Am I missing something? I don’t really find that anyone has posted anything that could be construed as hostile. They’ve simply replied with reasoned, well thought out, responses as to why your suggestions aren’t feasible.
I think we have completely opposite views on software. Your “ALL” does not include me, which means that your statement is wrong and should instead read “… like SOME customers of software…”. The difference between us seems to be that you spend time thinking about what a piece of software can’t do, but in your opinion should be able to. I don’t.
From my perspective, any software, any app, is just one tool in my “computer toolbox”. Scrivener is only one of the apps I use for writing, not THE app for writing. It all depends on what I am writing, and where, and what device I am using. It’s the same with other categories of apps. I try to learn the basics of any new app, and sometimes try to get a more in-depth understanding of what an app might be able to do,
But I almost never spend time thinking about what a specific app can’t do. Why? Probably because I spend my time on thinking about the task, thinking about what I am trying to create or accomplish, and in doing so also try to use what I at the moment think is the best tool for the job. If the tool I have can’t do something that I need to do, I get myself a new tool, designed for exactly that.
It’s like when I am doing carpenter work. I don’t stop working and start thinking about if the current tool could have been designed in another way. I just use the tools. I don’t design them. I leave that to the developers who create the tools. If I like the tool I use it. If I don’t like it, I discard it.
No, not in any more detail than I did in my previous post. I don’t have a detailed workflow, a routine, that I follow meticulously every time I write.
I am focused on the content, the idea I am writing about, not on the tool or the process itself. When I procrastinate I don’t try to come up with new ideas on how to do what I am doing. I prefer to do something different, like checking this forum, or playing a game on my iPad or Mac, or have a cup of coffee, or walk the dog.
I like Scrivener. But I don’t feel any kind of loyalty towards the app. The day I stop liking Scrivener I’ll simply stop using it, the same way I’ve done with other apps, and start using something else.
One example: I used Storyist for some of my writing, for a while, but there were things that annoyed me. So I deleted it.
About the Wish List: why do I and others sometimes comment on the wish of others and state that we don’t want that wish to be fulfilled? Well, one of the reasons is based on the fact that L&L is not a large company. Mac Scrivener was and is created and maintained by one person, KB. I (and others) don’t want him to make changes we don’t want, or spending time on adding functionality that would dilute Scrivener, or make it more complicated to use. As a user you are entitled to wish for something to be changed, but I am equally entitled to wish for it not to be changed.
Hi Folks
I’ll state right at the start that no insults are intended here towards anyone, but just in case anything is interpreted as such, apologies.
I think Randall posted a well-thought out list of requirements that I hope the Scrivener team will consider.
I for one, often find myself lamenting and wishing that at least some of those requirements could be met.
I love Scrivener.
I don’t consider myself an expert user, but for the last few months I have been using it extensively and the thing I miss the most is being able to easily ‘tag’ bits of text within a file with different themes/labels/whatever.
And then being able to review the tagged text just as easily.
After trawling through these forums for several weeks, a few months ago I ended up using the strategy that Randall mentioned in his post of May 02, 2020 3:44am:
3. One can select strings and attach comments or footnotes to those selected strings. If one were to be tricky and always include a specific and unambiguous string in the comments one was using as bookmarks, one could use Scrivener’s “search in project” to find that string, and to save off the search as a “collection” for easy live reference at any time.
But as he says, whenever I refer to a collection, there is no really convenient way for me to review the tagged text, and I agree with several of the items in his wishlist that he lists later in that same post.
Now this is where I may offend, because, I’m begging you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE to NOT suggest once again that I create a separate file for each bit of text that I may want to mark in some way.
Imagine you’re writing a lengthy document such as a thesis, report, novel.
Irrespective of whether it’s academic, business or fiction in nature (and I’ve done all three), then it’s likely that you want to be able to easily and quickly tag, retrieve and review bits of text of the document that you’re creating.
(Please note that I’m not talking about my research/source material here, but about the document I’m writing, ie the main function that I think Scrivener is designed to help me with.)
That lengthy document is already likely split into several chapters and sections, with each section likely a file of its own in Scrivener.
Now imagine having to work with not just a 100 files, each equating to a section within a chapter, say, but 300, or 400 or whatever number of separate files you end up with once you’ve split all your documents so that you can attach label/s and/or keyword/s to those individual files.
If you’re not sweating yet then you haven’t been writing…
As I said, I love Scrivener.
But please don’t just ignore Randall’s suggestions.
I’ve seen very similar questions and asks come up over the last few years from a number of people.
My husband has referred me to another software tool that seems to do exactly as I want it to wrt tagging text (though I have persuaded him to give Scrivener a try, and I think he’s enjoying himself 
)…I haven’t looked at the other tool simply because I’m just too busy finishing my current book on Scrivener, and don’t want to think about moving away from it…I’m working with different ‘tagged’ comments and footnotes for now (and I use different colours for the comments to indicate broad themes).
