Shared Folder Hierarchy not replicated to local PC

  • 17
  • Question
  • Updated 2 months ago
  • Answered
I searched the forum and have not found where anyone is complaining about the lack of the folder hierarchy being replicated down to the users PC. So, for example, if there is a shared folder with sub-folders and the sub-folders contain the same name, it only replicates the folder and not the entire hierarchy. Folder 1 contains a sub-folder called Archive. Folder 2 contains a folder called Archive. If you choose to sync both Archive folders, ONE is replicated uder Shared Folders as Archive and the other is replicated as Archive (Shared with user Steve Lyons). I cannot believe that nobody has complained about this usse before.
Photo of Steve Lyons

Steve Lyons

  • 8 Posts
  • 13 Reply Likes

Posted 4 years ago

  • 17
Photo of Matt Lane

Matt Lane

  • 1 Post
  • 2 Reply Likes
This is also going to be a deal breaker for us.  We have been trialing SF for a short time but don't have any way to make this usability oversight work for our structure.  The simple fix seems to be to make the two use cases select-able by the admin.  Check this box if you want to keep your folder structure intact...check this box if you don't.  I can see where you wouldn't want to share the full folder structure with external customers (for instance), but used as an internal tool, this completely falls down.  Come on SF, get this fixed.
Photo of Dan

Dan

  • 1 Post
  • 3 Reply Likes
I'm so glad I found this thread!!  Luckily, I began testing the syncing process with a sample folder tree BEFORE we migrated all of our companies actual folders/files from Dropbox to Sharefile.

Someone else made a similar comment but to restate, I don't know how anyone who works with file systems could think that arbitrarily removing folders from a file/folder path is acceptable.  Especially programmers?  Users need to consider privacy in their folder naming if that's an issue.  Otherwise, if showing a folder in the path allows a user to actually access it when they should not be allowed to, then there is a flaw in how the permissions work for sharefile.

I'm going to recommend to my supervisors that we pull the plug on sharefile and even request that any money we have spent be refunded.  I was looking forward to having separate accounts for all users and controlling permissions but this syncing path issue is definitely a deal breaker!

Figure it out Sharefile... You are losing customers!
Photo of hairyyak

hairyyak

  • 2 Posts
  • 2 Reply Likes

I've got the same issue and I'm not interested in the excuses from product management about why this hasn't been addressed in the last two years.


There should be an option to sync either way, for me the lack of hierarchy without having to sync everything is ridiculous.

Why can't there be an option to simply replicate tree structure and then select the folders you want to sync OR use it the way it works now, which must work for some people.

We've got a corporate account but I'm going to be cancelling it over Christmas and moving to an alternative product.

Photo of Mark

Mark

  • 6 Posts
  • 1 Reply Like
Afraid we'll be in the same boat by mid-year.  Not ready to make any more changes right this second, but we consider this to be a deal-breaker as it is becoming a problem for an increasing number of users.  Very disappointed in the Product Management approach in this specific area.
Photo of Olivier Patiny

Olivier Patiny

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
We have a similar problem : we created a Root folder in the Shared Folder and under this root folder, several subfolders that users choose to Sync or not. As the full path is not shown, the users cannot create a new subfolder under the root folder (beacause the root folder is just not shown) although they have the permissions to do so. They are forced to create this folder from the WEB interface and then choose to Sync it from the Sharefile Sync Preferences.
Photo of Nabil Elmjati

Nabil Elmjati

  • 8 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
This is really a HUGE disappointment. We have just moved to sharefile from Autotask, and we are shocked to see this basic feature not available. We are a group of companies that are seperated in root level by company name, and all companies have same subfolder. This created a MESS for those who have access to multiple folders within different companies.

Our Ceo and upper mngt are not pleased and we have started discussing moving to Box. 

I am writing here to see if this feature is on the roadmap so i can make a case to stay on sharefile since i really like the other features.

