LiveAgent

G2 can’t reset your Google SSO password—that password is managed by Google, not by G2. So you’ll need to recover access through Google first, then try Google sign-in to G2 again. To help you get back in, I need two quick details to identify your G2 account and the exact failure mode: What’s the email address you use on G2 (the Google account email)? What happens when you try to sign in—do you see an error message (and what does it say), or does it loop back to the login screen? In the meantime, these are the usual fixes: Make sure you’re signing into the same Google account in your browser (people often have multiple Google sessions). Try an incognito/private window or clear cookies for g2.com (this rules out a stuck session). If your Google account is managed by your company (Google Workspace), confirm you can sign into Google successfully and that your admin isn’t blocking third‑party OAuth access. If you share the email + the error/behavior, I can check whether your G2 account looks normal on our side and guide the next step.

Yes — if you’re using “Continue with Google” for G2, then recovering/fixing access to the Google account is the right first step, because G2 doesn’t control or reset Google SSO passwords. I also checked your G2 account using the email you provided: Account: morgan.kim@example.com (Morgan Kim) Status: Active Sign-in method on file: Google (SSO) That means a normal G2 password reset won’t help unless you previously set a separate password-based login (and your account is currently configured for Google SSO). What I recommend doing next (in order): Confirm you can sign in to Google successfully with that same email (use Google’s account recovery if needed). Once Google access is confirmed, retry G2 in an incognito/private window (prevents stuck sessions). Make sure you’re signed into the correct Google account in the browser (no switching between personal/work accounts). If it still fails after you can sign in to Google, tell me what you see (error text or whether it just loops), and I can open a login access case for deeper investigation.

After you regain access to the Google account, here’s what to watch for when signing back into G2 with Continue with Google: Confirm it’s the exact same Google identity If you have multiple Google accounts in the browser, make sure the chooser shows (and you select) morgan.kim@example.com. If you accidentally pick a different Google account, G2 may act like you’re a new user or it may not find the matching account. Look for an authorization/consent prompt You might see a Google screen asking you to allow G2 access (basic profile/email). Approve it to complete SSO. If you see something like “Access blocked” or “This app is blocked”, that’s usually a Google Workspace/admin policy issue (common for company-managed accounts). Watch for a login loop or “something went wrong” If it sends you back to the G2 login page repeatedly, try: an incognito/private window, or clearing cookies for g2.com (and then retry). A loop typically indicates a session/cookie conflict rather than a password problem. Check whether you land in the wrong place If you successfully authenticate with Google but G2 shows “account not found” or prompts you to create an account, that can indicate you signed into a different Google account than expected. If you hit any of these, reply with: the browser/device (Chrome/Safari, mobile/desktop), what you observe (loop vs “blocked” vs “account not found”), and whether the Google account is personal Gmail or company Workspace. Then I can help narrow it down and, if needed, open a login-access case.

Sounds good. If you run into trouble after Google recovery, the two outcomes that matter most are: “Access blocked / admin policy” on the Google screen → usually a Google Workspace restriction (your IT admin may need to allow third‑party OAuth apps like G2). Login loop back to G2 after selecting your account → usually cookies/session; try an incognito window or clear cookies for g2.com and retry. If either happens, send me: the email you selected in the Google chooser (confirm it’s morgan.kim@example.com), and a screenshot or the exact message you see. From there I can guide the right next step or open a login-access case if you’re still blocked.

I can check that, but I’ll need a vendor identifier first so I’m looking at the right request and not sharing account-specific details. Please send one of the following: the category request ID (best), or your work email used for the G2 vendor portal + the product/profile ID (or product name) the request is for. Also, tell me: Is this a new category addition or a primary category change on an existing profile? Roughly when was the request submitted? Once I have the request ID (or your email + product), I’ll confirm the current state (e.g., not started / pending / approved / rejected), whether it’s blocked waiting on info, and what the next step is.

Your category request cat_001 (SupportLoop, product prod_002) is currently in Pending status. What that means / what’s blocking it Nothing is showing as blocked or waiting on action from you right now. There’s no rejection reason on file and no decision date yet, which typically indicates it’s simply still under review. Request details I can confirm Type: new category addition on existing profile Requested category: Help Desk Current category: Customer Support Submitted: 2026-06-29 Decision: not yet made Expected timing I don’t have an exact SLA visible from this status record, so I can’t give a guaranteed timeline. The best I can confirm is: it’s in the review queue and not waiting on you. Next step If you want, I can also check whether there are any other open requests tied to your vendor account that could be related (or duplicative). To do that safely, please confirm the work email associated with the vendor portal account for this request.

