Child Item

Dropbox full because of shared folder, how can I avoid them taking space?

Hi, i have a dropbox account and the free space that i have is full because of the files inside the shared folder that i have with some friends.
Is there a way to avoid that the shared folder that uses the free space of my account without cancelling those folder?
Because i have no more space and i haven't uploaded any files

Excuse me for my english but i found problem on trying to traduce this message from my language

Find more posts tagged with

Storage space

Shared Folders

Active

Accepted answers

Mark

Your English is very good Michele - well done!

And no, if you need read write access to that folder if will use your quota. If you just need read only access leave the share and ask the other person sends you a read only Shared link.

DaveC2

You can LEAVE and REJOIN a shared folder when ever you like.

So one method of getting space is to LEAVE the shared folder. And REJOIN it when you need it.

If you ONLY need some files from the shared folder and ONLY at some times, I would additionally ask the owner of the shared folder for a LINK to it, in that way you can use the link to it and download via web the files you need when you need them.

All comments

DaveC2

If the shared folder only had 800mb in it thats all of the 2gb it would have consumed.

If you found all 2GB used then the shared folder likely had more in it.

Deleting the shared folder will restore the space it was using. (you may experience need to refresh your browser window to get correct free space)

Pastors Fred &

I agree with the people who have posted here. I don't understand why dropbox charges me for data that is in other people's account who have shared their folder with me. As a church we use dropbox to transfer files created at home to our church computers. This works well for large files ... then after we access and save the data saved to our church computers we clean out the dropbox. We recently were joined with another user that pays for larger data storage. Within minutes, because we have the limited free account our dropbox was full and we were unable to load anything more. We only needed to access a few of the files that were stored in the other person's shared folder. But dropbox said that data also belonged to our dropbox. Seems like double charging of data to me. So we had to create another email address and access this folder only via dropbox.com and not from the app on the computer.

Pastors Fred &

Just one other thing .... if the files are not created by my account but by someone else who shared THEIR files with me ... why should it count toward my 2 gb of space. It should only be applied to the original user account who created the file.

Thank you for providing this forum to express our frustration to this. But I think we can do this without being emotional and being angry. Through this forum, I believe that people would like to be able to come up with solutions or alternate work around ways to the problems that are posted. Just like Dropbox does state the facts in their FAQ if we search for it. So they have done their legal duty. It doesn't make sense that it is not posted up front ... which is the frustration that most people are expressing .... but again let's find ways to work with it until dropbox or another application comes up with a way to eliminate this particular problem.

We chose to leave the shared folder and rejoin it on an email address that we created just to access this folder when we need it. Which is the answer to my question that I began with.

So let's try to treat others with how we want to be treated when we respond to each others posts.

Kirk L.1

After receiving the e-mail alert "Your Dropbox is full and is no longer syncing files. New files added to your Dropbox folder won't be accessible on your other devices and won't be backed up online." I have deleted the single 800mb folder that DropBox indicated used up my 2GB allotment. Do I need to do anything else to to get my DropBox syncing files again? I will have a new batch of photos for the same client a week from now and don't want to hit any snags. Thank you.

Puneet M.

wow .... Nice thread. It's helped me a lot to understand the Dropbox Business Model.

Let me try to have some points here ..

#1 The problem is for Paid user. Because they thought that they are paying for 1 TB space (example).. but actually they are paying for 1 TB content, which may be or may not be useful for them.

#2 Above point should be clearly mentioned in the DB main page. Wrong marketing. Sorry I am not a paid customer else I can ask them to pay my money back.

#3 Now, what DB can do to solve this issue keeping current Business Model. Provide a option to Sync All or do selective sync on file basis (not on folder basis). I can see all file names whenever anyone share some chunk of data, but I can have option for selective sync the file, which will consume my space or say my Quota.

#4 - another option which can solve remaining problem - We should also have control on what type of permission me want. Just read or Read+write. If I opt read permission - No consumption of my personal Quota but if I choose R+W, then it consume my Quota also.

So in short,

If Dropbox wants to play long term in Cloud base service .. then They have to think in this way also. #3 and #4 are best features which they can provide.

Anyone who think these are not the best Idea? I am curious to hear from someone who is So called very fascinate about the DB business model. #3 and #4 make sense or not ?

