We have seen this come up in the past; the users are only syncing certain subfolders and unless they sync the whole folder the structure will not replicate itself to the user's computer. This is an intended design as it became an issue for users to possibly see folders that they did not have permissions on, just to keep the folder structure intact.
So while it has been brought up before, the option to see all folders in the structure is only available if you have permissions on the folders and if you sync all of them in the structure.
I hope this makes sense! If you have any other questions though, let me know.
No this makes ZERO sense.
This is an intended design as it became an issue for users to possibly see folders that they did not have permissions on, just to keep the folder structure intact.
It became an issue because the ShareFile sync program cannot read the ShareFile permissions?
Consider this very carefully PLEASE. I work on multiple customers offering a product. Each customer has an images folder, a fonts folder, a video folder, and a themes folder. I have 100 customers. My employee Joe only works on fonts and the permissions are set accordingly in ShareFile.
How about instead of NOT replicating the folder structure, you REPLICATE the folder structure and any folders that the user does not have permissions on do NOT get replicated? How is Joe supposed to know which fonts folder belongs to Johns Deli using your logic? If you will not consider fixing your software could you at least fix the name so it at least TIES itself to the proper folder?
When Joe opens his sync folder he should see this:
Pete's Ice Cream -
Pauls News Stand -
John's Deli -
Sarah's Pies -
Paulines Fish Market -
Instead of this:
fonts (Shared With Joe 1)
fonts (shared with Joe 2)
fonts (shared with Joe 3)
fonts (shared with Joe 4)
fonts (shared with Joe 5)
fonts (Shared with Joe 100)
I work on many projects and my company uses standardized folder names within each shared project folder to hold each discipline's files. It does not make sense for me to sync the entire project folder as they get reaally big.
Selective sync is great, but I end up with a local folder of
Shared Folders >
Basically a bunch of folders with the same name - and I cant tell which project folder they are from.
I would expect to see:
Shared Folders >
Project 1 > TeamSubfolder
Project 2 > TeamSubfolder
Project 3 > TeamSubfolder
It seems to me to be a deficiency in the design of the Sharefile Sync Preferences. You can't sync the top level folder without syncing ALL the subfolders. (Yet the 'Shared Folders' folder appears locally even without syncing ALL subfolders -- which is what we want.)
So I don't necessarily want to download all folders for all customers. If I want customer 1 schematics folder for a specific project, I have no idea what customer the schematics folder is and what project under that customer it is for.
This makes no sense whatsoever. My sync folder is an absolute mess. The folder structure must be maintained.
Please have an option to fix this. This is terrible.
I apologize for the delay in response, but I wanted to confer with our Product team regarding the nature of this issue. Currently, this is the design of the product, and is meant to support the use case of someone who does not want their folder hierarchy exposed to users that may not need to/or have access to see it.
However, that is not to say that this feedback won't be considered in a future release of the tool. Also, if either of you are open to discussing possible workarounds for your particular workflow, please let us know and we would be happy to reach out and continue the discussion.
Arbitrarily renaming folders with duplicate names is NOT acceptable in ANY computer software that I have ever come across. You need to go back to the product team and tell them to fix it rather than accept that it is a design that works. It does NOT work. and is a very lame excuse. The Sync client in the image below SEES a BMW 2014 and a Buick 2014 folder which means that it is AWARE of the folder pathing. If it is aware of the folder pathing, then REPRODUCE THE FOLDER PATH back to the computer. THIS CAN BE DONE and NEEDS TO BE DONE with no more lame excuses or further delays.
We are currently testing your product to transition off dropbox.
I would like to wholeheartedly support the arguments in this thread and this may be a deal breaker for us as a structured hierarchy is the sole reason we are looking at moving to your product.
The design solution we all need is that direct parent folders are replicated to maintain folder hierarchy integrity. Other folders within those parent folders not replicating will keep everyone happy.
The current design is not the most logical and it is much simpler to hide a folder you don't want visible (your reason for the current design) rather than deal with common subfolder structures not showing their parent chain.
I think you will find the number of customers requiring Steve's case far outweighs those wanting some folders hidden.
This is also how windows file system permissions work and is essentially the product we want replicated over the cloud.
"The folder structure is a complicated feature to discuss over comments so it would be great if we could setup a time to talk about your workflow and possible solutions."
It's very frustrating and I have one of my employees reviewing dropbox for business at the moment to see if it is a viable solution for us. I suspect Citrix is going to want me to change our "workflow" to accommodate how they are setup. This would be out of the question for us.
First, let me apologize for my delay in response. There are multiple parties involved at this point and I wanted to make sure the proper people were aware of the situation.
We have been in contact with your Account Managers as well as the product team and have had those people reach out to you and others on this thread to discuss the issues listed here. We do understand your use case, but it is not currently on the roadmap to change to product in this way. That's not to say that it will never change, but it is not
in the cards just yet.
In the future, please do not hesitate to post any ideas, complaints, or questions that you may have here in the Community.
Enjoy the rest of your day and have a great weekend!
A use case I have is that there is a parent folder that has a TON of sub-folders within it but the parent folder is 77 GB's and I only need a selection of the sub-folders (of a much smaller size) to be sync'ed and as the above. So in order to not get 77 GB's taken up on my local drive I can only select the specific sub-folders I want to sync and they show up under "Shared Folders" in my Mac's Finder Window but the problem is that I have other folders that I'm syncing with the exact same name and it is awfully confusing as to which folder is which...a true usability issue. Even the customer service representative I talked with tonight admits it's a deficit...too bad Product Management doesn't see it that way yet but I'll keep my fingers crossed!
Please create two options; first, where you can hide the folder structure like it is now and then second where it brings in the folder structure like Dropbox.
This is the tipping point for us.
I am in the same position as most of the comments above. We LOVE Sharfile BUT this is a MAJOR shortcoming. Its clear above that the folder structure is ALREADY exposed to users in their preferences in windows sync.
We manage our projects (live events) using a folder structure like this:
2015-06-11 - Client Name - Event Name - Location
>1000 - Client Data and Preliminary Event Info
>2000 - Site Visit Information
>3000 - Drawings - CAD
If we had to place the client name in EACH sub folder we'd too easily exceed the character limit (which we ALREADY do for most folders, since the default location for sharefile is so deep in the windows document path.
I would LOVE to see this get improved.
It makes no sense that there is not an option present that can allow for the different folder sharing approaches to be selected at the user's preference. What kind of business does not listen to their clients' desires? This is why people jailbreak their iOS devices. People don't like being told "this is the only way you can do that because I said so", and people especially don't like it when that only way to do something is completely illogical and adds inefficiency to the processes.
Ignoring these completely justified and logical user requests while stringing these people/organizations along for so long is disrespectful and bad business. For shame SF.