Many of our clients are moving to this platform and having multiple folders without being able to tell who they are from is ridiculous.

Option 2:
Without this ability Box is too difficult to use. If the app worked on a mac I would use it outside the web interface.

Option 2 is the only one that solves the problem.
If you only have a "Shared with me" folder it just moves the problems of name conflicts (i.e. 4 or 5 people sharing a folder with the same name) one level up - into the "Shared with me" folder.

This is our biggest pain point within Box, and it only continues to get worse as our organization grows. It is critical that option 2 be implemented, soon.

Option 2 is clearly the one that users want. It's 2019, I got here from a link on a community post from 2015. If this isn't implemented this year we'll probably drop Box in favor of... Dropbox.

We need the feature proposed in option 2. People in our organization are moving off Box in favor of Google Drive / One Drive due to file sprawl creating eroding efficiency. Our thoughts mirror the comment posted on July 28th.

Without this feature, using Box Drive is almost a torture. 200+ Client folders, 99% of them shared with me by other users, showing in my Windows Explorer. You need to allow users to move shared folders into other folders. One Drive and Google Drive do this perfectly!

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but it is ridiculous that this has yet to be addressed.

Option 2 is the only one that makes ANY SENSE AT ALL
if I have 20 different users share 20 different folders with me, putting them all in a"Shared With Me" folder is quite useless.

Chiming in on the need for this. Option 2 is hands-down a better solution. There are threads going back four years asking for this, and it hasn't been resolved. I would like to migrate my whole file architecture from Dropbox to Box, but my institutional Box account is too full of cruddy file sprawl I can't control without leaving folders I can't leave.

Another vote for Option 2 -- the current limitations make for an unwieldy list of folders at the top level of the file hierarchy. Thank you for your efforts.

I would vote for option 2- I would like to file the 'shared folder' into my own folder structure. So that all items on the same topic are in one folder.

It would be very helpful to me if something like Option 2 existed. Using Box Sync can result in confusion with respect to ownership, especially with some projects that have both shared and private folders on similar projects.

I work on multiple multi-institutional projects (both with industry and academia) where there needs to be a distinction between private and shared folders (which is not always obvious via box sync) and cannot solely rely on a naming schema because of differing mindsets when it comes to approaches to filing/etc

I appreciate that there are probably reasons that make this difficult to do and that are outside of our view, because it depends on the actual data structure.
So, I will just add my voice to say that not being able to "relocate" and "rename" folders that are shared with me makes Box very cumbersome to deploy properly in enterprise situations, no matter the recommendations and work-arounds provided.

Not sure why this has been "researched" since 2017, users have been asking for option 2 since at least 2015. Is it really so hard to code a way for users create a folder structure in their own Box for shared content?

I think Option 2 is well-needed. I don't think having one "shared with me" folder will resolve the issue, as then the "shared with me" folder will be the cluttered folder. I would like to be able to organize my folders in the way that I want. The way that everything is in the root folder makes Box almost unusable.

Option 2 would drive great value, option 1 less so. Folder sprawl is the most urgent request from our organization and currently the greatest obstacle to adoption.

This becomes more of an issue every week, as collaborators invite me to share box folders for which the names are becoming more difficult to distinguish. We need a way to organize these folders in our own folder structure. Since it has been almost 2 years since this was classified as researching, can you give us any indication if Box will address this limitation?

Option 2. I need to organize the folders shared with me by project or person or other criteria. Moving them all from root to 'Shared with Me' is only a very slight improvement. I still end up with a mess to navigate in 'Shared with Me'.

Absolutely. Content sprawl is the number 1 issue for our organization.