Anonymous
My feedback
23 results found
-
10 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
381 votes
We understand the request, but unfortunately this is not on the near-term roadmap.
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
2 votes
Happy to review. Can you provide more clarity on the use case/reason here? Are you hitting a scale issue, or is there some data you’d like added to the report?
An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
commented
Use Case: User sends a shared link via email on Jan. 1. The link expires Feb. 1. On June 1, the user goes back to that email and needs to identify what was shared.
Right now this involves a manual search effort using the Admin Console. Looking for a way for users to do a search/lookup for expired links. Result of the search should provide some detail about the share, including the current location of the target. Original location would be useful also.
I could see this being part of the file/folder detail or history, but would still need a way to search for the expired link without knowing the target file/folder.
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
commented
I will put in a separate idea as well, but could be an enhancement to this idea... Show all links, active or not, with a columns that indicates current status, and the target of the share. Target should be the object ID or current location of the object.
Use case: User sends a link via email on Jan. 1. Link expires on Feb 1. User goes back to the sent email on June 1 and needs to identify what file/folder the share was referencing.
Right now it requires a pretty extensive manual search via Admin Console to accomplish this task.
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
31 votes
We understand the convenience that implementing this feature would bring, but recommend using the existing Bookmarks feature as a more efficient and simplified means for achieving the desired behavior.
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
10 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
72 votes
Due to other higher priorities, we are not considering this item at this time.
An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
commented
We spend a fair amount of effort establishing a folder structure that not only supports permissions, but also organization. It is typical that the user can identify a folder level as a constraint on where they want to search. Having to then use the search drop down to select "in this folder" option seems an unnecessary step from the users perspective. It is rare that a user wants to search everything they have access to.
It is helpful that the option box now appears when first selecting the search box. However, the user still needs to change behavior to set the option before they start typing their search term.
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesAnonymous
shared this idea
·
-
286 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
531 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
172 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
12 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
16 votes
Thank you for your feedback! At this time, we cannot prioritize this feature request, however, we will keep this in mind for future iterations of our account creation experience.
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
18 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
10 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesAnonymous
supported this idea
·
-
73 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
commented
Agree with Mr. Herrick. This causes a lot of problems. Like it or not, if Box Drive is presented as part of Explorer/Finder, users are going to expect it to work as such. This flaw gives the perception to the user that Box Drive doesn't work, or at the very least is not reliable. Improving Box Drive's ability to address large files and dynamic workflows that create number files and sub folders is necessary to gain user buy-in of Box as a primary storage solution.
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
-
332 votes
We are currently not planning to implement this feature and will continue to prevent all Box Drive results from appearing in Explorer/Finder searches.
Box Drive does not download the all of the metadata (File name, folder structure, etc.) of your Box content. Instead, it is downloaded on demand and then evicted when it is no longer relevant. This eviction process is not visible to users and it is not easily predictable. This would cause the search results in Explorer/Finder to be inconsistent for users – sometimes they would find a file and other times they may not if the metadata and file were evicted.
We have chosen not to download all of the metadata (and then keep it up to date with changes) as this can result in a large performance, storage and bandwidth tax which is not scalable – especially in environments where users interface with millions of files/folders.
…
Anonymous
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
commented
Losing the Windows Explorer search capabilities when switching from Box Sync to Box Drive has been a major issue. It forces us to choose between the two. If there is an intent to sunset Box Sync in lieu of Box Drive, enabling Explorer Search is a must, particularly for Offline Files.
-
19 votes
Thanks for the suggestion! It’s not currently on the roadmap at this time.
An error occurred while saving the comment Anonymous
commented
<username> being part of the Box Drive path has been mitigated, as it i now possible to establish the Box Drive Root elsewhere; e.g. C:\box. However, this still won't support the requested feature given the way Box handles permissions; not all users have the same top level structure, so there is not "full path" that would work for anyone.
I suggest the feature request to have the ability to open Box Drive from a location on Box.com would address this request to a degree.
Detail report would need to include expired links.