A better way to use Scrivener?

I came to Scrivener through Pages. I tried all of the similar programs out there but selected Scrivener for the wrong reason! As it turns out, it was a fortuitous choice, but I wonder if I am wasting the power of the app?

I have severe current projects as examples:

  1. A weekly column for the newspaper. I’ve been using a single Scrivener file for the entire time which is kinda handy in a cut and paste sort of way.
  2. A major reference work on plants for the south has a single S. file.

What does this mean? It means that many of the most powerful features of Scrivener aren’t used, especially for the column.

I know there’s no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, because the team set it up that way, but I cannot help but feel I could be getting more out of the app. So, I thought that positing here might generate a conversation÷

Michael

As far as I can tell, you are using Scrivener correctly in both instances.
The book is a single project file, and the column housed in one file works OK, as well.
In the column case, if you go on for many years, the file may get too bulky and slow.
Then you might break it down to five-year units, or whatever makes sense.
Possibly you could use templates to save yourself retyping boilerplate (standard text).
And collections for gathering information topics: seasons, tools, crops, etc.
I was a little puzzled by the inclusion of “PDF Manuscript” in the project file.
Unless you want to split the screen and compare the PDF to earlier versions.
I use Scrivener to create early drafts; then export to Pages for final formatting.