SharePoint Template Gallery
Hey everyone, I'm running into an issue with the new SharePoint site page template gallery. Some of my templates are showing up consistently, while others appear intermittently — even though all the metadata is identical across them. I've been troubleshooting but can't pinpoint what's causing the inconsistency. For context: I have over 100 templates in the gallery. A template I just created is displaying fine, but one I made last week isn't showing up at all, so I don't think it's a template count issue. Any insights would be really appreciated!
I don't want 100 different SharePoint sites. How to create private teams w/o a new site?
Guys. WTF. I've inherited a problem where a company of 50 people has 100 sharepoint sites - because users created different Teams for different projects, and Microsoft makes it incredibly opaque what this actually means. Now we have 100 SharePoint sites, many of which are unused, but all of which appear in the list of sites in 365AC. The structure we WANT is 1 Sharepoint site for our 1 org, but multiple locations within that site, and multiple groups for multiple projects. I THOUGHT what could work was converting the excess Teams into Private Channels. But I have now learned that private channels ALSO create SharePoint sites, because _______. Most confusingly, all of these sharepoint 'sites' DO exist within our main SharePoint website - they're just pages (but not 'pages') pretending to be a fresh sharepoint website. This confuses the **** out of people, the way they've redefined what a 'site' is, what a 'team' is, etc. This is genuinely hot garbage, and it's suddenly clear to me why people always push back on using SharePoint over OneDrive. Recommendations for... not having this disaster? Making a structure that is intuitive and doesn't redefine what a site and page are, and allows you to have private locations for management or projects, but DOESN'T create a 'site' within the main 'site', with it's OWN 'documents', and it's own 'Notebook' (which isn't a document) and it's own 'Conversations' (which are NOT conversations), and it's own 'pages'? I don't work with dumb people - these are very technical people. But even our main SharePoint guy is mystified by these interactions. Does it make more sense in another language? If anyone at Microsoft is reading - the english term 'site', comes from the word 'website', which generally refers to a distinct web service with a distinct domain name. These contained different webPAGES.. When websites started existing off a shared domain name, like company1.sharepoint.com and company2.sharepoint.com - this confused people, but they put up with it, because it was relatively easy to explain the tech behind this - having websites under a single site, that wasn't too hard to understand. But what SharePoint seems to do, is extend this practice into absolute hysteria, where a particular webPAGE of a webSITE is ALSO a site, but also is a TEAM, or COULD be a CHANNEL. OR it could be a PAGE - WHO knows? If it's a TEAM, that TEAM could have CONVERSATIONS, which aren't actually Team Conversations - they're EMAILS. But this is fine, because all CONVERSATIONS of a TEAM done in TEAMS are actually stored as EMAILS so really those, CONVERSATIONS should be CONVERSATIONS... So why aren't these conversations in Teams between a Team that are stored as Emails not showing in the Conversations which show emails within that Team? aefggaddadsfasd
pnp-modern-search does not work in the local SharePoint workbench
Version used 4.9.0 (SPFx 1.15.0) Describe the bug The solution works correctly when deployed using the .sppkg package in SharePoint Online, but it does not work in the local SharePoint workbench. There are two related issues: When running gulp serve, the build/runtime reports an error related to microsoft/sp-webpart-workbench/lib/api/, suggesting a failure in loading or resolving the local workbench API module. When adding the web part to the local workbench page, the web part fails to render with the following error: Error: Cannot find module './15.js' The second error appears to be related to a missing or incorrectly resolved chunk/module during bundle loading. The issue only occurs in the local workbench. The deployed .sppkg solution in SharePoint Online works correctly. Node.js version: 16.8.0 (compatible with SPFx 1.15.0). Dependencies installed via npm install without errors. To Reproduce Clone the repository Run npm install Run gulp serve Open the local SharePoint workbench Add the web part to the page Observe: Error during gulp serve related to microsoft/sp-webpart-workbench/lib/api/ Web part fails to load with Cannot find module './15.js' Expected behavior The web part should load and render correctly in the local workbench without module resolution errors. Desktop : Browser: Chrome Node.js: 16.8.0 SPFx: 1.15.0
Ability to schedule email of SharePoint post
We've started using SharePoint to create and send mass emails in our organization, but its a huge pain that I can't schedule them ahead of time to send at a specific time/date. Could you work on creating a way to schedule not just the publishing of a SharePoint news post, but when it is shared via email? That would be amazing.
