Feature Requests

Hi Framer Review Team, I wanted to share some feedback from our recent experience updating one of our live Marketplace components. When an update to an already-approved component encounters compliance issues during review, the existing live component appears to become unavailable until those issues are resolved. I believe this creates an unnecessary problem for both publishers and Framer users. If the currently published version has already passed review and is live, it may be better for that approved version to remain available while only the new update is held for review. Once the updated version passes compliance, it could then replace the existing release. This would provide a simple last-approved-version workflow: Live approved version → remains available New update → reviewed separately Approved update → replaces live version From a user perspective, this avoids situations where a component they recently discovered suddenly disappears from the Marketplace. From a publisher perspective, it also makes iterative improvements much safer without risking interruption to an established listing. Another useful option could be a pre-publish compliance check or staging environment, allowing publishers to validate an update against Marketplace requirements before submitting it to replace a live release. I appreciate the quality standards Framer maintains for Marketplace components. My suggestion is simply to separate release availability from update approval, so compliance reviews can continue without disrupting an already-approved product. I hope this is useful feedback for the Marketplace team.

The Marketplace has gotten so bloated with copycat plugins and low-quality components that finding anything useful is a total headache. Right now, search only works if you already know exactly what you’re looking for, which defeats the purpose of a marketplace. We need real categories—just like the way "Templates" are organized—and honestly, there needs to be way better curation. When a marketplace is flooded with low-effort assets, and most of them are similar to each other, it almost feels like not having one at all because you have to dig through so much junk to find the gems.

—Convince the MKT team to publish Framer updates and Framer blog entries in the Framer community, so that users can stay up-to-date with Framer's activity without being forced to keep an X.com account alive. —Activate RSS on /blog. The URL framer.com/blog is not RSS-ready out of the box (or not Feedly ready, for instance). —Send a montly opt-in newsletter to people that care about being informed on all things Framer but do not want to get their news on Framer from a specific, Wagner-worshipping social network.

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.

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.

You can repost a 'regular' post in the Community feed, but you cannot repost the most valuable type of author post, where she/he shares a link to her/his latest template/component. See pic.

Discovery system recent update, may need a review from framer. Templates receiving organic traffic, engagement, and most importantly genuine remixes were being rewarded with stronger visibility. However, following the recent marketplace update, our templates suddenly dropped from within the top 100 to around 1,800 and has continued to decline. This happened despite the template continuing to receive engagement, organic traffic, and new remixes throughout the same period. Based on these signals, the ranking should have improved or remained stable not fallen by more than 1,700 positions. There are many other fresh trending work that gets buried. Please consider the aspect as well. Thanks.

Creators want to share their projects in a view-only mode that lets potential customers inspect the project structure (layers, components, organization) to evaluate whether the template fits their needs. However, they don’t always want to allow remixing or duplication during that preview. Webflow offers this option so users can preview the template in the editor before purchasing it. https://x.com/mattjumper/status/1971599186064806011?s=46

Currently only component links are tracked in the creator dashboard, would be great if things worked like Templates where you can have remix links tracked. Would make UX for buyers a lot easier! I've run into confusion with some customers having to explain the component links need to be copied, rather than just clicked. Would be a great improvement for Creators with an update like this I think. Thanks

Add the ability to place reviews for plug-ins, templates, tutorials etc. on the Framer Marketplace. With this feature, website builders can see what works well and is good for their use case and marketplace contributors can see what problems to fix or features to add.