I can’t find any of the quoted phrases being said by anyone in this thread. I don’t feel anyone is “wrong” as you put. Perhaps the closest to that is the section that describes how Scrivener’s designed sweet spot is to use a smaller text chunking approach than one might use in a word processor? In reading that section again, I don’t see where it is overly critical of other approaches, and it even acknowledges preference and necessity for other use cases—hence the remainder of the post going on to show how you can work with longer texts more easily.
Sorry, I’m not trying to criticise your criticism, I’m just trying to understand where it is coming from. I would struggle to frame a paragraph like that as “the users are wrong”.
At any rate, I would emphasise that I was mainly sharing a variety of techniques that I use to work, as they address most of what is often desired of this capability (or another way of putting it, I’ve never felt like higher hyperlink precision would add much to how I work). Since it works well for me, I figured others might get some use out of a battle-tested approach I’ve used and refined for many years. It by no means feels like “breaking a brick wall with [my] face”. For me, it feels elegant and efficient because Scrivener has excellent tools for supporting how it works.
I would also note that the checklist in this section is the simplest way to do this, both in terms of execution and usage, as well as in how easy it is to compile without them (since inline annotations have a dedicated switch for removing them from the output that is on by default). Having the marker in the text, as annotations do, means being able to use Quick Search to extremely efficiently jump between marker points throughout the project.
As for whether date stamps are your cup of tea or not, it was meant to be a suggestion for something that is going to be relatively unique, unable to be confused with normal text and is simple to generate via a menu command. You don’t have to use that—I don’t. I use a combination of something like a date stamp with “markers of intent”, but I use these as a universal ID that integrates with multiple pieces of software and notation on my computer. So for me, this is a mechanism that goes beyond Scrivener, but is arguably most efficient within it.
I am aware of other methods in other programs of course. I’ve compared this workflow with how one would do this in Word or LibreOffice, and honestly I found it very clunky and inefficient to set up (and to later dismantle, which you have to do systematically if you don’t want them in the output), and it’s also much more limited in that links are all unidirectional rather than bidirectional. That said, I understand the notion of familiarity and feeling like if one doesn’t exactly what they used to, anything else feels clunky until one lives in it for a while—no doubt that is part of my own reaction to word processor oriented methods.
It’s absolutely fine to say “not any time soon”, “low priority” ect.
That’s pretty much what has been said, though a touch more in the realm of not having the tech available to make such a thing, so saying “low priority” would be a bit misleading.