Please let me know if this is in the roadmap, and please dont tell me this was done for security as it makes no sense, since all other major sync program have it with no issues whatsoever. and if it is a security concern then give us the admins the ability to turn on or off this feature.
Photo of Nabil Elmjati

Nabil Elmjati

  • 8 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
This is what i received from SF support:

"Thank you for the email.
I fully understand your qualm with the lack of this feature in our sync tool. It has been raised to us by many customers and has been on our product quality review form almost weekly from our Level 1 team. As it has made some discussion in development meetings unfortunately, there is no ETA on whether or not this feature will ever be added. I apologize for the inconvenience and fully understand if this becomes a deal breaker."

Even though people have requested on and on on for a long time there is still no decision on whether this will ever be implemented???? Not sure what the logic here. Really!
Photo of Nabil Elmjati

Nabil Elmjati

  • 8 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Really struggling daily with the lack of this feature. any news or should we just call it a day and move to box?
Photo of Nabil Elmjati

Nabil Elmjati

  • 8 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
and no reply! Just Great support there guys!
Photo of Maarten

Maarten

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
Hi!

Is there any workaround to this problem? I see this has been a problem for more than 3 years now. We're currently test-driving ShareFile and this is a serious drawback for us. As everyone above, we have a file structure with duplicate sub-folders in unique parent-folders.

We need to only sync sub-folders because we don't have unlimited space on our local computers. We're working with large files and syncing 20GB just because we need a 1GB file doesn't make any sense, and can't be done on low memory laptops.

Is there currently a work around for people experiencing this problem? It'd be a shame to stop our license and move to a competitor as we love ShareFile so far... :(

Like to hear from you guys! Thanks in advance!
Photo of Steve Lyons

Steve Lyons

  • 8 Posts
  • 13 Reply Likes
Forget ShareFile, pick another solution. The developers control this company and they release software without even testing it. They will not address this issue do you think they really give a damn? It is a horrible product run by horrible people. I even wrote to the CEO and got NO response. They don't care about your business, go with a company that does.
Photo of Maarten

Maarten

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes
It is a complete dealbreaker, sinds there isn't any workable work-around with our current (and even future) file architecture. We're currently looking into other alternatives.

We've been looking at the redesigned Dropbox, with smart-sync technology. Work's absolutely amazing so far. I'm curious what you guys are using? Any good alternatives? 
(Edited)
Photo of Nabil Elmjati

Nabil Elmjati

  • 8 Posts
  • 4 Reply Likes
Nope. Still has not been fixed nor addressed. I have made several calls and all what i was told was that this comes up in almost all their meetings as many customers request it. Yet they still decided to not talk about it nor implement it. which is really weird.

The lack of this features has really made my job as the company's main IT manager very difficult. We are currently deciding on an alternative product, since it has been a year that we have implemented shrefile and this crucial issue has not been addressed yet.
Photo of Martin Wauchope

Martin Wauchope

  • 1 Post
  • 1 Reply Like
Thoroughly agree. So that people can sync folders with standard names and know what they relate to, we have to embed higher level folder context info / abbreviations into the lower level folder names ... ridiculous! And this adds to the overall path length meaning we then hit path length restrictions and Sync won't work at all.

Citrix, this is a huge problem! You are losing clients over this. We are happy with ShareFile in most other respects but now considering moving away, like most others in this thread, because you won't address this issue.
Photo of James Krewson

James Krewson

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
Add one more to the list of "this is going to be a deal-breaker" companies. ShareFile, not sure why you don't care about this, unless you truly don't care about keeping customers. Four years to address an obvious, embarrassing, deeply dumb flaw in the product, which even your support folks acknowledge is a top complaint from customers every week, and it's still not even on your roadmap? We are just finishing a conversion to ShareFile, but are already investigating alternatives. Is it possible Citrix bought ShareFile just to kill it? Do they have another, possibly competing product in this space?