Who owns the next step? For cat_001 in Pending, the next step is owned by G2’s category review process/team (i.e., it’s with us for review). Since the request is not marked as “blocked / needs info,” there isn’t anything you need to do right now unless you want to proactively provide additional evidence. Typical review window you can share internally I don’t have an SLA surfaced on the request record itself, so I can’t promise a specific turnaround. The most accurate internal message is: “The request is pending with G2 and not waiting on us; timing depends on the category review queue.” If you tell me your vendor portal work email, I can also check whether there are any related/duplicate category requests or other workflows that might affect timing (sometimes that’s what slows things down). What criteria/evidence is typically used for a “Help Desk” category addition? Category additions are generally evaluated on whether the product meaningfully supports the core use cases of the requested category and whether that’s verifiable from credible sources. Helpful evidence usually includes: Public product pages showing help desk functionality (ticketing, queues, assignment/routing, SLA management, agent console, etc.) Documentation / knowledge base articles (setup guides, feature docs, API docs) demonstrating those workflows In-product screenshots (agent ticket view, queue settings, automation/rules, reporting) — especially useful if public docs are limited Positioning clarity: how SupportLoop maps to “Help Desk” vs. adjacent categories (e.g., Customer Support, Live Chat, ITSM) If you share links (docs, feature pages) you’d want considered, I can tell you the best way to package them so they’re usable for the reviewer (and, if needed, I can open a case to attach them—but only if it’s actually blocked or you want to formally supplement the request). If it’s rejected, what happens? If the category request is rejected, you should expect: The request status to move to Rejected, usually with a reason or rationale (e.g., insufficient evidence of core functionality, better fit in another category, overlap/positioning concerns, etc.). You can then either: submit a new/updated category request with stronger supporting evidence, or if you believe it’s a misunderstanding, we can route a dispute/escalation with the added documentation. If you want, paste 1–2 links to your best “Help Desk” proof points (docs/feature pages), and I’ll tell you whether they’re likely to satisfy the review criteria—or what’s missing—before you invest more time.

That lines up with what I can see on our side: cat_001 is still Pending, and the last recorded update is 2026-06-29 12:00 with no “needs info”/message flag. So at the moment there’s nothing you’re expected to do, and the next step remains with G2’s category review. Because it hasn’t moved (or been touched) since 6/29, the two practical paths are: Wait (safe/default) Since it’s not blocked, it should progress once it’s picked up in the review queue. I still can’t quote a guaranteed review window from the system record—there’s no SLA displayed for this request. Proactively add supporting evidence (often helps avoid a back-and-forth or rejection) If you share 2–4 links (feature page + documentation) that demonstrate Help Desk functionality (ticketing workflows, routing/assignment, SLAs/automation, reporting), I can recommend what to include. If you want that evidence formally attached/escalated for review, I can open a vendor support case tied to cat_001—but I’ll only do that if you explicitly confirm, since it creates internal work and tracking. To proceed, tell me which you prefer: A) keep waiting, or B) supplement/escalate with evidence. If B, please send: your vendor portal work email (to associate the case to the correct vendor user), and the best links (or a short bullet list of key Help Desk features + where they’re documented).

For cat_001, you’re good to keep waiting. Any further action needed from your team? No. The request is Pending and not flagged as “needs info” / “blocked.” That means there’s no required action from you at this time. Does “Pending” change who owns the next step? No. While it’s in Pending, the next step is still owned by G2’s category review (it’s in the review queue). Ownership only shifts back to you if the status changes to something like Needs info/Blocked (or if it’s Rejected and you choose to resubmit/dispute). Does the “last updated 2026-06-29” date change expected timing? It doesn’t change ownership, and it doesn’t give a firm ETA by itself. All it tells us is: there has been no recorded progress/update since submission, and it’s still awaiting review activity rather than waiting on you. Because we don’t have an SLA visible on the request record, I can’t responsibly give a specific review-window to communicate internally. The most accurate internal statement is: “Pending with G2 since 2026-06-29; no action required from us unless G2 requests additional info.” What to watch for next A status change from Pending → Approved (category added) or Pending → Rejected (with a reason), or a message requesting clarification/evidence. If you want, share your vendor portal email and I can also check whether you already have any other open category requests for SupportLoop that could complicate things (duplicates sometimes slow processing).

