. Add a "Primary Category" option Allow creators to select one primary category that would be used for SEO title and description generation. Use the template description Generate the meta title and description based on the template's main description or overview instead of relying primarily on categories. I think this would improve the accuracy and relevance of Marketplace search results, especially for users discovering templates through search engines.
0
·
Marketplace
AI Credits Without Transparency Are Breaking Trust
I’d like to share some structured feedback about the AI Agent experience. The main issue I encountered is a lack of transparency. When I started using the Agent, there was no clear indication that I was consuming limited credits: No visible credits counter during usage No feedback per request or session No clear understanding of how fast credits are consumed As a result, I unintentionally used around 80% of my credits in a very short time, without being aware of it. Additionally, AI credit pricing is not visible in the main pricing page and only appears at checkout. This creates a strong feeling of hidden costs and reduces trust in the product. One of the key reasons I moved away from Figma was exactly this kind of lack of transparency. Seeing a similar pattern here is concerning. From a product perspective, if AI is becoming a core feature, it should not feel like a hidden, consumption-based system. It should be predictable, visible, and clearly integrated into the experience. My suggestion would be: Always display a visible credits bar while using the Agent Provide usage feedback per interaction or at least per session Make AI pricing publicly visible in the main pricing page (not only at checkout) But more importantly: I would strongly suggest offering plans where AI is already included for paying users, without requiring additional credits. Users who are already paying expect a complete tool, not a system where core features feel limited or metered without clarity. Especially today, we all know roughly what AI costs at scale, and this kind of model creates more friction than value. Providing AI as part of the plan (even with reasonable fair-use limits) would: Increase trust Reduce friction Improve adoption Align the experience with user expectations At the moment, the current system feels less like a feature and more like a hidden constraint, which negatively impacts the overall perception of the product.
1
·
Marketplace
Load More