Skip to content

Michael Miller

My feedback

15 results found

  1. 26 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
    Michael Miller commented  · 

    Same issue. Would be nice if that location could be a location that users don't have access to and or turn off the Save Location when using a template, so it only goes to the users My Signed Documents. The way it is now, given user must have View permissions to the folder where the template is saved, if the user does not change the Save Location when using the template, then the files are saved to the same location where the Template is saved where all users have View permissions. Hence all the users can see all the signed documents that are saved there.

    The Save Location when users are using a Template should also be a "lockable" field.

    Michael Miller supported this idea  · 
  2. 94 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)
    Michael Miller supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Michael Miller commented  · 

    Even if it was an admin only feature where you could create collections, say for company resource, and share to groups would go a long way.

  3. 34 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)
    Michael Miller supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Michael Miller commented  · 

    Must have feature :)

  4. 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)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Michael Miller commented  · 

    This can be accomplished with a new share permission for 'Folder Visible'. A user may have Edit permissions on a sub folder say 4 levels down, but you could invite them to the parent folder (4 levels up) with Folder Visible. They would only see folder tree leading them down to where they had more elevated permissions. In addition you could have a setting on the Folder as well. This gives less finite control, but that work in some instances and the Folder Visible in other instances.

    This would be great for our organization where we often pool resources from other offices where those users would not be invited to the parent Active Jobs folder (containing hundred of jobs). Then we could invite them as Editor for only the jobs they are working on and invite as Folder Visible up stream to the Active Jobs folder. This way that user from the other office would see the Active Jobs folder for the other office and only see the jobs they are helping with within that folder. Currently all those job folders appear in their All Files and the list can grow to hundreds with no organization or senses of which office they are for. Another way to keep the All Files much cleaner.

    Michael Miller supported this idea  · 
  5. 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)
  6. 2 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
    Michael Miller commented  · 

    This is a great idea.

    Michael Miller supported this idea  · 
  7. 30 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)
  8. 5 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)
  9. 1 vote

    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)
  10. 1 vote

    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)
  11. 19 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!

    Box Shield may be a potential workaround for users interested in restricting syncing of specific content by classifying it. Though this will also prevent any downloads of the content as well.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Michael Miller commented  · 

    This is a needed feature to prevent users syncing or marking data offline and to prevent easy data theft. Box Shield does not do the same thing. I believe you (Kyle) are referring to Box Governance features. If you put a classification on the 'upper level' folder, then all the sub folders inherit the classification. So you would have to go to every sub folder (and newly created ones) and put a different classification on it.

    I'd like to the spec look something like this on the Folder Settings:

    We have a many folders where we have to give users Edit permissions to the ’top level’ folder where hundreds/ thousands of subfolders are created with potentially several hundred thousands of files. It would be great to a folder setting for:

    > Prevent Downloading, Syncing and Offline Access

    With an option to > Apply to Subfolders Yes/ No (or checkbox)

    This way users could not simply select the ’top level’ folder and purposely or by accident download, sync or mark for offline (drive). We have had many instances when users select ’top level’ folder and attempt to sync or mark for offline access and that triggers hundreds of gigabytes that fills up their HD space and causes a support ticket. Also would help reduce mass data theft.

  12. 6 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
    Michael Miller commented  · 

    This is a serious reporting issue affecting both Box reporting, which becomes more useless because of this as well as CASB monitoring tools.

    Michael Miller supported this idea  · 
  13. 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)
  14. 496 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)
  15. 308 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 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.

Feedback and Knowledge Base