You might see that the Dropbox Community team have been busy working on some major updates to the Community itself! So, here is some info on what’s changed, what’s staying the same and what you can expect from the Dropbox Community overall.
Forum Discussion
People I shared my folders with cannot access due to "not enough space" - this is unacceptable.
I am the tech lead for my church and I have people who take photos of services and events. I wanted to use Dropbox as a place where they could upload their photos and the Pastor and I could get them...
So from my google searches, unless I did something wrong when I set this up,
1. I purchased 3 TB of space that I am the sole owner of. I allow my team members to write to that space so we have an easy way to transfer files.
2. But that requires them to also purchase more space. So say 5 other team members each purchase 3 TB plans to use the same space I have already purchased.
3. 6 people purchasing 3 TB of space - do we get 18 TB of space then? NO.
4. Why should they have to purchase the ability to use my space?
5. If I buy a house, the bank doesn't also require each person who lives with me to also pay them the full price of the same house just to use it.
Rich
Super User II
Super User II
JDTurkelton wrote:
Why should they have to purchase the ability to use my space?
The short of it is this... they're not using your space. They're using their own space. When people are a member of a shared folder, they aren't uploading to the owner's account. They each have their own copy of the folder in their own account, and that copy syncs with all other members. A person needs to have enough space available for any files in their account.
If you just want people to upload to you without affecting their own account (or even needing an account), use a File Request instead. People will be able to upload directly to your account, but they won't be able to access the files once uploaded.
From what I understand, I would have to send a fresh File Request every time they had new photos to upload. That's a very clunky system and not what I'm looking for.
My experience with Dropbox up to this point has been as an outside user having to upload and download files shared with me by large companies. They create a folder and send me an invitation. I had never had a Dropbox account of my own before. I would create one, log in and be able to download and upload files in those folders which would contain considerable file amounts and sizes. I understand they were enterprise level companies, but I personally never had anything other than a beginner level account.
So when the need came up for my church to need somewhere for our users to share photo dumps larger than allowed in email attachments, I remembered how easy it was to use Dropbox. But as a small user being the one to host the file share, that's not the case at all. They really put the screws to small users trying to squeeze money out of everyone they want to share with.
- Rich
JDTurkelton wrote:
From what I understand, I would have to send a fresh File Request every time they had new photos to upload.
You can leave the same File Request open. As long as you haven't closed it, people can continue to use the same link to send files to you.
... be able to download and upload files in those folders which would contain considerable file amounts and sizes. I understand they were enterprise level companies ...If they invited you to join their team, you would have been using one of their paid licenses which would have allowed you to access the shared storage pool of the team account.
This is ludicrous. Why does DB force data to be duplicated when a user simply needs access. Why can't someone without a subscription that has been shared a folder from someone with sufficient storage space not be able to have access and have it stored locally? Truthfully, this is outrageous and blatantly exploitative.
- Rich
Why does DB force data to be duplicated when a user simply needs access.
One of the main reasons is to prevent the stacking of accounts for unlimited storage.
Why can't someone without a subscription that has been shared a folder from someone with sufficient storage space not be able to have access and have it stored locally?
If they just need to access the files, use a view-only shared link instead. If they need to store the files in their own account, then those files will take up space in their account, thus they need enough available space to hold the files.
Rich wrote:
One of the main reasons is to prevent the stacking of accounts for unlimited storageHow would that actually work, though? The space of the account that shares the folder is limited. And if that account's quota is filled, the folder would just stop syncing, just like it does for any user who exceeds their storage limit?
Andrew (DBoxTips)
- Mark
Why can't someone without a subscription that has been shared a folder from someone with sufficient storage space not be able to have access and have it stored locally?
Because the service costs money to run and operate. Dropbox needs to cover its costs and more users = more costs. Every up and download has a fee associated with it as does supporting all of these users.
Truthfully, this is outrageous and blatantly exploitative.
Thankfully, it is a free market, however, so people ARE free to vote with fee (and money) and use other services if they so wish.
