Dropbox full because of shared folder

[Michele A.]

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

[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.

[Adam C.36]

@AlexG

You are correct that DB's costs include more than storage costs - they also include connectivity costs.

However, when you stated the following was not true:

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

You were wrong. DB only charges its customers  for space - it does not charge for connectivity. Try downloading a big file loads of times and see if you get charged more. You won't.

It is also true that, until October last year, Db did not own their own network for data storage and connectivity - it was all provided by Amazon. This changed last October when they switched to their own storage network, after a two year project to design and build their own network.

See this blog post for details: https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2016/03/magic-pocket-infrastructure/

Their charging structure is older than that though, so the sob story about all their expensive networking kit doesn't really apply, because for most of DB's life they've not needed to buy much of this.

Even their own service is not consistent with this view. You can share a file, even from a free account, that can be downloaded by anyone, with or without an account, as often as they like.

For example, I just added NOOBs V1.8 (for the Raspberry Pi) to my account. It weighs in at just over 1GB. Anyone can download it for free, even if they are not a DB customer.

It's a little ironic - uploads to most services that charge for bandwidth are free, while downloads cost. Yet, with DB, being able to upload to someone else's shared space costs you, but anyone can download as much as they like for free. How does that make sense?

@Mark Mc

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. 

No, I mean successful, mainstream, popular services like Google Drive and Microsoft Onedrive. There, you can share as much as you like, and storage space is charged for once, by the owner of the folder. 

Incidentally, many are cheaper than DB. Office 365 Family for example gives 5 people 1 TB space each, and the latest Microsoft Office, all for less than the cost of 1TB from DB.

[DaveC2]

@Judy B. : You are a slacker and likely dont work at all. (wow see how easy it is to abuse someone).

One digital file on Db is NOT one file, it's made up of non exclusive use data blocks, that are part of a global data pool of cross linked blocks that cover all files uploaded. So when you have the "file" in your own storage allocation you have your own chain of far links to these blocks. Of course you wouldn't understand that being that all you manage to do is abuse someone to back up your weak argument. 

[Ben S.27]

Here's the usual situation with me and Dropbox.   I'm a VFX artist. I primarily have to use Dropbox for clients who arent smart enough to realize it's a terrible solution for shared cloud storage.

Client A, pays for business dropbox (I assume, has tons of space). I have no interest in having any of their files SYNCED to my devices, though access to download them (once) is needed.  I have a personal dropbox account. they share folders to me to download stuff only. I then upload files to THEIR storage which again, I already have on my drive locally and have no interest in SYNCING to my devices or anything. I just need to use their storage to upload/download.  

Client A assumes that when they share a folder with me, I can use it. Reasonable assumption.

They share a folder, I'm all of a suddon waaaay past my quota (12TB shared folder) and cant send them my work.

And then we go back to FTP.

Every. gorram. time.

I'd like to remind everyone that Dropbox did not always do this. Up until a few years ago shared folders did NOT count against your quota, and everything was wonderful.

Giving me access to a 200TB shared folder shouldnt force me to pay for anything more, since that space on Dropbox's servers has already been paid for by the person who bought the space to begin with.  This is Dropbox's way of double (or triple, quadruple) dipping on payment for used space.  The space taken up on my device costs dropbox nothing, only the server-side stuff does, and as we know, giving someone write access to an existing drive costs them nothing more.  (Aside from bandwidth I suppose, so Id be willing to pay the electric on handling my bandwidth...)

It is utterly unacceptable to expect every artist on a project (there may be 20 of us) to pay for the same space that has already been paid for by the client.  Sure if we want to "Own" that folder too, it'd make sense. But we need a way to choose to NOT own it.  Until that happens Dropbox is not an option for any of my work.

[Rich]

I then upload files to THEIR storage

But that's not what you're doing. You're uploading the files to a folder in your account, which happens to be shared with another account. The data you upload is still in your account.

I just need to use their storage to upload/download.

Then ask them to send you a file request (for upload) or a share link (for download), instead of an invitation to a shared folder. Neither of these options will count against your quota.

I'd like to remind everyone that Dropbox did not always do this. Up until a few years ago shared folders did NOT count against your quota, and everything was wonderful.

Not true. Shared folders have always counted against your quota.

giving someone write access to an existing drive costs them nothing more.

