I love Scrivener, but I have run into data loss on several occasions, because I can’t have my projects open on more than a single machine at a time. I use Dropbox to sync, and that has worked okay, although Dropbox in recent years has become more and more cumbersome. So my main issue is that I forget to close my document on one machine, and can’t open it without making copies, on my different platforms (I use stationary Mac, laptop Mac, iPad and iPhone).
I understand that iCloud sync is not useable for the Scrivener format, which would also be vastly preferable, but I would like to know if I can expect support for working on a project on multiple machines simultaneously, in the future? Otherwise I sadly have to start looking for a replacement. It has become too cumbersome to work with.
Edit: I now see that the notion that iCloud sync isn’t useable for the Scrivener format is now outdated. The original question still stands though.
While this thread isn’t aimed specifically at what you’re doing (it covers alternative iOS 🡘 macOS sync methods), it does dip into how to recover from mistakes in a way that is very easy and safe to use—because in fact we are using a tool that was designed to make collaboration easy.
Or in other words, there is already a mechanism in Scrivener that lets you edit a project concurrently, between any arbitrary number of sessions and over any time scale, and safely merge the variations together into one master copy again.
I should stress, and remind, that the wording in that post is aimed at iOS syncing, and is couched within the notion of using another approach to syncing entirely—but that approach is not necessary for this to be available as an option. You get this option by the very action of creating a copy of the project to edit safely. The other method creates copies by virtue of the automatic backup system. One is deliberate, the other is ad hoc, but in the end they both have the same result.
Note there is also the General: Automatic Quit, settings pane. I don’t like to recommend that as an actual workflow though, because then you have to waste electricity leaving all of your devices on all of the time. It should be better thought of as a failsafe that might help you out, but most often if you forget you’re going to have to clone a copy and merge it later (which again, is so painless because it’s meant to be a workflow not a recovery feature).
Hmmm… Did not know about Automatic Quit, that would very likely solve half of my issues, as my stationary runs 24/7. Does Macbooks sync when closed, with App Nap, and importantly, does the Automatic Quit function work during App Nap?
Note that syncing is a Mac OS/Dropbox function, not a Scrivener function. That is, Scrivener always saves to the local disk. What happens after that is up to the operating system.
In our experience, closing a MacBook completely suspends all operations. Scrivener doesn’t close (or save), and syncing does not occur. I would definitely recommend making sure that Scrivener has shutdown and the Mac has finished syncing first.
App Nap does not prevent the Automatic Quit function. Scrivener will usually have saved anything that’s open long before the Automatic Quit actually occurs. (The autosave interval is seconds; Automatic Quit is typically minutes.)
Thanks, in that case it won’t be a solution. I think I will just have to accept that Scrivener unfortunately doesn’t fit properly with my workflow, as it involves multiple machines.
For others reading this thread, as long as the user closes the Scrivener project when writing session is complete, allows enough time for the user’s computer to complete a sync with Dropbox, everything works. It’s not magic. And essential to setup the automatic Scrivener backups. The computer won’t do imaginary things.
Okay, let me rephrase it then, to my workflow involving multiple machines, and my less than optimal human behavior. I am too spoiled working with Pages/Numbers/Keynote where I can leave a document open on multiple machines, and edit without issues.
The difference is all those applications are one document you’re working with and sharing.
In Scrivener, you have a control SCRIVX file per project and potentially one to hundreds of documents that update when you switch between and edit them at random in a project–all of which saves after 5 seconds of inactivity. Each Scrivener folder/document is a contents.rtf file in a 32-character and four dashes folder managed by the control file. (Well, that’s my layman’s understanding of how it works, though I’m sure there are numerous other considerations I know nothing about.)
Given the amount of work the control file manages, I doubt scrivener will ever become a live collaboration platform managing content over a cloud service as you’re used to using.
It’s been said here before that Scrivener, in and of itself, doesn’t know a cloud service exists, leaving such management to the various operating system environments.
The mega-corporates probably don’t share what it takes to get their apps to share over cloud services and would have teams meticulously checking compliance every step of the way. It’s their apps at the end of the day, running on their IP, so why would they want to share it and potentially kill-off a lucrative income stream.
Only in the broadest of definitions could we compare what you are referring to, to what Scrivener does. You aren’t wrong to be clear, in the same way that one might correctly say macOS Reminders supports tasks like OmniFocus does. But to say it like that, as if that’s the beginning and the end of it, is to ignore the vast infrastructure OmniFocus provides beyond typing in things to do in rows, and clicking the circle to mark them done.
Google Docs supports online and simultaneous editing. It does not support anything resembling Scrivener’s outlining and organizational features.
My point is that we get lots of requests from people asking us to be more like Google Docs, yet Google Docs – with many times greater resources – is still limited in exactly the areas where Scrivener is strongest.
This is relevant because the features that are unique to Scrivener are part of why simultaneous editing of a Scrivener project is difficult.
