SharePoint
Feedback by UserVoice

Neil Hodgkinson [Sr. Program Manager, Microsoft]

My feedback

  1. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Suggestion Archive  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Neil Hodgkinson [Sr. Program Manager, Microsoft] commented  · 

    This is the license verification check and is deliberately disabled. You can request it be re-enabled for your tenant by making a call to support who will switch it back on!

  2. 2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SharePoint Hybrid And Migration » Hybrid  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Neil Hodgkinson [Sr. Program Manager, Microsoft] commented  · 

    Kawabata. The Cloud Search Service Application requires a SharePoint server on premises. Can be single machine including SQL Express if necessary but in order to provide the trust mechanism with Office 365 you need to have at least one machine - this is your minimal setup.

  3. 3 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  Suggestion Archive  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Neil Hodgkinson [Sr. Program Manager, Microsoft] commented  · 

    Can you provide business justification for this requirement. Currently libraries and folders operate in a manner that reflects fileshares/folders and this was a deliberate design decision to maintain familiarity with people's working practices. making a change like this would be significantly disruptive so we would need solid justification for it.

  4. 5,647 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    708 comments  ·  Sites and Collaboration » Sites Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Providing the ability to scale from renaming individual sites, to all sites within a SharePoint tenant, while ensuring a consistent user experience across M365 is a complex problem. We have been working hard on this long-awaited feature and are currently validating this with a subset of customers in a closed (no longer accepting nominations) Private Preview Program. As we consolidate their feedback, we will provide another update in the next few months.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Neil Hodgkinson [Sr. Program Manager, Microsoft] commented  · 

    can you share you method and experience Paul. When you think about what this command has to do within the database, its essentially a transaction that runs against every record for the site collection in every table. The bigger the site, the longer the transaction will take to run.

    Even a rename everything cmdlet would still run for a long time on a large site.

    Share some numbers and your steps please.

  5. 5 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    4 comments  ·  Suggestion Archive  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Neil Hodgkinson [Sr. Program Manager, Microsoft] commented  · 

    Are you referring to certifications or training? We partner with multiple training providers around the world to offer the breadth of training required for all of the various different types of SharePoint users. If you look at some of these partners you will find what you are looking for I am sure.

  6. 4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SharePoint Hybrid And Migration » Hybrid  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Neil Hodgkinson [Sr. Program Manager, Microsoft] commented  · 

    Hopefully the O365 / SharePoint cloud search service application meets with your approval for this level of integration

  7. 21 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    4 comments  ·  SharePoint Administration » SharePoint Upgrade  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Neil Hodgkinson [Sr. Program Manager, Microsoft] commented  · 

    Based on the news at ignite and in other posts I believe we have successfully responded to this request for SharePoint 2016.
    I will not be something we can improve for SharePoint 2013 though I am afraid

  8. 208 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    7 comments  ·  SharePoint Search  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Neil Hodgkinson [Sr. Program Manager, Microsoft] commented  · 

    SharePoint does have this functionality with its dynamic spelling dictionary. One problem is that the suggestion threshold may be too high and you are not seeing it implemented. Have a look at Waldek's blog post http://blog.mastykarz.nl/sharepoint-2013-query-spelling-inclusions-for-the-masses/
    He covers how to modify the threshold for the query spelling suggestion engine.

  9. 13 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SharePoint Administration » Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Neil Hodgkinson [Sr. Program Manager, Microsoft] commented  · 

    SharePoint takes limited dependency on SQL modelDB guidance because we have to stay true to the parameters we are able to test. If the SQL team were to change their defaults we would need to retest a whole swathe of scenarios all over again.

    Our approach here is to document the changes you should make and provide guidance rather than take dependencies.

  10. 4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  SharePoint Administration » MinRole  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Neil Hodgkinson [Sr. Program Manager, Microsoft] commented  · 

    Interesting idea but for Sp2016 we have implemented zero downtime patching which isn't what you asked for but it seems to be on the right path.

    Lets see how the votes go for this idea

  11. 41 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    6 comments  ·  SharePoint Administration » Distributed Cache  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Neil Hodgkinson [Sr. Program Manager, Microsoft] commented  · 

    I think we have discussed this Trevor but for everyone else. AppFabric remains the caching mechanism for some caches in SP2013 and SP2016. The Windows team will support App Fabric as a dependent product for SharePoint until end of life for SharePoint 2016 - this is in accordance with our regular lifecycle management guidance.

  12. 82 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Neil Hodgkinson [Sr. Program Manager, Microsoft] commented  · 

    Traditionally this type of reporting has been the stomping ground for our partner/ISV teams or custom built by customers.

    We are working on a range of new telemetry ideas and I will feed this back to the team responsible.

  13. 49 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Neil Hodgkinson [Sr. Program Manager, Microsoft] commented  · 

    Umar is you concern on the sync setup or just deployment of the service application itself.

  14. 10 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  SharePoint Administration » Security  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Neil Hodgkinson [Sr. Program Manager, Microsoft] commented  · 

    Piotr. Can you share a little more on your scenario. We have some key requirements for user rehydration in hybrid scenarios, mainly that the upn of the user should match. This should be the case if the source account domain is the same unless you are doing some claim remapping.

  15. 26 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  SharePoint Administration » Database  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Neil Hodgkinson [Sr. Program Manager, Microsoft] commented  · 

    Hi Dylan. You can't really take SPO as being representative of an on premises deployment. The scaling in SPO is heavily dependent on Microsoft Datacentre architecture and more than just SharePoint and SQL Server.
    Having said that you could implement a 1TB site collection on premises if you properly consider the operational aspects required to do that. SQL maintenance and a thoroughly tested backup and recovery process should be keys to that as well as storage that can deliver appropriate performance for that scale. Our software boundaries also implies the site collection can be a large as the supported content database size - https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc262787(v=office.15).aspx#SiteCollection

  16. 10 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    2 comments  ·  SharePoint Administration » Other  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Neil Hodgkinson [Sr. Program Manager, Microsoft] commented  · 

    The challenge with this idea is that some of the most latency sensitive service applications and batch processing jobs (timer jobs) require very low latency. To produce specific latency thresholds actually makes little sense when intra farm communication of 1ms is a requirement not just for SharePoint to SQL responsiveness but for communication between SharePoint servers as well. For example. If you were to deploy a stretch farm for DR reasons across two datacentres there is a very high likelihood of that farm having search enabled. Search requires very low latency between replicas within a partition and so if you have replicas from the same partition stretched across a high (ish) latent like you are in a bad state instantly. In this scenario it makes no sense to consider higher latency for UPA because you require low latency regardless.

    The only scenario when a higher latency could possibly be considered is if a farm was operating with zero components needing low latency. Not something we are likely to come across although I would like to hear it if you have a scenario that fits this case.

Feedback and Knowledge Base