Sorry for asking this, sounds laughable…but…but I absolutely can’t get any of the lists to work. They “crash” when editing. They are not (sensibly) editable at all. So are not usable here at all.
I use the common templates of Scrivener. The newest Scrivener for Win. And I just click of one of the lists icons to create a list.
So what am I missing?
Lists in Scrivener 3 have not been very useful ever since 3.0 was released. They are broken.
See this discussion, for example.
Alas, BClarke is correct.
Lists in Scrivener 3 are broken such that they fall apart as soon as you start editing them, and where trying to undo the edits that broke them breaks them further.
Agreed, it “sounds laughable.” 
Here’s another thread on the subject, that contains links to yet other threads on the subject.
They are just broken?! In a word processig program? Simply that way?! That’s all?!
Actually I would have trouble believing that, sorry, well, but the links…thank you for them…
But I do not understand that. Why are they just broken?
List creation and editing is a complicated process to program and the Scrivener developers have not had the time to fix the bugs. I don’t know much about the Scrivener programming staff for the Windows version, but I suspect they are few and are overworked.
And Scrivener is a word processing program only in the loosest sense of the word. The list feature, even if working correctly, would be more of a convenience feature.
@Ponny, here is what several of us do if we need to use lists beyond the point that Scrivener will be sensible with them:
https://forum.literatureandlatte.com/t/how-could-one-get-the-lists-to-work/126988/10?u=narrsd
It notes at the bottom that Word itself is not perfect with indented lists…this is no simple ability to get right. As in many supposedly easy and transparent aspects of word apps, which I seem to remember Apple punts on by not giving all the automatic abilities.
If you don’t have Word, probably one of the open (Open, Libre offices, etc.) versions probably will let you work as described above. You might report back if you try that…
Best fortune…
List creation and editing is a complicated process to program and the Scrivener developers have not had the time to fix the bugs. I don’t know much about the Scrivener programming staff for the Windows version, but I suspect they are few and are overworked.
Holy sh…moly, so it is too complicated for the overworked staff that does not have time to fix bugs? What kind of staff is this? Sounds like a miracle Scrivener is still running
And Scrivener is a word processing program only in the loosest sense of the word.
So what kind of program is it?
The list feature, even if working correctly, would be more of a convenience feature.
Holy m…so may be a cool fancy feature for sophisticated people. Like the ruler and text color and text alignment, etc.
@Ponny, here is what several of us do if we need to use lists beyond the point that Scrivener will be sensible with them:
How could one get the lists to work? - #10 by narrsd
Thank you for the link, too. I am very sorry, I don’t understand at all what I had to do to somehow use or make working lists. Is there perhaps a step by step instruction?
It notes at the bottom that Word itself is not perfect with indented lists
It might be enough if they just worked in a way that made them useful.
Hmm. The thing not explained except in mention is File | Sync | With external folder.
Now you can fix up the list, just as if you were otherwise creating it in your familiar word processing app.
I’ve put some hints in which can make this process easier in Word - the comments about using the Format Painter. Which is very easy, once you try it enough to have it ‘under your fingers’. Or any other way you know for lists will work — it’s the results that count.
From now on, if you need any further corrections or changes, you can just use the File | Sync | with External Folder Now menu choice, and your current Scrivener state will appear in your synced folder, ready to go.
@Ponny , I think you just need to try this, in a patient mood, and it will become easy, feel smooth. It gives a freedom, is how I felt about it, and within the capabilities of other word apps, removes the nagging feeling about lists.
You can always pre-prepare lists in Scrivener without fuss by simply indenting them, and then adding a list format by this method.
It’s becoming more common, especially on tools like iPads, to share abilities between apps like this. Scrivener has been ahead of the game, by providing a way to ‘plug in’ such a tool here, before the big outfits gave any such method.
Hope this helps, does the business for you.
