Advanced User Permissions

Adding my voice to this. I have a language academy and want to store student and employee information but not let all employees see all student fields nor employee tables. Now it’s mid 2017 so might I ask whether this is forthcoming. If not I have to use FileMaker though I’d really rather not.

1 Like

Support for input from participants outside the organization is covered through Forms, but Airtable would be useful for me as a planning tool if participants could view and edit the records they have created.

Also hoping for restrictions for fields(user can edit only certain fields, the rest is view only), like Protected cells in Excel.

One or more of these changes may go out in early 2017.

Sorry to be a pest but has this been implemented? Can you provide more details if so/not. I really need more advanced permissions otherwise I will have to look at otherwise far less attractive alternatives.

1 Like

Hi guys, I am a fan of your product, actively trying to implement Airtable in my studio,
My guess is that any sort of granular permission is better than none… I get that as a developer you need to start building in the right direction, but for a platform that evidently is trying to cater to business teams it feels imperative provide some sort access restriction to data.
Is anything of the sort currently being beta-tested?
I would love to serve as guinea pig ! :slight_smile:

I might have a solution for you.

PM follows. :slight_smile:

That topic is so important!
At the moment Airtable practically offers only two kind of permissons:

  • The full access to the database for every colaborator - edit and view
  • or only the view option

That is to less for practical use :-/ It would be really great if you could implent different “edit” permission for each table.
It would also help if you implement “Link to other Base”

Keep up the good work!


Advanced User Permissions would be fantastic, but I was wondering if more simplistic permissioning will become available soon. For example, is there a possibility to allow edit ability when you share a view via private link? I am making certain views external facing to people and hoping that people can make edit within my 1 table.


Google has done a fantastic job with their user permissions. To have similar control for each table in a base and also global base access controls like that would likely solve a lot of the use cases listed here.

Another point I’d like to emphasize is the value of being able to share with your whole company domain, via email addresses. You have these controls right now when “Sharing” the entire base, which is great. The problem is that I don’t want everyone in my company seeing all the tables. We want them to see a couple select tables and a particular VIEW within those tables. Leveraging the power of VIEWS I think you have an opportunity to create some powerful permission controls, but not have to accommodate permissioning for individual fields ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Here’s that option you have under “Share,” which I really love…


All I need is for the view I share to include an option to allow the person I shared it with to edit.

I am working on a grant with a lot of info that is interconnected, and it is really annoying that I can’t just give people permission to edit the view with the info they provide. Some tables include billing info that collaborators in other departments should not have access to, but I can’t move them to a separate base but have them linked so all the connected fields can update, etc etc.

We can share views already; why not add the option to share with edit access? For now, I have to scan through dates of a number of tests for a number of study participants and try to pick out all the new test dates that were added (some are old, and the dates are being incorporated into the new table slowly, so I can’t just pick up at the last date I checked).

You can always watch out for changes in the activity bar, and people concerned can always follow that record.

1 Like

I agree with all the comments above. My use case is that I have a directory of services for our organisational members. I want to give them access to edit some, but not all of the data. Like most of the others, I think simply allowing the ability to edit a table or particular view would solve my problem. Another use case I have is a volunteer database, which has lots of confidential data, but which would be useful to enable some people to access to help me manage the database. Again, a table or view-only edit access would solve the problem.

1 Like

I love Airtable, but I have to say the permissions in Smartsheet are really slick. It’s almost a shame it’s lacking in the database area. :wink:

From the link:

  • locking columns
  • single row updates (would also make sense without payed AT account)
  • editable sharing

I am in full agreement with other commenters on this thread. Granular permissions would make the difference between a barely useful database and an incredibly powerful tool. I am running an HR and program participant database and need to be able to allow certain employee / participant records to be seen by some users and not others, while allowing higher level staff to view more records. If I can set recording view/edit by a parameter, such as location, that would make Airtable a perfect fit for our needs at New City Kids.


Seeking the ability to allocate some users access to edit records but not create nor delete them.

I work for a broadcaster where we use airtable to track our commissioned recordings and associated broadcast rights. Because records are easy to delete and production staff only need to update existing records (i.e. recordings that have already been commissioned), I would hope to be able to grant them access to update existing records. This reduces the risk of inadvertent deletions.

1 Like

To add to these suggestions - I’d like to be able to add a team member who can do things like sort and filter (perhaps temporarily) - non-destructive actions - but not edit the content itself - which is destructive.

So I’m asking for another level of user permissions rather than the more granular by-table (etc) permissions other people are asking for in this thread.

1 Like

I need the ability to restrict access to not only functions such as edit, view, delete, but records.
There are two ways I’d accept:
1: Allow a single base design to contain different data for each “copy”. Basically, a template base that can be used to load data specific to one sales person. Multiple sales people would have their own “copy” with their own data but design modifications only need to be done once in the template to be reflected to all bases.
2: Allow access to view records based on user. This way I could ensure Salesguy X has access to specific accounts only.

Anything you add on permissions will be a great step forward. I’ve heard a number of great suggestions. Here from simple to most complex:
The ability to lock a user our of specific tabs
The ability to lock a user out of specific views
The ability to define read/write privileges for tabs or views
The creation of custom user groups which would apply to the above
The ability to hide columns per user group
The ability to set filters on tabs or views per user group
Anything will be a step in the right direction, Airtable is an amazing and intuitive platform with a huge future but you’ll need these kind of basic capabilities to be used in serious applications.


Still hoping for more granular permissions than there are currently!

1 Like

Adding a +1 here! Looking to at least hide tables from specific user groups – so a ‘groups’ section to our shared users list would rock. Plus, some people should be able to edit some info, but not ALL THE INFO.

1 Like


Limit by tab and record (user can only see their owned records). Any organization constrained by PII rules needs this.

A possibly simpler approach would be to lock down views (e.g. only Creators can modify them). That would allow me to precreate views filtered to individual users so that they could not remove the filter and see other users’ records. It would also be helpful if you added a “Logged in User” to the Filter drop-down (right now it shows individual collaborators, which would require a separate view for each user. Adding “Logged in User” would allow me create one view that auto-filters to the logged in user).



Love your product, but the lack of user permissioning in Airtable is holding back both a) the companies that use your product and b) the growth of your company.

While you think of yourselves as a new-breed “collaboration tool”, it is clear from comments in this thread that many companies are trying to use your product as an SAP-like enterprise management tool (ERP).

Airtable enables companies to easily create and manipulate very stripped down cross-linked databases (without all of the baggage and cost of traditional ERP tools like like SAP) and immediately publish the data for distributed availability and use, including on mobile devices – all without any required specialized knowledge other than basic spreadsheet skills. That is super powerful and does not exist elsewhere!

However, without better user permissioning, companies using Airtable are unwilling to use it broadly and invite more (paying) users into the database because there is no way to allow users to view/edit data without granting access to view/edit the entire database.

You are missing a massive opportunity here. Look at and all the software out there that has been created for specific end-markets (here is the list of just the categories of software: Airtable could be used for just about all of those categories.

By contrast to software developed for specific end-markets, a product like Airtable is 100% flexible so companies can set up their data and processes exactly as they want them and they can manage data and processes across the entire enterprise with just one database – essentially companies can create and easily roll out their own custom enterprise software.

Your target market is enormous and you have the opportunity to be the first mover. But I’m afraid if you don’t address users’ needs re: permissioning, somebody else will come along and build a similar product that does.