I'm implementing folder redirection for a domain, and I'm trying to make this as seamless as possible for current users. I assumed the %USERNAME% subfolders would remain in the same place but point to the redirected folders… but instead, they were essentially moved from the local location to the server without leaving any links behind to reach them. My users would have to access their redirected folders through a share or mapped drive.
Is there a setting I missed in Group Policy when doing this, or do I have to manually create links to the new folder locations for each user?
EDIT:
Before I applied the folder redirection, the Users/%USERNAME% folder looked like this:
-.AppData
-Contacts
-Desktop
-Downloads
-Favorites
…
And now those subfolders aren't there.
The Library folders are as they were and link to the redirected locations, but they don't contain all the files that the %USERNAME% folder does. I don't want my users to not be able to find their documents.
I should also mention that this is the first time I've implemented folder redirection. So, is this just what happens, or is there a way to preserve the way it appeared before but with links to the proper redirected folder locations?
Best Answer
You're seeing as-intended behavior.
It sounds like you're expecting users to access these folders by navigating to paths under "C:\Users...". That's not what Microsoft intended. They intend the user to use the "Libraries" or other shell functionality to access the folders via their semantic names, not based on the physical path. There aren't supposed to be "links" to the folders in "C:\Users..."-- the users are just supposed to use the shell "Documents", etc, icons to access their files.
If you've got users who are used to accessing "C:\Users\username\Documents..." to get to their they're going to need to be trained to use the new location.
I've used Folder Redirection a lot over the years, and I've never heard this particular use-case before. It sounds like your users have a very odd way of interacting with their files. Unfortunately, this odd interaction method sounds like it's in conflict with Microsoft's idea about how the feature is supposed to work.