AdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
My feedback
279 results found
-
2 votesAdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
shared this idea
·
-
1 voteAdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
shared this idea
·
-
4 votesAdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
shared this idea
·
-
1 vote
Thank you for your suggestion.
We explored this during our initial investigations, and our customers told us they did not want record of prior holds in this view, thus potentially implicating them in still being responsible for the litigation.
This is not planned work but may be reconsidered if there is a ton of customer feedback to the contrary.
An error occurred while saving the comment AdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
supported this idea
·
-
5 votesAdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
supported this idea
·
-
1 voteAdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
shared this idea
·
-
46 votes
Thank you for the feedback! At this time, we cannot prioritize this request, but will keep this under consideration for future feature prioritization.
AdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
supported this idea
·
-
1 voteAdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
shared this idea
·
-
1 voteAdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
shared this idea
·
-
30 votes
Thanks for the suggestion. Please continue to post use cases and feedback, to help us prioritize for a future release.
An error occurred while saving the comment AdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
commented
This is extremely important because today if I make a very small change (e.g. a comma vs a period), then it creates a new document version. I need to filter, distinguish, and be able to tag or configure the nomenclature between minor and major versions (e.g. completed contract, redlined contract, first draft).
An error occurred while saving the comment AdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
commented
Please prioritize this! This request is coming from a Box client who potentially will grow $XXX,XXX with Box when we launch this.
"The system must have the ability to distinguish document versions as either Major (e.g. x.0) or Minor change (e.g. 0.x)."
"Users must provide a reason for changing a value when updating an approved (i.e. major version) document."
AdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesAdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
shared this idea
·
-
3 votesAdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
shared this idea
·
-
68 votes
Update: Threaded Replies on on the roadmap for Q4FY26
AdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
supported this idea
·
-
86 votesAdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesAdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
shared this idea
·
-
3 votesAdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
shared this idea
·
-
2 votesAdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
supported this idea
·
-
19 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment AdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
commented
Enable option to redact sensitive information manually via Annotations or automatically via Optimal Character Recognition (OCR).
E.g. Box Shield could add OCR functionality to Smart Access for DLP.
AdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
supported this idea
·
-
19 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment AdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
commented
Enable option at the User Level to give Invited Collaborators temporary access to content.
An error occurred while saving the comment AdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
commented
Today, this can only be done at the Admin level or via a Shared Link.
I'd like this ability at the User Level to have Collaborator access expire after a specific and configurable period of time (xxx # of days or on YY/YY/YYYY date at ZZ:ZZ AMPM).
AdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
supported this idea
·
-
53 votesAdminAnonymous
(Admin, Box)
supported this idea
·
Ideally this would be built into the UI by now...
If the concern for adding a 'Released Holds' section is that this might implicate that a legal team and/or company is still responsible for the litigation, then this can easily be solved by flagging in the UI that this is for audit purposes only and/or the company is no longer responsible for the litigation.
At the very least there should be a report that we can pull to audit and/or see previous legal holds.