LiveAgent

G2 can’t reset your Google SSO password—that password is managed by Google/your organization’s Google Workspace, not by G2. What G2 can do is verify what’s happening on your G2 account side (e.g., whether your G2 account is tied to Google SSO, whether the email on the account matches the Google email you’re using, or whether the account needs verification). To check that, I just need to identify your account. Are you logging in as a reviewer/buyer (writing reviews, gift cards) or as a vendor (vendor portal/profile management)? And what’s the email address you use on G2 (the same one you use with Google sign-in)?

Your G2 buyer account (morgan.kim@example.com) is active and it’s configured to use Google SSO (sso_provider: google). Because of that: G2 cannot reset your Google password (that’s controlled by Google / your Google Workspace admin). A G2 password reset won’t help for this account, since sign-in is handled by Google SSO. What you should do on your side: Try signing in to Google directly in a separate tab (confirm the Google account is accessible). On G2, click “Sign in with Google” and make sure you select morgan.kim@example.com (if you have multiple Google accounts, pick the exact one). If it still fails, try an incognito/private window or temporarily disable browser extensions that might block popups/cookies. To pinpoint the exact failure mode on the G2 side: what error do you see after Google sign-in (e.g., “account not found,” “something went wrong,” redirect loop, or it returns you to the login page)?

Retrying the G2 login (with “Sign in with Google”) is mainly a diagnostic step to verify where the handoff is failing—Google vs. G2 vs. the browser session. Specifically, it helps confirm: You’re authenticating to the correct Google identity If you’re signed into multiple Google accounts in the browser, Google may silently choose the “last used” one. Retrying and explicitly selecting morgan.kim@example.com verifies the identity being passed to G2 matches the email on your G2 account. The Google → G2 authorization handoff completes The login flow relies on a redirect back to G2 with a valid Google token. Retrying verifies whether that redirect is succeeding (vs. being blocked by a popup blocker, third‑party cookie setting, extension, or a stale session). Your browser session/cookies aren’t the blocker If a cookie or cached state is corrupted/out-of-date, you can get a “loop” where you end up back at the login page with no clear error. Retrying in an incognito/private window verifies whether the issue is tied to your normal browser profile (cookies/extensions) rather than the account itself. Whether the issue is persistent enough to warrant escalation If you can reproduce the same behavior after a clean retry (incognito + correct Google account), that’s strong evidence it’s not just a local session hiccup—at that point, I can open an internal support case for an SSO login failure and include the right technical details. If you want, tell me: Which browser you’re using, and Whether it returns you to the login page, loops, or shows any brief message …and I’ll take the next best step (including creating a case if it’s clearly not a local-session issue).

Yes—when you try again, watch for these specific signals. Each one points to a different cause and tells us what to do next: Which Google account is actually being used On the Google account chooser, confirm it explicitly shows morgan.kim@example.com. If it auto-skips the chooser, that usually means you’re already signed into a different Google account in the browser. Does it ever briefly redirect back to G2 (then fail) If you see a quick redirect to g2.com and then you land back at the login page, that often indicates a cookie/session issue (blocked cookies, extensions, strict tracking protection). Any “blocked” indicators in the browser Look for an address-bar icon/message like: “Third‑party cookies blocked” A popup was blocked “Prevented cross-site tracking” (common on Safari) This matters because Google SSO relies on browser cookies/redirects to complete. Is it only failing in one browser/profile If it works in Incognito/Private but not your normal window, it strongly suggests an extension, cached cookie state, or browser privacy setting. Google account access/consent prompts If Google prompts you to “Continue” / “Allow” and that step fails, it’s more likely on the Google/Workspace policy side (especially for managed corporate accounts). If after trying: Incognito/Private window, and selecting the correct Google account, and allowing cookies/popups for the session …it still fails, I can open an internal support case for an SSO login failure and attach the relevant account details. Before I do that, one quick question: when it fails, do you end up back on the G2 login page (silent loop), or do you see a Google error page (like “access blocked” / “invalid request”)?

Sounds good. I’ve also checked your account on our side: Your buyer account morgan.kim@example.com is active and set to Google SSO (sso_provider: google). There are no existing support cases on file for login, and no gift cards currently associated with your account. When you retry in a Private/Incognito window, the key things to watch for are: Account selection Make sure Google explicitly shows/selects morgan.kim@example.com (especially if you have multiple Google accounts). Cookie/popup blocking warnings Any message about blocked cookies, cross-site tracking prevention, or blocked popups can prevent the SSO handoff from completing. Where it lands after you click Continue If it bounces you back to the G2 login page with no message, that often points to a session/cookie/extension issue. If it still fails after that private-window attempt, tell me just one thing: which browser you’re using (Chrome, Safari, Edge, Firefox). Then I’ll take the next step on our side—likely opening an internal login/SSO support case with the account details so the team can investigate the SSO handoff.

Sure — I can check that, but first I need to identify you as a vendor user on the account. What’s the email address you use to log in to the G2 vendor portal?

Your in-flight category change request is currently pending. Request ID: cat_001 Product: SupportLoop (prod_002) Current category: Customer Support Requested category: Help Desk Status: Pending (submitted 2026-06-29) Blocked / self-serve / evidence-backed review: It’s not blocked and not in a self-serve state right now—this is already submitted and waiting on review. There’s also no evidence/backfill request showing on the request record at this time. Expected timing: The request is sitting in the standard review queue; there isn’t an ETA/SLA field returned on this request record, so I can’t quote a precise turnaround from the system. The next system change you’ll see is either an approval (category switches) or a rejection with a reason attached. If you tell me whether you’re seeing any specific error or “blocked” messaging in the portal, I can check if there’s another workflow (or a separate issue) causing that.