It’s far from perfect but it’s manageable for now. But I really really wish the Scrivener team would give serious consideration to a broad requirement that has been coming up for a few years now.
I appreciate that the team is super busy and that there must be a backlog of issues to be fixed and future requirements to consider.
But this broad requirement of somehow marking TEXT is a serious lack that I believe is felt by many writers.
Just because we have half a dozen different ways to sort of come up with a sticky plaster that sort of keeps the raw edges together…ehhh
I probably would not have posted if I hadn’t once again read that I should consider splitting my current 57 files into 6 times that number. There, venting almost over now.
Having said all that, thank you all - Scrivener team and users - for Scrivener and all the help I’ve found on this forum.
Michelle.
You said you couldn’t search with comments etc, so clearly you didn’t know the feature existed. Now you do. Have a good day.
And just to point out that we’re not alone…please take a look at a post dated 28 April 2020 called: ‘How to cross-reference text and notes?’
3 people on this thread appear to be asking for the facility to ‘tag’ text vs files…this keeps on coming up…
How long can you ignore it? I guess forever, but please seriously consider it within your new feature prioritisation list.
https://forum.literatureandlatte.com/t/how-to-cross-reference-text-and-notes/49826/1
Best all,
Michelle.
and yet another similar request on a separate thread dated April 30th, 2020 : “I need a way to tag or thematic information and view it!”
https://forum.literatureandlatte.com/t/i-need-a-way-to-tag-or-thematize-information-and-view-it/49848/1
Please don’t think I’m not eternally grateful to all those people who give of their time and effort to answer our questions.
But perhaps it’s time to have a real solution…?
Michelle.
Hi folks,
First, two points: 1) I’m just a customer, and, 2) I would love if Scrivener contained the ability to create links to text, in addition to the current implementation of links to binder items - at least that’s what I think people are requesting here. I’m sure I would use such a feature every day.
With that out of the way, the very first post in this Wish List forum–the one entitled BEFORE POSTING…, in case you breezed past it–pretty clearly lays out the guidelines for this forum. Here’s how it starts:
So them’s the rules, folks. Stop banging your heads against the wall. Or continue to do so, if that’s your thing. Just as long as you recognize that’s what you’re doing.
Best,
Jim
- Unless things have changed, KB has said that it simply isn’t possible to add anchors in the text system used by Scrivener (i.e. for use inside Scrivener).
https://forum.literatureandlatte.com/t/bookmarks-with-a-single-document/6677/8
- For ebook or HTML output, you can add an anchor anywhere you want (i.e. for use outside Scrivener).
https://forum.literatureandlatte.com/t/help-with-html/38011/2
The project linked to above is for Scrivener 2. It still works in Scrivener 3.
- Another workaround explanation.
https://forum.literatureandlatte.com/t/bookmarks-with-a-single-document/6677/10
Yes? If you split it hierarchially, i.e split your chapter in sub-sections, and then split your sections into sub-documents, and possibly split those as well into sub-sub-documents, etc, Scrivener is built to handle that for you so you don’t really have to bother about the number of files it creates on the HD. You simply use scrivenings mode on whatever level you like and view it like one piece of text while you write. With or without dividers showing the movement through the text.
I honestly don’t see the problem. Why does it matter how Scrivener internally handles your text? 
(Emphasis added.)
Well, sure, maybe if you’re on a Mac. And maybe if you’re on Windows and you use a scroll wheel to navigate Scrivenings. But if you’re on Windows and you use page up/page down to page up and page down Scrivenings, then not so much.
Lest I repeat myself, my screed on that is here: [url]Create a link / bookmark / cross-reference or something (in a document / folder) to a text phrase in the same document / - #21 by JimRac]
Best,
Jim
Hi lunk,
You’re forcing me to think clearly about how I work here, but I’ll give it my best shot and try and and answer your question 
The long and short of it is that Scrivener may be able to deal with that number of files, but I cannot. At least not during an important phase of writing.
I go through different phases when I’m writing: researching, writing, editing, and the problem is two-fold:
1- this is not a sequential process where I start with research, then write, and finally edit my stuff. It’s an iterative process where I step through any of those phases in almost any order, and then I repeat at least several times in probably a different order.
2 - and this is where the rub comes in - I work very differently, and I therefore have different tool requirements, depending on whether I’m writing or editing (let’s make this simpler and forget about research for today).
The draft folder in my binder is often structured with one folder per chapter, and within each folder I generally have a file per section or scene (depending on whether it’s non-/fiction.)