Also not true. Storage is cheap, bandwidth, which you mentioned, is not, and this is where the majority of the costs are incurred. The more data you transfer, the more it costs Dropbox, and you, as a Basic user, pay nothing towards that usage.

[Adam C.36]

@Rich R

Also not true. Storage is cheap, bandwidth, which you mentioned, is not, and this is where the majority of the costs are incurred. The more data you transfer, the more it costs Dropbox, and you, as a Basic user, pay nothing towards that usage.

In that case, their charging model makes even less sense.

Just about every other charging model I've come across that charges for bandwidth, charges for downloads, not up loads. Uploads happen once, downloads can happen many times.

I have a free account with 5GB storage. As I mentioned above in a previous post, I have an ISO image of a linux build for the Raspberry Pi in my space. It's over 1GB in size. I've shared a link to that image. 

Anyone can download that image as often as they like (even if I had a paid for account - the account type is not the point here). So, if I had been paying, I'd have effectively paid for a single upload of that file, but any number of downloads would be free.

If the cost of bandwidth is the reason behind this charging model, it is still implemented in a bizarre, counter-intuitive way which is easy to abuse for those who want to, but a real nuisance to legitimate users who just want to share some files.

In @Ben S's case above, even if he had paid nearly £100/year for the 1 TB account (and not uploaded anything so he could have lots of space to upload to other accounts) he'd still have to upgrade to the £132/year account just so he could upload to this one account.

Your alternative, of shared links and file requests may work, but it is clunky and counter intuitive.

It also breaks the charging model again, because the upload still has to be made (costing DB whatever it costs them) yet no additional payment is received for the use of that bandwidth.

It boils down to this: DB charge by storage space, but then make the way accounts are used difficult because of their bandwidth costs. This leads to a counter-intuitive and essentially unfair charging model that is either expensive or cumbersome (if worked around) for many users, while still allowing for activities that cost them money but cannot charge for.

How does that make sense?

It's a shame, because otherwise, DB is a useful service. But it is going to hurt its long term prospects when its competitors (like Google Drive, OneDrive etc) offer a much more transparent, cheaper and easy to use service.

[Ben S.27]

"But that's not what you're doing. You're uploading the files to a folder in your account, which happens to be shared with another account. The data you upload is still in your account."

I think the semantics of "my account" here are what bug me.  The way I see it, a shared folder should be just that. If what you imply is true and Dropbox literally has 100 copies of the same data on their server if I share a folder to 100 people, then they have a fundamental flaw in their backend. This is not a flaw I'm willing to foot the bill on.

"Then ask them to send you a file request (for upload) or a share link (for download)."

I'll admit I've never heard of the file requests. But correct me if I'm wrong don't both of these only work with single files at a time? They just shared to me a folder with 1200 DPX frames in it. I'd hate them to have to zip everything they want to send (thus adding another copy of the data against their quota). Even if this isn't the case this is still a miserable way to handle a shared folder. And the fact that it's possible shows that non-duplicated sharing is possible on Dropbox's end and they just don't allow us to use it with any ease.

Shared folders have always counted against your quota.

I have no proof the contrary, but I'm certain this is not the case. I used to use Dropbox extensively about 6 years ago and I never ran into a quota limit even with large folders shared to me, and this was back when the free accounts had way less space. I recall noticing when it changed, and being just as annoyed then as now.  I remember this was slightly before business accounts were a thing. But recall being flawed as it is I'll concede that I don't know for sure.

"The more data you transfer, the more it costs Dropbox, and you, as a Basic user, pay nothing towards that usage."

I agreed on this point. But with the double dipping on costs for storage I see no reason Dropbox can't handle this the way their competitors do. Google Drive has never charged for folder storage space shared to you, and you can sync that however you want.  This is precisely the reason I choose to pay Google for my cloud storage and stay a Free user on Dropbox.  I'd not be a user of dropbox at all if I had the choice, but sadly editors still frequently send me footage from them.

The bandwidth issue is the only logical reason I can see, apart from a flawed backend maybe, to charge in multiples for storage already paid for. And if that's their reason then I'd prefer transparency on that. I'd be willing to pay a "Sync fee" or something, as silly as that is.

[Ben L.26]

Every few weeks, I realize there's a new e-mail waiting for me off in that "Forums" tab of Gmail, and I skim through all the new comments in this thread before archiving the chain and forgetting about it for another few weeks. Every time, it's always the same back-and-forth.

