We capture product feedback inside the conversations already happening, then triage by how often a problem recurs, not how loudly it is asked.
The instinct is to build a separate feedback channel, a form or a board, and treat every request as an item to log. That produces noise, because the loudest single voice gets the same weight as a pattern fifty customers are quietly hitting.
At Eprezto, we treat support conversations as a source of truth. When the team handles an inquiry, resolves a question, or processes a renewal, the friction is right there in the customer's own words. So we tag noteworthy moments in the moment — a clear description of a problem we solved, a recurring point of confusion — no separate meeting or transcription. The intake choice that raised quality was making the unit of feedback the recurring problem, not the one-off request. If many customers ask the same thing at the same step, that step is a product problem, and we fixed our early content the same way, by writing for the real problems pulled from chat transcripts and support conversations rather than what we assumed.
The triage rule is frequency and where it sits in the journey. A request that shows up once is noted. A pattern that appears across conversations at a specific drop-off point gets escalated to product, because it is evidence, not an opinion.
The mechanism is that recurring friction is signal and isolated requests are mostly noise. Capturing feedback where it naturally occurs keeps it authentic, and counting frequency keeps product focused on what actually hurts the most customers.
My advice is to capture feedback inside existing touchpoints, tag it as it happens, and prioritize by how often a problem recurs, not by who asks hardest.