Clive
I know it seems strange, since the most basic and immediate thing you do in Scrivener is “process words.” But basic word processing is not the main purpose of Scrivener, and will rarely be the main reason one chooses to use it, or what leads someone to seek an alternative to Word or another word processor. Scrivener is about document management across book-sized projects. The way it does that is what makes it unique, rather than just an alternative within a product category. As a document management system, Scrivener provides its users with the means of processing words and producing the documents that the system will manage, also importing and editing nonnative docs. So Scrivener functions as a word processor. But the document itself, rather than the letter or the word, is the “basic unit” of what makes Scrivener Scrivener.
What letters and words are to a text editor, documents are to Scrivener. Microsoft Word is a high end word processor, but that’s all it is. Scrivener’s word processing functions are mostly adequate. Lists are probably the least mostly. 
Scrivener’s sync function, so nicely outlined above by narrsd, is worth knowing about if you like working in Word or etc. I use Word 2007 when I want to work with lists, but also other times, for macros, more useful styles, shortcuts. Scrivener’s sync makes it possible to work between it and Word pretty routinely.
I beg to differ, and will be happy* to explain at tedious length why it really isn’t difficult at all IF the underlying data structures are suitable. If, on the other hand, lists are “just text” and you are constantly trying to a) recognise them b) determine their extent c) infer their structure and format, d) etc. etc. etc., well, yes, that is hard… and it would be a very, very poor approach to have taken in the first place.
I’m not au fait with the intricacies of RTF (and it is intricate) but since MS Word works happily with it (still) and Word supports tags, fields (incl. SEQ for numbering, which I have used in the past to wrangle Word lists), etc. I really, really, don’t see why Scriv can’t do lists properly and save reliably.
That, said, this is not an invitation for a detailed “why we can’t fix lists easily” apologia, leading to fruitless debate, I would just like to implore the team to just fix lists at last. I have provided, and @AmberV wrote up (thank you, Amber), a reproducible list problem… what we need is action.
Writing is about structure. It begins with ideas, organised sequentially and having varied - and variable - significance. What could be more fundamental to effective support for writing than the ability to create and maintain structured lists?
* That’s hyperbole. I have no real intention, but I could do it; unfortunately it just boils down to writing pseudo-code, i.e. doing it myself (again)
Many thanks for the explanation, very sorry again, can’t get anything to work here. And don’t get the meaning of any of this at all.
I created two test projects (from two originals).
So I assume one has to create some new folder (done as usual) on the hard drive. Then add its folder path to the field (the only one that exists there) on top of the “Sync with External Folder” (opened by clicking menu “File” > “Sync” > “with ext…”) window in Scrivener and click “Sync”. Or should I click “Save” (any folders are created then)? Or is there still another window / action where to click “OK” that I miss?
Now in that so called sync folder there are hundrets or thousands of files.
I try to do the same respectively the corresponding for the other test project. When I click “Sync” in the second test project the data / files of the first test project are copied to the “sync” folder created for the second test project. Why is that? How could I correct that?
So, and now, I have Scrivener in front of me and I want to edit or create a list with / in Word (of the first test project). What do I do now? I can’t find any way that seems to make this possible.
I’ve put some hints in which can make this process easier in Word
Thank you very much for that!
close the word processor
So close Word? Why cann’t it stay open? It has to be opened each time again?
now, go back to Scrivener, and repeat what you did for the original sync
Sorry, what original sync?
on the left, there’s be a new Collection showing any changed files, making selecting them easy to find. Because you can work on more than one file if you need to, on the RTF side.
I do not understand at all, sorry. In Scrivener in the binder a new “Collection” is shown (even if I didn’t want that, because I would keep the collection I had before there). And what is that collection good for?
Once you’ve verified your changes, you probably want to select the Binder on the left, so you get back your normal project view.
Why verify?
According to how I understand it at the moment (obviously completely wrong), it definitely sounds extremely time-consuming, laboriously to just use a list.