If I’m in ‘creative’ mode (I’m eternally hopefully that one day I’ll be truly inspired!), then I tend to work in a top-down/high-level mode and I really do not want to be distracted. And, seeing many files in my binder for what is conceptually one section or scene I find very jarring (and yes, I realise it could be just me).
In any case, I want the equivalent of one sheet of paper for the current section/scene that I’m working on, on which to dump those words before If forget them .
I also know that if I wanted to I could hide the binder, and use continuous mode to see all text within all those files.
But it just doesn’t work for me…I need a good (for me) balance between seeing the structure and detail. Having my 3-tier structure at hand is sufficient for me most of the time. Most of the time I don’t want to see the detail at which I’m tagging words/sentences in files. BUT, when I need to see that detail then it really is very important to me that I can see it quickly and conveniently…usually I’m editing at that stage, and wanting to make sure I’ve figuratively dotted ever i and crossed every t etc, throughout the whole report/book/thesis.
Please note that I’m not saying that I NEVER go beyond a three-level structure for my writing (where the top level is the book/report/thesis, the second level is the folder/chapter level, and third level is the files within a chapter that make up sections/scenes).
If I were writing non-fiction, and I had sub-sections, then I probably WOULD have separate files per sub-section (and even lower levels depending on how long or complex those sub-sub/…sections were).
However, to my mind that is very different to my requirement to track certain themes or threads throughout my document. I may want to track these themes/threads in this way (ie tagging text as opposed to whole files), for both fiction or non-fiction writing.
I’m sorry I cannot explain this better. I realise that this is very personal way of working, and that not everyone will have the same process or requirements as I do.
But I really would like something that allows me to do what I want without my having to manage it to the nth degree…which is what splitting my files into a huge number would entail.
And even if I did split my sections/scenes to the nth degree - it still wouldn’t work particularly well for me. Usually I want to tag just a few words or a sentences. I would either need a file that contained JUST those few words or sentences, or else I would also have to highlight/colour the text of those words or sentences so that when I’m looking for them, I can see them immediately…that is way too much work.
Please also note that THIS reply is NOT me pushing for this requirement to be added to a future implementation list.
I’ve already done that (and I don’t see anything wrong with asking).
This is me trying to answer lunk’s question as to why splitting files doesn’t work for me.
Good day/evening all.
Michelle.
Note that you can collapse the Binder or any portion of it. That is, you can show only the top three levels (or whatever) while still having whatever level of structure you want below that, and combine any single section into a single Scrivenings view.
I’m a little confused by the idea that Scrivenings mode is a distraction in itself. If you want, you can hide the separators between files to such a degree that people sometimes don’t even realize that they’re there.
It also seems to me that there are (at least) two different use cases being discussed in this thread, and they have different requirements.
If you want to tag sections of text with a specific theme in order to extract them and view them sequentially … that’s exactly the need that Scrivener itself, and keywords, and Collections, and Scrivenings mode and all the rest were designed to address. Trying to do that without splitting documents into pieces is essentially trying to create a completely separate approach that duplicates a major piece of Scrivener’s core functionality. Again, I don’t speak for the developer, but I have a very hard time visualizing a business case that justifies the enormous development effort that would require.
If, on the other hand, you simply want to drop an “anchor point” into a document so that you can jump to that point later – the classic definition of a “bookmark” – I’m not sure why you need finer granularity than a “normal” outline, possibly combined with the existing Comment/Annotation functionality. I mean, a traditional bookmark (or index or ToC reference) in a printed book drops you in the middle of a two-page spread, spanning 600 words or more. “Anchored” bookmarks on web pages similarly usually correspond to major sections, as do cross references in programs like Word. The original request seems to call for much more granularity than any similar tool offers.
Katherine
Hey, Michelle.
If I understand things right, you are looking for a way to tag / bookmark a limited number of words in longer text files and then have those words easily grouped / accessed.
According to the developer, the text system that Scrivener uses is simply unable to do that (and no amount of programming can change this limitation, unless Scrivener was rewritten to use a completely different text system) other than through the workarounds / methods outlined in this thread already.
It’s not that the request won’t be implemented out of choice; it’s that it can’t be implemented because the text system doesn’t offer any way of allowing the request to be implemented.
Huh? In what way would having the text as one long single document be better than having the same text consisting of 100 sub-documents looking as a continuous text thanks to scrivenings mode?
And why would you do that? Like Katherine writes, collapse the binder! If you only want to see the chapters, show only the chapters! If you want one more level, show that level! And if you suddenly want to see the deepest level of granularity for one section, expand that section!
That’s the beauty of Scrivener - you don’t have to see all the text or all the levels at once, if you don’t want to. Let Scrivener show you only what you want to see - in the Binder, in the Editor, in the Outline.
