Bob Flynn
My feedback
17 results found
-
36 votes
Box storage platform already has optimizations in place to intelligently detect active (most recently and frequently used) data, and migrate it to cost-effective tiers. Great suggestion though!
Bob Flynn
supported this idea
·
-
7 votesBob Flynn
shared this idea
·
-
80 votesBob Flynn
supported this idea
·
-
51 votesBob Flynn
supported this idea
·
-
874 votes
Thanks for your feedback. We unfortunately don't have plans to support a Linux client for Box Drive at this time.
Bob Flynn
supported this idea
·
-
335 votesBob Flynn
supported this idea
·
-
531 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
69 votes
This feature is currently available for the Box internal apps.
The plan for 3rd party is on the roadamap.
Bob Flynn
supported this idea
·
-
45 votes
Although this suggestion is not under consideration for the current or future roadmap, please reach out to Google to communicate your request.
Bob Flynn
supported this idea
·
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Bob Flynn
commented
I would just like to be able to get a report of all users using a given application or all applications enabled by a given user.
-
16 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Bob Flynn
commented
The wording here is a little vague. It strongly suggests the ability to limit the quantity of data. I would be more supportive of the ability to limit the ability to mark specific content for MFO. For example, if a user has access to a folder with PHI there should be some means to either keep anyone from marking that folder for MFO, or preventing specific permission levels.
-
30 votes
We are currently focused on building groups for access to 1st and 3rd party apps and specific enterprise settings in Box rather than focusing on groups or individual users for sharing controls. Uservoice request here: pulse.box.com/admin/v3/suggestions/36670615
To achieve granular sharing controls, you can explore using Box Shield to classify sensitive content and set access policies to that content.
An error occurred while saving the comment Bob Flynn
commented
I support the idea of having these controls for specific users as long as they can also be controlled/applied to specific content.
-
11 votesBob Flynn
supported this idea
·
-
308 votes
This suggestion is under consideration by the Product Team for future development, however, it is not on our roadmap. Please share additional feedback and use cases to help us understand the importance of this release.
Bob Flynn
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment Bob Flynn
commented
We would greatly appreciate the ability for end users, at least folder owner/co-owner to view/export access stats for any folder, much less a set of folders.
-
2 votes
-
487 votesBob Flynn
supported this idea
·
-
96 votes
Due to other higher priority items, this has been deprioritized.
We have received this request from a researcher. They have some instrumentation tied to a machine with Drive installed to write the results to Box. When a cycle of the testing is done they want that folder hidden so thee is no chance that a previous cycle's results will be overwritten by a future cycle.
I didn't go into details. I would have thought they'd need to rename folders to identify testing cycles anyway, but they seemed to think it was an issue. I can see where you wouldn't feel entirely comfortable with the possibility that it could get overwritten and not have someone there to notice it.