Identify Entries in Binder by Keyword

I’d like to have a way simply to identify (highlight) entries in the binder by keyword. Leave the structure of the binder untouched. Simply highlight those documents to which keyword “x” has been assigned. I sometimes like to see where I’ve implanted a theme in the overall flow of thought, for instance. It can help to identify and eliminate repetition. Also, I sometimes have a “brilliant” thought that I wish to articulate immediately, You know, before I lose it? This could happen when I am anywhere in the structure of things. I usually make a new doc and quickly plunk down my thoughts. I want to do it right then and there! But then I don’t want to have to worry about rearranging it’s location before I return to my previous “brilliant” line of thought. It would be so nice to be able to slap a keyword on the new doc, then easily find it later, by highlight. Does this make sense? Sorry for asking, if we already have this capability. K

You can view label colors in the Binder, but not Keywords. The reason is that a document can have more than one keyword, but the Binder can only easily show one color at a time. Keyword colors are viewable in the Outliner and Corkboard views.

(This is in Mac Scrivener 3, so it’s coming to Win Scrivener 3 if not already there in the beta.)

Katherine

Hmmm. Create a function that assigns an arbitrary (system defined) color to documents in the binder list containing keyword “x” only when the user calls that function? That’s just a layman’s way, of course, of articulating a “simple” solution. Granted, it’s way, way more complicated. K

What about some way of putting the keyboard color on the end of the line in the binder? Similar to the way the colors are applied to the corkboard. I’m working in a project, and I keep finding myself totally lost every time I open the binder because there’s no keyword colors there (so I’m using the thing where one panel navigates the other one so I don’t get lost).

Yes I know this old, but I figure it’s better to add to this one rather just start a functionally duplicate topic? idk, maybe I’m wrong.