Because if you’re on Windows like I am, page up/page down doesn’t work in Scrivenings mode. And I use page up/page down to navigate text within docs. Did you read my post which I linked to above? It explains my challenges with Scrivenings mode, which leads to my reluctance to break bigger docs into smaller docs, which leads to my desire for text to text linking. Scrivener’s design philosophy of smaller discrete docs is wonderful. I wish I could make more use of it than I do.
Here, I am using the string “===” as my special bookmark search string. To leave a bookmark I am selecting a string of text in a document, opening the inspector, clicking on the comments tab, clicking the plus “+” icon, and typing the equals “=” key three times, and then, if I want, following that bookmark string with a note to myself.
Then I did a search using the binder search bar above the binder, for that same string I’ve chosen as my comments bookmark string ("===").
Then I clicked on that little down pointing carrot next to the magnifying glass icon in the binder search field and choose “Save Search as Collection”. I named it “=== Bookmarks”.
Thereafter, I can just click on my “=== Bookmarks” collection to see a list of all the documents in my binder that I have created a comment or comment for that I’ve designated as a bookmark by including the special string “===”.
Once my bookmarks list appears, I can click on any of the listed documents, which will bring that document into the editor with each of the “===” commented strings highlighted. I can click on any of these linked strings to be taken to that bookmark comment in question (shown now in the inspector), or I can open the inspector, and click on the inspector’s comments tab, to see a full list of the comments I’ve assigned to stings within that document. Unfortunately, Scrivener doesn’t link your binder search to the inspector’s comments list, so there is no indication of which comments contain your special bookmarks string (in my case, “===”).
As it is difficult to see which of your comments contain your bookmarks string, you might want to decide always to place this string at the very start of your comment.
I choose the string “===” for several reasons. First, it is an unlikely series of characters to appear in a comment unless I have placed it there. Second, I don’t have to use another modifier key (shift, control, command, options) to make the char “=” so it is quick and easy. Third, it is a char that is easy to see, especially in sequence. I thought of using the • (option 8) char, because it is so obvious to the eye “•••”, but I’d prefer not having to use two keys and two hands to type that sequence. You might choose otherwise. Also, there is nothing special about the number of chars you choose to use as your comments bookmark search string. I’ve used three chars but you can use any string length you want so long as it is easy and quick to type, easy to remember, is a string that won’t appear in your comments accidentally, and is easy to spot in your inspector’s comments list,
Once you’ve set up your search for your comments bookmarks string as a collection, you can simply click on that collection to review your bookmarks as they appear within your project. The found list the collection brings up in the binder area can be sorted by date, document name, or binder order (binder order appears to be the default sort). To sort the list, click on the little downward pointing carrot under the collection name. However, of course it would be ideal if you could sort your bookmarks by the date you created them not the date the document you attached your bookmarks to was created. Be even nicer if you could set due dates, create reminders, or timers, and assign priorities to your bookmarks and sort by any of these attributes.
Now, it is important to know that comments always reference a string of text within a document. If you create a comment without selecting a string or placing your cursor within the text of a document, the comment is assigned to the end of your document. If you want to leave a bookmark for a document itself (not a string within a document), you might want instead to use the Notes metadata instead of Comments. To do this, click on the document you would like to bookmark in total, open the inspector, and click on the inspector’s Notes tab (the little two ring clipboard icon at the far right of the inspector’s icon bar). At the top of the Notes inspector is the area reserved for “Synopsys”. Underneath the Synopsys you will find “Notes”. Click in the notes field and type your bookmarks string “===” (the same one you chose for Comments bookmarks). However, this method isn’t perfect as Scrivener’s collection search results don’t show you where your special search string was found (text, notes, comments, keywords, etc.). To get around this, I have set up a second Collection that searches for the same string ("===") but only in notes. I have called this collection “=== Notes Bookmarks”.
An alternative means of leaving bookmarks at the document granularity is to set up a new custom meta-data, as text, and to type your bookmark string ("===") into it (followed by a short note to yourself). This method allows you to see (and place) your bookmarks while in the outlines view mode.
Lots of options, all of them work (as workarounds), none of them ideal.
However… there is a problem with the bookmarks method I have just shown. Because Scrivener does not allow the user to limit a binder search to “Comments” only (as it does for “Notes”), any collection designated to find all incidences of your designated bookmarks string (I’ve used “===”) will bring up any document that has your bookmarks string in either the notes or the comments metadata.
It might be wise therefor to use a one search string for whole document notes bookmarks (say “\”“and another string for in-document comments bookmarks (”===").
Yet another complication.
Randall,
Thank you for taking the time to circle back and provide your findings.
Jim
What does it mean when there is no option to “Edit” one of my own posts or replies?