Skip to content

Anonymous

My feedback

10 results found

  1. 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)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Anonymous commented  · 

    We have the same issue - but in addition to the 'Details' column often being blank, even when a service is listed it's not always clear. For instance:

    Service: Box Elements (used in Box Web App) - action on box.com, Embed Widget?
    Service: zip-download - from which service - box.com, Drive, Mobile app?
    Service: Multiput Uploads - on box.com for files over 100MB?

    If its not a priority to update the report, could Box Product at least create a KB page with each combination of the Action/Details columns and the corresponding explanation?

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  2. 117 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
    Anonymous commented  · 

    We are periodically required to create a report that details external user interactions with shared content. This helps us gauge the engagement of the external collaborator, and potentially what specific content is of most interest.

    It appears that [Reports > User activity > File management > All > Export > Filter] is the only way to report on external user activity. This apparently covers all external user actions apart from login activity.

    Running this User activity report on a folder is fine, but clunky as you can’t filter by an external user directly via the UI (you have to export the results and then filter on User's name/email columns in Excel).

    The [Reports > User activity > Filters > Users or groups (optional)] field needs to incorporate external users.

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  3. 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)
  4. 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)
  5. 143 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)

    Instead of “require password” security control, we intend to support “Require OTP” requirement for public links (via SMS, Email, or TOTP). I wanted to share where we are headed. We do not plan on delivering this ask as is, but we do intend to solve the security use case behind it.

    Please comment if you disagree.

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  6. 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)
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  7. 54 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)
    Anonymous 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)
    Anonymous shared this idea  · 
  9. 384 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)
    Anonymous supported this idea  · 
  10. 332 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.

    Anonymous supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base