Skip to content

Matt Stofka

My feedback

188 results found

  1. 9 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Matt Stofka supported this idea  · 
  2. 18 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Matt Stofka supported this idea  · 
  3. 46 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    This request is still under consideration. The team is working on its sequencing among the rest of enhancements for our watermarking capabilities. 

    Feel free to share any specific need on the customisation aspects of watermarks (texts, metadata specifics, etc) you may have, as well as use cases you are considering it for. Such details will be extremely helpful towards understanding this ask's impact.

    Matt Stofka supported this idea  · 
  4. 80 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Matt Stofka supported this idea  · 
  5. 51 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Matt Stofka supported this idea  · 
  6. 173 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Matt Stofka supported this idea  · 
  7. 18 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    not planned  ·  Anonymous responded

    We currently do not have this planned on our roadmap.  Please keep the feedback & use cases coming to help us prioritize this in the future!

    Matt Stofka supported this idea  · 
  8. 4 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Matt Stofka supported this idea  · 
  9. 11 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Matt Stofka supported this idea  · 
  10. 387 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Matt Stofka commented  · 

    Breaking waterfall permissions could definitely be beneficial in some use cases but I agree with others that it could get really complicated, too.

    I suppose I'd be happy with a folder setting that can be enabled by owners/co-owners to "Hide this folder and it's child content from External Collaborators" OR "....from non-Owners/Co-Owners."

    This would effectively keep the folder structure the owner wants but everything in that branch of the tree would be invisible to external users or Editors and below, respectively. I suppose you could even allow the co-owner to select the permission levels from which to hide that part of the folder tree, i.e., instead of Editors and below, they could select the Viewer/Uploaders and below, Viewers and below, etc.

    Enabling this would put a label on the folder and child content in both the web UI and Drive to indicate to the co-owner that this private setting was enabled.

    You could also do this at the file level using the right-click context menu in Drive or the ellipses button in the web with a "Hide" or "Make Private" option, or via Classifications similar to setting a Confidential/Internal/Public label. It's important to have a visual label on the file indicating that it's hidden and it shouldn't be super easy to toggle on-and-off; there should at least be a message such as "Are you sure you want to disable this private setting? All of this content will now be visible to all collaborators!"

    This hybrid approach still uses waterfall logic in order to hide everything in that branch of the folder tree so it wouldn't address the valid concern by Mark E regarding folder naming conventions in a Shared folder. I'm thinking that folder-level metadata with cascade could be used to apply a Client Name or Project name value to the parent folder (using Mark's example) and have that value show up in a metadata column next to all of the child folder/file names to provide the context for those similarly named shared folders. If you can ultimately take advantage of metadata attributes in Box Drive, too, then that client/project name could be shown in Drive as well.

    I might read this back later and find some flaws in the approach I just offered, but hopefully there's something worthwhile in here. :-)

  11. 64 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We understand the request, but unfortunately this is not on the near-term roadmap. We will be exploring improvements and enhancements to Tasks in the next 1-2 years and will take this into consideration when we do.

    Matt Stofka supported this idea  · 
  12. 44 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Matt Stofka supported this idea  · 
  13. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    not planned  ·  kwarudkar responded

    Thank you for this request! I’d like to see additional customers with use cases for user-level collaboration restrictions.

    Collaboration is a setting that is tied to content rather than users, and I’m not sure that we have evidence yet to make changes to that model.

    Matt Stofka supported this idea  · 
  14. 16 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    not planned  ·  vlarco responded

    Thank you for the use case! Because there are a few ways to remove collaborators, it is unlikely we will prioritize this in our roadmap.

    Matt Stofka supported this idea  · 
  15. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Matt Stofka supported this idea  · 
  16. 61 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Matt Stofka supported this idea  · 
  17. 32 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Matt Stofka supported this idea  · 
  18. 92 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Matt Stofka supported this idea  · 
  19. 104 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Matt Stofka supported this idea  · 
  20. 334 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    not planned  ·  Anonymous responded

    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.

    Matt Stofka supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base