While it’s pending, the next step is owned by G2’s review team (they either approve the category change or reject it with a reason). On your side, there’s nothing additional to “push” in the workflow unless the reviewer comes back requesting more info. What timeline to communicate internally (since there’s no SLA on the record) The system doesn’t return an ETA/SLA for cat_001 (submitted 2026-06-29, still pending), so I can’t quote an official turnaround. Practically, the best internal message is: “In review with G2; waiting on their decision.” Provide a range rather than a date, and set the expectation that it can take longer if the category fit is ambiguous or they request clarifications/evidence. If you want, I can also open a vendor support case to request a status check—but since this is currently just in the normal pending state (not blocked/past an SLA in the system), the correct default is to wait. If they need more information: what they assess / what evidence helps Category changes are typically evaluated on product fit with the target category. If they come back asking for evidence, the kinds of signals that usually help are: Clear product description + core use case aligned to “Help Desk” (ticketing, case management, agent workflows, SLAs, queueing/routing, knowledge base integration, etc.). Feature proof points: screenshots, help docs, or public product pages showing the help desk functionality. Customer language: examples from documentation or website positioning that match the target category’s buyer intent. Differentiation if the product spans adjacent categories (why “Help Desk” is the primary category vs. “Customer Support”). (They’re essentially trying to prevent category drift/misclassification and keep comparables accurate.) If it’s rejected: what happens next If cat_001 is rejected, the request record will update with a rejection reason. From there, the next step is usually: You can submit a new/updated request (often with added context/evidence addressing the rejection reason), or If you believe it’s a misinterpretation, you can dispute with evidence and I can help route that through the correct channel once we see the rejection reason on the record. If you’d like, tell me what you’re trying to achieve by moving from Customer Support → Help Desk (1–2 sentences), and I’ll tell you what evidence would be most compelling for that specific positioning.

The request record is the source of truth for the workflow status (Pending → Approved/Completed or Rejected), and that’s the primary thing to monitor for a state change. For reviewer follow‑up, there are two things to watch: Vendor portal notifications / the request detail page If the reviewer needs more information, the request will typically get an updated note/message and the “last updated” timestamp will change. That’s your best signal that action is needed. Email to the vendor user(s) associated with the request Follow-ups (requests for evidence/clarification, or the final decision) are generally mirrored via email to the account contacts tied to the vendor user or request. Given what you’re seeing — Pending and last updated 2026-06-29 12:00 with no message — there’s no outstanding action for you right now. If you want, I can check your vendor account/cases to see whether there are any related open items or a parallel request that might be driving confusion.

Review review_014 was rejected on 2026-06-18 10:00:00. Exact rejection reason: “Unable to verify reviewer employment.”

To dispute a rejection for “Unable to verify reviewer employment”, the right next step on our side is to open a Review Moderation support case tied to your review so the moderation team can re-check verification with your updated evidence. What the dispute case would include (proposed): Case type: review_moderation Subject: “Dispute review rejection — employment verification updated (review_014)” Linked record: review_014 Description: That your review was rejected for inability to verify employment, and that your LinkedIn is now verified; you’re requesting a re-review. (You can also tell me what specifically changed—e.g., added current role/company, verified email, updated employment dates—so I can include it.) Per your instruction, I will not open anything yet. Before I can proceed, I need to identify your reviewer account. Are you a buyer/reviewer (you wrote the review) or a vendor, and what’s the email address on your G2 reviewer account? Once you share that, I’ll pull up your account and the review record, then I’ll come back and ask for your separate confirmation to create the dispute case.

Confirmed your reviewer account (rev_001 – Jordan Lee, jordan.lee@example.com) and pulled up review_014. Current status: Rejected (rejected on 2026-06-18 10:00:00) Rejection reason (exact): “Unable to verify reviewer employment.” Notes: There are no existing support cases on your account right now, so filing a dispute would not duplicate anything. Proposed dispute case (not opening yet) If you want to dispute the rejection based on your newly verified LinkedIn, the next step on our side would be to create a Review Moderation support case requesting a re-review. What I would submit: Linked review: review_014 Description: The review was rejected for inability to verify employment; your LinkedIn is now verified and you’re requesting moderation to re-check and reconsider. Confirmation needed Do you want me to create that dispute case now for review_014? Reply “Yes, create the case” (or “No”).

I created the dispute case for you. Case ID: case_rev_001_review_moderation Type: Review Moderation (dispute / re-review request) What we submitted: Your review was rejected for “Unable to verify reviewer employment” and you’re requesting a re-review because your LinkedIn is now verified. Status: Open SLA: 3 business days (due 2026-07-02) Next step: please watch your email at jordan.lee@example.com in case moderation replies requesting any additional verification details.

The 3-business-day SLA on your case (case_rev_001_review_moderation, due 2026-07-02) is the target for the moderation/support team to act on the case—in practice that’s typically a first response and/or a moderation action (re-review). It’s not a guarantee of a final outcome by that date, but you should expect meaningful progress (either a decision or a request for additional verification) by July 2. If it’s still open after July 2 Yes—there’s an escalation path. If the case is still open past the SLA due date, tell me and I’ll escalate it internally from our side as an SLA breach (no need for you to do anything besides confirming it’s still unresolved). If you want, I can also check the latest case update timestamp again when you come back (right now the last update is 2026-06-29 12:00:00).

That makes sense. To recap what’s in place: Your dispute case case_rev_001_review_moderation is open, linked to review_014, and has an SLA due date of 2026-07-02. By then you should typically see either a re-review decision or a request for more verification info at jordan.lee@example.com. If it’s still unresolved after July 2, come back here and I’ll check the case status and escalate it internally if it’s past the SLA.