This would be super helpful for instances where an admin goes into a card to update a template or change a typo, for example. It would save the verifier a prompt to reverify when the content itself wasn’t changed at all. :) 

+1 @Mark Alcarez and @Reba Mitchell! We admins often need to make small tweaks like changing something from all caps to sentence case, or cleaning up weird spacing issues to verified cards. For us at least, we’d like to make those changes and have the card continue to be verified with the previous listed verifier and the previous lifecycle (i.e. we don’t want to reset the verification clock).

I know this is an old post but it was just brought again at my company.   And would just like to some of examples of why a impersonate feature would be very beneficial. 

1. Accurate Troubleshooting & Support

• Replicating User Issues – When users report problems (e.g., missing content, permission issues, or UI glitches), an impersonation feature allows admins to see exactly what they see, making it easier to diagnose and resolve issues quickly.
• Reducing Back-and-Forth – Instead of asking users for screenshots or descriptions of their issues, admins can directly verify and address concerns in real-time.

2. Ensuring Proper Permissions & Access

• Validating Role-Based Access – Guru relies on user roles and group permissions. An impersonate feature would allow admins to confirm that the right people have the correct level of access.
• Preventing Content Gaps – If users report that they cannot see certain knowledge cards, impersonation helps verify visibility settings without needing user intervention.

3. Improving the User Experience

• Seeing Guru as Users Do – Admins can step into the shoes of employees to experience Guru exactly as they do, ensuring that navigation, search functionality, and card visibility align with expectations.
• Optimizing Search & Recommendations – Impersonation allows admins to test how search results and AI recommendations appear for different user roles, ensuring relevant knowledge is surfaced efficiently.

4. Verifying Content Segmentation

• Auditing Content Restrictions – Some knowledge may be restricted to specific departments or teams. Impersonation ensures that private or confidential information is only visible to those with the right access.
• Testing Group-Specific Views – When setting up new groups or changing permissions, admins can verify that content segmentation is functioning as expected.

Hello,

I’m going to second this one. We’re struggling with this right now. Having to reset the verifier after a small tweak and then making them reverify screws up the verification cycle and is a pain for them.