Dave Carter

#1 you pretty well wrapped that up clearly.

#2 correct, but then they market it with untruths already so what do you expect.

#3 the option would be nice, but isnt selective sync as that is per machine and selective of what that machine syncs, maybe "shared sync" but i would see this being a large server side rebuild as they dont even have good backbone to share let alone permissioned/synced share.

#4 Being R or RW IMHO doesnt change that you HAVE the file, just how your allowed to change it, what I would put forward as a solution to sharing to free accounts etc, is to offer the paid account thats sharing to OWN the traffic/content/space of the shared file in the other account.

So 1TB account has 200GB in it and shares 20GB with 2 free accounts, thats 200+20x2=240GB used (not the nicest but a compromise i expect many paid accounts would be happy to do and also stop them sharing files with 10,000 people expecting DB to host that out at no extra costs)

Puneet M.

#2 - I just want everyone to raise voice against them.

#3 - Selective sync is right now available (which is on folder basis). So changing that to file basis should not be a big task (as per my understanding.. I am not Computer expert, so Can't comment on that). Syncing per machine is not a feasible option because then people can sync different data at different devices and it will not solve DB's problem. For shared folder it should be per account.

#4 your option (sharing with only 2 people or limited people ) will create problem in DB concept.

Let me propose another solution

Create a default folder inside Dropbox account "shared folder". - this can be done because they have "camera upload" default folder algo.
User can control the size of the "shared folder". It's like another db account inside the Main Db account.
This "shared folder" works similar to what's happening right now in db.
rest MAIN_DB_Space - shared_folder_space ... you can use as your normal cloud space.

I hope #5 can solve all the issue with minor changes and this is something unique from the competitor and help db also.

Dave Carter

#3 selective sync is machine based, and is about what files you want to sync to that machine from the account. The selective sync you are suggesting would require server side recoding.

#4, i see no difficulty for DB in using one account space for deduction for all users specified, however I wont hold my breath as this would still just cost them money in less purchased accounts.

#5 see #4 reason for not expecting this, and that the facts are the Db costs are per connected device so shared folders add devices that adds costs to DB, not extar income options just are not going to be likely.

NB: I would love it if they were I just wont expect it.

Puneet M.

Yes Deve,

Lets hope DB try to understand user problem and comeup with some solution which is win-win for both (DB and their customer).

Hi Puneet,

Thanks for all the detailed feedback (and Dave for adding-in). This is definitely a feedback/request I've brought up before based on comments here on our community and I'll be adding with this thread as well.

Thanks again and happy 2016,

Kazi R.

Hi,

I am with dropbox business. I shared a folder with our remote team. How to I increase storage capacity of that folder ? Dropbox gave default 2GB for that shared folder. I want to give 500 GB for that.

Thanks

Kazi

DaveC2

Kazi R. : Db do NOT supply space per shared folder at all.

It sounds like you have shared a folder with a FREE (3GB) account.

Each account sharing access to a folder, must have enough room to store the content of the folder into their own dropbox, Dropbox work on how much content you have, not where it came from.

Andrew R.34

It simply makes no sense that a folder someone shares with you counts towards your quota. It's their folder, their quota. Defeats the purpose of shared folders. Still, I have 45 GB of free storage on OneDrive. I'll just get my mates who shared their folder with me to go to OneDrive too. OneDrive isn't retarded like DB with the way their shared folders work.

Mark

It simply makes no sense that a folder someone shares with you counts towards your quota

It does. Its perfectly sensible. It is to stop people stacking accounts and because every single device costs money. Dropbox doesn't just pay for MB of storage but every time your device connects to and from its servers. So more shares = more cost.

Timothy D.5

Lol *sigh*

+1 for Adam

-1 for Dave

Timothy D.5

I'm screwed. Never even used any of these folders.

></p>

Adam C.36

@Mark Mc

But this is not how they charge for the service - DB charges by space, not by access or downloads. I can also share a link to a file or folder (from a free account) to give people access, who don't even need a DB account to download the files- no bandwidth or access charges for them!

So, to repeat what @Andrew R said, 'it simply makes no sense' to charge this way, and it places really quite severe limits on what would otherwise be a useful service.

