Need to see if your shared folder is taking up space on your dropbox 👨💻? Find out how to check here.
Forum Discussion
What does the limit on shared folders mean?
Since Dropbox discontinued free Team Accounts, our account was converted to a Basic account. Apparently this change introduced limits on the number of shared folders we can have. All of our folde...
Megan wrote:Have you tried unsharing or moving any subfolders with those subfolders too?
Thanks for responding. I have deleted some sub-folders and moved one, but this doesn't change the message I reported. When I tried moving sub-folders up to the root level, they lost their sharing access lists, so I moved them back. Can I at least move sub-folders up to the root level without breaking the sharing links I have already distributed?
Jay's response suggests to me that the sharing limit does *not* only apply to the parent folder, but to the parent folder *and its sub-folders*.
If this is the case, then both the error message and the "Learn more" link need to be a bit more specific.
For example, the error message should read:
>>
This folder can only be shared with a link
The parent folder *(including subfolders)* is 4 shared folders over the limit. Learn more
The parent folder *(including subfolders)* is 4 shared folders over the limit. Learn more
<<
If this is true, then I will need to find the contributing sub-folders. However, our directory tree is pretty extensive. Is there some way to find the contributing sub-folders without having to individually examine each sub-folder?
Hi IMCZug,
Yes, the message content is somewhat confusing, but the FAQ that link points to is clear enough, I think. At the beginning, do you have shared folders count above the absolute maximum (30 000)? 🙂 Most probably no, but for completeness, if you have, their total count should be decreased.
IMCZug wrote:... I have deleted some sub-folders and moved one, but this doesn't change the message I reported. When I tried moving sub-folders up to the root level, they lost their sharing access lists, so I moved them back. Can I at least move sub-folders up to the root level without breaking the sharing links I have already distributed? ...
😁 Of course, one shared folder share everything within, including all files and subfolders. If you move out something (file or folder) it's no more within and no more shared as a part of the shared folder. If you put something into shared folder (again file or folder) it becomes shareable as a part of it. You don't have to reorder your shared folders content, but the shared folders ordering within their containing folder(s). You can have 10 shared folders within one containing folder at most! 😉 This is the reason, most probably. In such a case, move some shared folder (one or more - as much as need) in some other folder, so no more a place (folder) be that contain more than 10 shared folders within. Take in mind that shared folders can't be nested too, while decide where to move particular folder to.
Hope this helps.
Здравко wrote:
At the beginning, do you have shared folders count above the absolute maximum (30 000)?No
You don't have to reorder your shared folders content, but the shared folders ordering within their containing folder(s).
Sorry, I don’t understand this
You can have 10 shared folders within one containing folder at most!
I originally had more than 10 folders under my top-level folder (which is shared). In an attempt to eliminate the message described, I deleted some, moved one to the root level and moved one to a sub-folder. The top-level folder (parent folder in the error message) now has only 7 direct sub-folders.
This is the reason, most probably. In such a case, move some shared folder (one or more - as much as need) in some other folder, so no more a place (folder) be that contain more than 10 shared folders within.
After closer examination, I find only two sub-folders with their own sub-folders. One has 13 (sub-)sub-folders, the other has many more.
Take in mind that shared folders can't be nested too, while decide where to move particular folder to.
Sorry, once again I don’t understand. I already have a lot of nested shared folders. The shared folder I moved from the top-level folder to a sub-folder is still shared, even though it is nested in a (shared) sub-folder of the (shared) top-level folder.
I have to differ with your opinion regarding the explanation of the error message.
It says, “Within a single folder, you can create up to 10 shared subfolders.”
There is no mention of sub-folders in this statement. Furthermore, there is no reference to the definition of a “shared folder”. As you pointed out, the sub-folders of a shared folder inherit the access list of the parent folder, and are therefore also “shared”. However, they were never explicilty “shared”, nor were they created as “shared folders”. Do they still count as separate, additional “shared folders”?
IMCZug wrote:... It says, “Within a single folder, you can create up to 10 shared subfolders.” ...
Hi IMCZug,
Yes, that's right.
IMCZug wrote:... There is no mention of sub-folders in this statement. Furthermore, there is no reference to the definition of a “shared folder”. ...
Yes, could be more descriptive, but "shared" folder is the one that has been explicitly shared and listed as a such in your shared folders list. Every other folder doesn't count as a shared (in spite can get shared as part of other shared folder)! 😉
Hope this clarifies matter.
Здравко wrote:
Yes, could be more descriptive, but "shared" folder is the one that has been explicitly shared and listed as a such in your shared folders list. Every other folder doesn't count as a shared (in spite can get shared as part of other shared folder)! 😉Hope this clarifies matter.
Not at all! In fact, it makes the error message all the more incomprehensible. Our “shared folder list” lists *only one* shared folder: our top-level folder. How then, can a limit on the number of shared folders have been exceeded, much less “by 4”?
Meanwhile I have deleted (sub-)sub-folders so that no folder has more than (or even as many as) 10 sub-folders. However, this has not made a difference in the behaviour.
