I’d like to suggest an (in my eyes) nice update for a future update when it comes to external folder synchronization: I think a neat solution would be that – similar as to the backup folder – you only need to set a default folder synchronization path once in the global settings (at least if you like to). From then on, the folder synchronization automatically creates the subfolder »PROJECTNAME« for every new project in this location and puts the folders like »Draft« into there. Alternatively, the folder is directly named »PROJECTNAME_Draft« or something like this. At the moment, at least as far as I can see, I have to manually create and link a distinct folder for every project – or empty it before using it for the new project (which probably is a risky workflow when the old project still is linked to this folder and synchronizes with the new content when opened again). In my eyes the suggested solution would be so much better that I was puzzled that this isn’t the way it is handled already.
A second suggestion (less urgent) would be the option to – for convenience when e.g. correcting your novel project or whatever in another writing program you only use because of its better spelling/grammar corrector, like in my case – compile all the individual documents in your draft folder to one single RTF file. You would open this in another word processor as one file instead of XX chapter files, correct the text and synchronize the whole thing back to Scrivener which transfers the correction back to its correct project structure. This could be optional with a checkbox, of course. Don’t know how tricky this is technically (for Scrivener to put the correction correctly back into the splitted “single” documents style), but I guess for some this would help with the workflow. Technically it’s like “really” compiling your project to RTF, I guess – but the difference, of course, is that this would be for the synchronize feature to keep changes in sync.
As to the first folder suggestion: If I overlook a way to already synchronize they way described above, I would be grateful if you let me know. Otherwise, maybe this suggestion (and the second one) is something to consider for a future update. At least I would love it. Thanks for all your hard and great work!
Many people have dozens of projects, and may not want to maintain an external folder for those that are not being actively used. So no, I don’t think it’s likely that external folder synchronization will become a Scrivener-wide option.
In Scrivener 3, it’s possible to include links to facilitate de-compiling back to the original document structure. However, synchronizing the de-compiled document with the original project is not feasible for two reasons. First, the original project may have changed in the interim. And second, the Compile command is able to change almost every aspect of document formatting and can also include/exclude significant chunks of text. It’s not possible to clearly identify which changes should be synchronized.
Thanks a lot, Katherine, for the reply and explaination, appreciated. Sad to hear that the suggestion number 1 isn’t planned as I would have expected especially people with a lot of projects would benefit of this, but I may be wrong. Although I don’t really understand the difference when it comes to maintenance - currently, if you activate folder sync on a project, you have to create and link an individual folder for it. If you’re finished with this job, you either have to delete the whole folder and create/link a new one for the next project or completely empty the existing folder and re-link it to the new project – both manually. With the method I’ve suggested, simply the way it is saved would change which would be more convenient for most people (in my eyes), but - if not - not LESS convenient for anybody. The option would not mean that EVERY project automatically is activated for sync if you understood it this way.
Anyway, this only as an additional explaination. Would still love if you consider it sometimes in the future as I am personally considering it a better solution (but mabye I’m missing something here), but totall accepting, too, if you decide against this, of course. It’s a minor detail.
Loving Scrivener in any case, thanks for the fantastic work! And also thanks for the hint that it is possible to compile a project with included “meta-data” to de-compile to a (new) Scrivener project again – this could be helpful for me with my correction work in my second writing program even without sync, I’ll try that out.