Loading Profile...
Possibility for shared ownership for files?
I've built quite large of a list of favourites linking to other people's public files. It occurred to me to test what happens to links if the original owner deletes a file. It looks like all the links just simply vanish like they were never there. So, it seems like my favourites folder, as it is, is on rather shaky ground.
I could make copies of them, of course, but that feels like it's the wrong solution.
It looks like copying a file doesn't really make a copy but it does use up the whole file worth of space from my account. It also doesn't help preserving links to the original file in case it's deleted.
What I'd prefer is a shared copy where each owner essentially only pays part of the space necessary to keep the file and keeps the file and links to it alive for everyone even if the original uploader removes it from his/her files.
The biggest problem with this approach would be that it'd, in some cases, make the cost of keeping the file fluctuate quite a bit. I suspect this would be rather rare though.
Another possible approach would be to not automatically share the cost among all owners but select someone at random from the people who have "shared" the file if the original uploader deletes it.
I could make copies of them, of course, but that feels like it's the wrong solution.
It looks like copying a file doesn't really make a copy but it does use up the whole file worth of space from my account. It also doesn't help preserving links to the original file in case it's deleted.
What I'd prefer is a shared copy where each owner essentially only pays part of the space necessary to keep the file and keeps the file and links to it alive for everyone even if the original uploader removes it from his/her files.
The biggest problem with this approach would be that it'd, in some cases, make the cost of keeping the file fluctuate quite a bit. I suspect this would be rather rare though.
Another possible approach would be to not automatically share the cost among all owners but select someone at random from the people who have "shared" the file if the original uploader deletes it.
3 people have this question
I have this question, too!
Tell me when someone answers.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
-
Inappropriate?That's a great input. We are actually thinking about abandoning links completely and instead making copies much cheaper as you described. So the copies wouldn't count towards your used storage. There are a few open questions though with this approach:
1. How is the used storage shared among the users?
2. What happens when someon adds a comment/tag to the original? Maybe it would be interesting to see that tag on the copy, too? But maybe not on copies of the copy to preserve privacy?
3. If we abandon links, who is responsible for the storage of files stored in groups? Their administrator? The original uploader?
4. What can we do about the possible fluctuations you mentioned?
We are currently still evaluating the different options on how to address these open questions, but in general, we believe that it would be a good idea to abandon "links" and introducing the "free" copy instead. -
Inappropriate?1. I've toyed with 2 ideas concerning used storage sharing.
First option would be to simply just share used storage evenly. However this has the potential to be rather jumpy for some files and keeping it synchronized might use quite a bit of resources. From users' point of view, though, this one is the least effort and simple to understand.
Another option would be to not share used storage but allow users to specify how much of their space they wish to reserve for catching copied files that get deleted from the original owner's files.
2. I'd suggest 2 kinds of copies. Private copy, meaning that as far as commenting is concerned, it's a different file and Linked copy that keeps the comments but somehow indicates which comments are from which copy. Maybe even have 2 kinds of comments? public comments that show on all linked files and private comments only on the specifc copy.
3. I think groups should have storage allocation too. Users could give a part of their own to the group and perhaps automatically on copy if there is not enough available. The group system does need some more polishing, it's rather limiting that only founder can create directories or invite members for example.
4. I think it's unlikely to be a big problem. When there are copy owners left but their combined available storage isn't enough to keep the file, I'd suggest emailing the owners. There could be a list that has files in danger of deletion unless enough available storage allocation is found, of course only of files the user has access rights to. In any case, a notification for people who have favourited (or copied) the file in question is probably a good idea.
EMPLOYEE