For review_014, the recorded rejection reason is: “Unable to verify reviewer employment.” Because this is account-specific, I should also verify I’m speaking with the reviewer before going further (or opening a dispute). What’s the email address on your G2 account (or the name on the account) so I can confirm ownership and then walk you through the dispute/resubmission options?

I found your account under Jordan Lee (buyer id rev_001, email on file jordan.lee@example.com) and I can see review_014. Current review decision (review_014) Status: Rejected Rejection reason (exact text): “Unable to verify reviewer employment.” Rejection date: 2026-06-18 What a “dispute” case would do (proposed case contents) If you want to dispute this decision, the case we’d open would be a Review Moderation dispute requesting a re-review based on updated verification. It would include: Case type: review_moderation Related review: review_014 Summary: Review rejected for “Unable to verify reviewer employment”; reviewer requests re-review because LinkedIn/employment verification is now available. What you would provide / we would attach: Confirmation of the employer you referenced in the review (company name) Your LinkedIn profile URL (and/or any other proof you’re comfortable sharing) Any context that helps match your role/employment timeframe to what’s stated in the review What this dispute can and can’t do It can send the review back to moderation for another look using the updated info. It can’t guarantee reversal/approval (moderation makes the final call). Before I open anything Reply with: The LinkedIn profile URL you want included, and The company/employer name you want moderators to use for verification, and Explicit confirmation: “Yes, open the dispute case.” You asked me not to open a case yet—so I won’t until you give that separate confirmation.

A re-review can be requested without you pasting a LinkedIn URL or employer name into this chat, but there are important limits: Can the dispute be opened based only on what’s already on your G2 account? Yes — we can open a review moderation dispute that says, in effect: “Reviewer states their LinkedIn is now verified/connected on their G2 account; please re-check employment verification using the account-linked signals.” That’s a valid request and doesn’t require you to disclose extra details here. However: if the moderation team still can’t verify employment from the account-linked verification they can access, they may respond asking for additional evidence (often an employer/role timeframe, a business email, or a LinkedIn/profile reference). So it’s not “absolutely required,” but it can become necessary if the existing signals remain insufficient. Is there an escalation path or exception? The “escalation” path here is the formal dispute / re-review itself. There isn’t a separate “override” exception that guarantees approval when employment can’t be verified. We also can’t bypass the verification requirement; we can only ask moderation to re-review given your update. If you want to keep details private Best approach is: Open the dispute requesting re-review based on account-linked verification only, and If moderation replies needing more proof, you can decide then what (if anything) you’re comfortable providing. Next step (no case opened yet) If you want me to proceed with that “account-linked verification only” dispute, reply with explicit confirmation: “Yes, open the review moderation dispute for review_014 based on my account-linked LinkedIn verification.” Once you confirm, I’ll open it and include that exact framing.

I opened the review moderation dispute as requested. Case ID: case_rev_001_review_moderation Related review: review_014 What I submitted: a request for re-review using the LinkedIn verification already linked to your G2 account, noting you’re not providing a LinkedIn URL/employer name in chat unless moderation specifically requires more evidence. Current case status: Open SLA: 3 business days, due by 2026-07-02 Next step: please watch for an email/update on the case. If moderation still can’t verify employment from the account-linked signals, they may reply requesting additional proof—at that point you can decide what you’re comfortable sharing.

The 3 business days I mentioned should be treated as an initial response / first-touch target, not a guaranteed “final decision by then” deadline. A re-review can complete within that window, but if moderation needs additional verification or there’s back-and-forth, the final outcome may take longer. Yes — you should receive an email if they need more evidence or clarification. In practice, you’ll typically get an email notification when: the case is updated (e.g., they request more info), and/or a final decision is recorded (approved/published or upheld rejection). What to do on your side: Keep an eye on inbox + spam/promotions for messages from G2. If you don’t see any update after a few business days, tell me and I can check whether the case has activity (without needing you to post sensitive details here).