I only keep free 5.25GB account for when people want to share stuff with me on DropBox (unfortunately, too often!). I have to constantly decide which shares to remove in order to let me save files and update files. This need to manage who has shared their space with me sometimes leads to to remove shared folders before I'm really done with them, and then ask for a new share when I come back to that project. It just sucks.

David N.32

I'll chime in here. Just ran into the quota brick wall myself from other folks shared folders. I guess it has forced me to understand more of how dropbox works. I have removed all the shares, but I guess I will not be able to contribute to any shares that are individually over my quota. Pretty wacko and makes dropbox fairly unusable.

They charge by space - but charge hundreds of time for the same space. Not bad for them if they can get away with it.

Mark

Adam - then pay for an upgrade or use a different service. Dropbox are quite within their rights to restrict the service however they like to free users.

I'll use an analogy Ive used before... cars. A Dacia and a Porsche do exactly the same thing. Yet one charges for 'simple' features like electric windows and central locking. One is also 10x the price. Nobody tells Porsche they should reduce the prices as they can buy exactly the same for less.

Ben L.26

Mark:

Dacia doesn't pull a bait-and-switch in their fine print outlining that yes, the car has power steering and an FM radio, but they designed a custom electrical system that more efficiently uses energy, and as a result you can't use the power steering while the radio is on. Sure, the documentation is available if you look for it, and the sales person likely has knowledge of the limitation, but if you hop online to various car enthusiast forums you'd find threads started by owners just finding out about the limitation after nearly crashing on the road because they wanted some music. You'd also find Porsche owners pointing those who complain right to the documentation and telling them to RTFM, and others still that tell them to get a different car if they're not happy with the one they have.

No one is saying Dropbox isn't within their legal right to act this way. We're saying it's a really sleazy thing to do, limiting what is perceived to be a conceptually simple feature in some non-intuitive way without being upfront about it.

Also, this doesn't just affect free users; a Dropbox Pro user would run into this issue as well with enough data.

Mark

I totally disagree Ben, sorry. At no point, at all, does Dropbox make ANY association or offer that joining a share will not use up your space. The issue is people just assume that it will work how they want it to work without actually doing any due diligence or simple research to see what actually is the case.

Adam C.36

Mark Mc, Ben L:

Ben - well said. I was going to use the analogy of Dacia charging extra because you want to take some passengers, but I think yours is better.

Mark: As has been said many times in this thread, it's not that Drop Box is not allowed to do this - it's their business. However, this is not a good business model. It is disingenuous and illogical - it just doesn't work the way you would expect it to, and the only 'fix' is to buy more space - a fix that only works until enough people share THEIR data with you, and you have to pay again and again to keep using the service.

The model all other cloud services I know of, where you pay for space and you can share it with others, but they don't have to pay for that privilege is transparent, and obvious.

I'll keep my free 5GB for when someone wants to share with me, but with this business model there is absolutely no chance that I'd pay for 'an upgrade'. I'll spend my money where the T's & C's are clear and obvious and I don't get ripped off!

Mark

The model all other cloud services I know of, where you pay for space and you can share it with others, but they don't have to pay for that privilege is transparent, and obvious.

You mean a lot of the other cloud services that have gone under? Copy.com for example.

I'll spend my money where the T's & C's are clear and obvious and I don't get ripped off!

They are. You just dont want to pay - thats the top and bottom of it. Which you are obviously well within your rights to do, but dont try and hide the fact that you are not upgrading because of this. It has nothing to do with it. Its simply a case of 'I want my cake. And to eat it. And for free'. And in a lot of cases (not sure about individual ones here) but I'm going to use it for my business and charge other people but not then pay for the services/products I uses to do so.

Andrew R.34

@Mark Mc, if you took to the streets and did a poll where you asked passersby who used cloud storage services if they thought their personal cloud storage quota would be used if they accepted an invitation to another user's shared folder, how do you think the majority would reply? I guarantee the majority would expect their personal quota to be unaffected by connecting to shared folders. Most people would think the two things are completely disconnected.

This is all we are saying: the expectation of the majority of cloud storage users is that personal quotas is one thing and any connection to a shared folder is completely separate.

Hajo Nils K.

