Matt Stofka
My feedback
216 results found
-
194 votesMatt Stofka
supported this idea
·
-
18 votes
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
·
-
4 votesMatt Stofka
supported this idea
·
-
13 votes
Thanks for the feedback! This isn’t currently planned, but please keep the use cases coming to help us prioritize it.
Matt Stofka
supported this idea
·
-
438 votes
We understand the request, but unfortunately this is not on the near-term roadmap.
An error occurred while saving the comment -
71 votes
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
·
-
45 votesMatt Stofka
supported this idea
·
-
4 votes
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
·
-
18 votes
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
·
-
3 votesMatt Stofka
supported this idea
·
-
65 votesMatt Stofka
supported this idea
·
-
33 votesMatt Stofka
supported this idea
·
-
99 votesMatt Stofka
supported this idea
·
-
113 votesMatt Stofka
supported this idea
·
-
347 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.
…
Matt Stofka
supported this idea
·
-
48 votesMatt Stofka
supported this idea
·
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Matt Stofka
commented
You can already do this using the existing permissions options. You can invite the user as a Viewer, Uploader, Previewer/Uploader, Viewer/Uploaders, etc. The following link includes a helpful grid showing what each permission level can do.
-
33 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.
An error occurred while saving the comment Matt Stofka
commented
You can already accomplish this in Box using Bookmarks. Just copy the Shared Link URL for the item you want to bookmark, then click New > Bookmark in the folder you want the shortcut to be. Past the shared link URL give the bookmark a name and you're done.
If you want that bookmark to be in a bunch of folders, just copy it and paste the bookmark into the other folders.
https://community.box.com/t5/Organizing-and-Tracking-Content/Creating-Bookmarks/ta-p/36248
-
11 votesMatt Stofka
supported this idea
·
-
10 votes
While we are looking into making search improvements on Box Drive, the search results may not exactly mirror what’s in the web app
Matt Stofka
supported this idea
·
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. :-)