1. Another perfectly valid complaint about how shared folders affect storage quotas in a completely unexpected manner.
2. An explanation of how shared folders affect storage quotas, whether or not the user indicated that they already understood that.
3. A reply from a user about how it's not intuitive.
4. A detailed reasoning why Dropbox chose to implement shared folders in this manner, failing to address the point about how it isn't intuitive.

Let's clear something up: we are not here trying to argue the facts. We understand how storage quotas are affected by shared folders. Painfully well, I might add. Some of us think this behavior should change, but that's actually a separate discussion that requires first-party input from the folks actually running Dropbox, and is beyond the scope of a thread on the forums.

The very fact that this thread exists underscores exactly the problem: that shared folders affect storage quotas in a completely non-intuitive way--a way that is not made apparent to the user without effectively resorting to reading the manual.

Does it make some amount of sense for them to operate this way from a technical standpoint of having to host and serve the massive amount of data that Dropbox is responsible for? Yes, but again: this is a separate discussion.

Your users are coming to you--many of them not knowledgeable in the field of information systems--telling you they are confused by a specific implementation detail of your platform, and all they get in response is a technical, detailed explanation of why it works the way it does. What's more, each user--sometimes the same user, multiple times--is having this explanation reworded at them, ad nauseam.

How does it fail to dawn on everyone that this is a completely inefficient way to handle the situation? If this information were simplified and presented in a concise manner, up front and without having to dig around, this thread wouldn't even have been made.

And that, right there, is exactly the point I was trying to get across two pages ago. Your users have certain preconceived expectations, and if you are going to operate against those--as is Dropbox's right--is it not obvious that you should make that clear up front instead of waiting until it frustrates someone enough to complain, possibly abandoning your service?

[kevin f.1]

Yep, its totally annoying.  We all seem to think Dropbox was very useful, and liked it. They as soon as any of us start sharing with anyone the whole thing collapses, because we might want to have a look at a few files of another user who has a large dropbox.

So, we all have to stop using dropbox for any sharing because it, in its totally stupid way, whats to charge us for all the storage of all our friends and colleagues.

It is, functionally, mad.

And then we get the reply which seems to be written with someone who has not empathy for human beings, completely missing the point we make, with the same old dirge.

Seems to me it is up to dropbox, then can either build on the support we all have for a dropbox that really used to work for us, and address the point that is stopping any of us, using dropbox to ever again share with anybody.

Madness.

[Scott K.19]

As much as I like everyone trying to duplicate the presidential campaigns for snarky comments the core issue is really not how DB charges but the way it is being used by people.

I also have been tormented by DB's assumption that everyone wants everything in a shared folder downloaded locally.  But the real culprit is the person sending the share.  What keeps happening is folks will share a parent folder that has tons of stuff you don't want instead of the child folder that has what they actually need to share with you.

It is unfortunate that DB keeps getting used this way and it's a bit their fault for promoting it in a way that encourages people to use it that way.

I use DB but in the way it is actually designed for, to fully share folders that can be changed on either end.  This is really most useful not for team work but for personal sharing among a persons various devices.

One of the reasons it is not good for team work is because of the auto downloading of stuff you don't want but also because deleting while shared will trickle back to other users.  It's just really bad for what a lot of people are using it for.

I came here because of the common problem that others are complaining about.  A show "shared" a folder with me.  I need some parts of that folder but not most of it.  But accepting the share fills up my quota and starts downloading gigs of stuff I will have to delete AFTER I un-share, if I remember.  I didn't know about the trickle effect a couple of years ago and deleted all the "garbage" that got dumped on my computer.  Then I got a frantic phone call because it all disappeared from the drop box.

The result is that to safeguard your data you need to keep two copies locally.  One in your drop Box (or reconnecting will start downloading all over again) and one somewhere else so that if someone accidentally deletes a file on their machine your copy won't also disappear.  And of course all (what you need and what you don't) gets counted toward your quota.

Fundamentally I don't think it's DB being greedy or "stupid" but their sharing model being used in ways it's not designed for.  I personally try hard to dissuade people from using DB for project sharing because of how vulnerable the files become.  But IF I have a say at all (not often) at least I get them to be selective in the folders shared so that I don't have to download 5 gigs to get the one text document I need.