I'll chime in on this with a slightly different, but related problem:

I have a Dropbox Pro account (so yes I paid for the 1TB upgrade) with Packrat Addon (also paid) and I have laptop, and an insecure Windows desktop machine. The Windows desktop is insecure because it's where I allow outsiders to test out my apps ... so a malicious trial user could easily compromise the Windows desktop machine.

So now what I want to do is to sync some folders of my Dropbox with the insecure machine. Support says the only way to do that is to create a new free account and share the folder with the new free account. Problem is, the folder is 3GB, so the free account immediately ran out of storage.

So now I have two options:

1. Use a different service to synchronize my 3GB folder with the insecure machine. (hint: Google Drive)

2. Pay for Dropbox Pro twice, once for my main account that I use on the laptop and once for my second account that I use on the insecure machine.

To me, having to pay twice as much as before just to setup a second access-restricted login to my data seems ridiculously overpriced. It's not like I'm collaborating with anyone.. I just want Dropbox to synchronize between my computers in a halfway secure fashion.

Of course, for my use case it would also be good enough if Dropbox would introduce a method for me to create additional access-restricted login credentials whose storage counts towards the quota of my paid main account.

But no matter how they intend to fix it .. for me, it's obviously a huge disappointment that Dropbox doesn't actually support safe synchronization. They do support synchronization, but if one machine is stolen, your Dropbox could be taken over. And they do support separation of rights, by creating new accounts.. but sadly, they don't support safe and synchronization at the same time.

BTW, Google Drive doesn't count shared folders towards the recipient's storage limit.

Eugen K.

I agree it is very annoying how the shared folders count to everyone's quota.

Once my 12 month subscription is over with dropbox, i will be moving to Google drive - pricing is the same, but service is much better.

Alexis G.1

But this is not how they charge for the service - DB charges by space, not by access or downloads.

This is not true. There is a huge amount of technology investment: broadband, security, permission backups, etc

For example: if one user with Dropbox Pro shares a folder with 20GB with 20 friends, Dropbox will need to provide enough bandwidth for all this users.

Dropbox don't use cheap DSL / Cable Internet technology like most of us have at home, they use Symmetric Dedicated Broadband and redundant links: very expensive! To give you an idea, a 100 Mbps DSL can cost you 50 USD a month, but a dedicated fiber link at the same speed can cost you 1000 - 2000 USD a month. Take into consideration Dropbox needs to provide great bandwidths to all Pro and Free users.

And more connection means more investment in Firewalls, Intrusion Detection Systems, Network Access Control devices, Load Balancers, complex VLANs, Routers, WAN Accelerators, etc.

At the end: More users (Business, Pro or Free) = More equipment, more bandwidth, more investment. And high end devices are really, really expensive. A domestic switch can cost you 20 USD at Amazon, but a Professional Manageable Layer3 switch can cost 10,000 USD (each one!).

Mark

the expectation of the majority of cloud storage users is that personal quotas is one thing and any connection to a shared folder is completely separate.

And? Sorry but really what does somebody's expectations have to do with it?

I expect the Government to not screw me over, however, the do so constantly. Asking people if they expect the same thing is irrelevant.

Judy B.13

Dave is an idiot and probably works for dropbox! 1 digital file is one digital file accessible by whomever is allowed from a single server. Moron and misinforming others! If you share, you share you don't copy. Bad work Dropbox and I am gone as well as are all my employees and other companies I work with.

Andrew R.34

@Mark MC somebody's expectations have everything to do with it! That is what this thread is all about: people's expectations of how the service should work. Granted, you are correct in that people have made an incorrect assumption that Dropbox won't use their personal quota when someone shares a folder with them, but the point is most people make that assumption; this is how the majority expect the service to work.

Most services try to meet their users' expectations, Dropbox is not doing that with the way they treat shared folders and personal quotas. Customers have every right to be annoyed with a provider that doesn't listen to their demands. Good businesses try to satisfy their customers. Sure, people can go somewhere else, and I am sure that's what most of Dropbox's annoyed customers have done. I use OneDrive and Google Drive now instead of Dropbox. But what kind of a business model is that? Ignore your dissatisfied customers and tell them to go and use a different service? I can't believe you would be an advocate of that kind of simple-minded suggestion.