SharePoint News Email “Content too large” issue – size limit clarification
Hi, We are currently trying to send a SharePoint News post via email and encountering the following error: “The contents of this page are too big to send in email.” We performed testing to understand the limitation and observed the following: Full newsletter (~5.29 MB) → ❌ Error Pages 1–12 (~3.11 MB) → ❌ Error Pages 1–11 (~2.80 MB) → ✅ Works Slight increase (~2.90 MB) → ❌ Error again ✅ Based on testing: Practical threshold seems around ~2.7–2.8 MB Above this, email rendering fails ❓ Questions: Is there a documented maximum size limit for SharePoint News email content? Is the limit based on: Total content size after rendering? Image count/size? Can this limit be configured or increased? What are the recommended best practices for image-heavy newsletters? ✅ Current understanding: It appears that the limitation is due to HTML email rendering size rather than just file size Any clarification or official guidance would be appreciated. Thanks.SharePoint Permissions Management
Over the last 3 years of managing permissions across a suite of sites, I have uncovered more new issues with the way SharePoint permissioning is designed at every turn. A few examples, before the question: If I "Share" a file or folder somewhere on the site (breaking permissions inheritance), it is very inconvenient to find it again. If I "copy link" in this one particular way, permissions inheritance is broken. When looking at site-level permissions, I see site-level permissions groups, but there could be hundreds of other users who have been added to my site(s) without my knowing. If I want to reset permissions in an area (set of folders or library), I have to do it file-by-file or folder-by folder. If I want to get an excel snapshot of - anything really - IT has to pull it and it takes a couple days. Not to mention the permissions interface is incredibly clunky. All-in-all, there seem to be a million ways to break permissions inheritance, creating an access tracking and security nightmare. AND there's no easy way to truly see and understand who has access to what or what is broken, without spending hours with IT to pull a bunch of narrow-visibility reports. So my question is: what is the best way to navigate full permissions visibility? Am I doing something wrong? Is anyone else experiencing these issues? We have resorted to having a very strict "no outsides besides a few exceptions" policy and only managing permissions at the site-level, which really hampers on the collaboration benefits that SharePoint is trying to enable. It is also very administratively intensive. One of the benefits to SharePoint is that users don't really need to understand how it works to use it, but that's becoming less and less true with the increasing lack of security we feel in the platform.SharePoint Creates a New Document Version After Printing
Hello All, We're experiencing an issue with version control in SharePoint. Here is the scenario: Our users are in SharePoint Online major/minor version controlled document libraries. They are opening Office 365 documents (Word, Excel, etc.) in the web app in view-only mode. They are making no changes to the files — just selecting File > Print. The action of printing is creating a new version of the file (ex: 3.0 to 3.1). This is causing issues with the document statues. After a new version is created, the file status is updated from Approved to Draft. But there was no change to the file to warrant a new version. Lastly, the new version is only created if the user is printing from the web app (Word, Excel, etc.). If they open the file in their desktop app, the document is not marked as modifed. After reaching out to Microsoft, we were informed this is a new "expected behavior". Quote from Microsoft: "From SharePoint’s perspective, printing = modifying, so this is not considered a bug but expected product behavior. When a document is printed from Office for the web (Word/Excel/PowerPoint Online), SharePoint treats this action as a file modification." Is anyone else experiencing this issue? Have you discovered a way to prevent this from happening?
Your SharePoint Sharing Might Break in 2026
A major change is coming and it’s not getting enough attention. Microsoft is moving away from simple OTP sharing and shifting to full Entra B2B. It sounds like a security upgrade, but it completely changes how external access works. This isn’t a small tweak: Existing sharing links may stop working as expected External users will go through new authentication flows Access will rely heavily on identity and guest policies Yes, you get better control and visibility but also more friction if your setup isn’t ready. If your organization relies on quick sharing links, this could become a real issue fast. Curious how others are handling this: Are you already using Entra B2B? Seeing any access or adoption issues? How are you balancing security vs usability?