From now on, if you need any further corrections or changes, you can just use the File | Sync | with External Folder Now menu choice, and your current Scrivener state will appear in your synced folder, ready to go.
So you have to synchronize manually every time (after editing, creating a list)? Scrivener does not do that automatically? And if you forget it, errors and data loss can occur?
I think you just need to try this, in a patient mood, and it will become easy, feel smooth. It gives a freedom
OK, patience for using properly working lists. That would be great, respectively very helpful. Hope that will happen. At the moment I feel extremely different feelings, somehow feels like quite strong aggressions and somehow may be something like the opposite of freedom.
You can always pre-prepare lists in Scrivener without fuss by simply indenting them, and then adding a list format by this method.
Yes, OK, but, sorry, this somehow sounds quite weired, preparing or pre-preparing or may be even pre-pre-paring lists, then go to, open another program or sync before, go on editing or creating a pre-prepared list, close the other program, sync again (or not, I am not quite sure), verfy, check something in Scrivener. Just to use a list. Actually, well, I would think, just having written this, it kinda sounds like madness. And I feel the rest patience (if at all available) is going quite fast.
It’s becoming more common, especially on tools like iPads, to share abilities between apps like this. Scrivener has been ahead of the game, by providing a way to ‘plug in’ such a tool here, before the big outfits gave any such method.
If “sharing abilities” means working like this (with broken lists and other broken staff or so) above it sounds extremely strange. And actually it all sounds like Scrivener is way behind instead of ahead. But may be I am completely missing the core. So sorry again.
Hope this helps, does the business for you.
Thank you very much, Clive.
I know it seems strange, since the most basic and immediate thing you do in Scrivener is “process words.”
Yes, and write books, acticles, screenplays and such. Yes, seems really very strange.
But basic word processing is not the main purpose of Scrivener
I indeed really never thought that was like that.
Scrivener is about document management across book-sized projects
So it sounds that means one has to write the book in another program, a word processor.
and will rarely be the main reason one chooses to use it
At least by the (perhaps few) people who knew it wouldn’t be a word processor, I assume. Including the, I assume, extremely many people categorizing it as a word processor.
So Scrivener functions as a word processor.
But it isn’t one.
Scrivener’s sync function, so nicely outlined above by narrsd, is worth knowing about if you like working in Word or etc.
Actually I don’t, but it seems one had to if one wanted to use Scrivener.
I use Word 2007 when I want to work with lists, but also other times, for macros, more useful styles, shortcuts. Scrivener’s sync makes it possible to work between it and Word pretty routinely.
Even if it does not sound like that at the moment for me. But I hope it will be soon.
But, OK, certainly, when Scrivener is not a word processing program it of course does not need all of that fancy editing and formating stuff and such.
L&L’s Windows developers rely on the QT framework for a lot of the heavy lifting in Scrivener, so my guess is that the framework doesn’t support bulleted lists very well and the devs haven’t figured out a way around it.
While the implementation of bulleted lists in Windows Scrivener v1 wasn’t quite as broken as it is in v3, it wasn’t very good, and I complained about it back in 2016. So bulleted lists have been a long-term weak point of Windows Scrivener, which leads to my outlook that, even if some of the current problems are “fixed”, bulleted lists will never be a polished, “it just works” type of feature. I reconciled myself to this back in v1 days. For me, Scrivener’s benefits far outweigh this flaw.
But I am fortunate, as a fiction writer, that my requirement for lists are so minimal that I can get away with only using very simple one-level bulleted lists or avoiding them entirely. I sympathize with those who have more demanding requirements and are forced to use workarounds, like syncing with Word or some other RTF processor–but I appreciate the users above who shared that workaround, as it never would have occurred to me! 
Best,
Jim
I just googled that and see that Qt does indeed handle text lists so, quite possibly that is indeed where the issue is. In which case maybe our enumerated pains might be motivation to pass them on and kick up a stink with the Qt developers (NB it’s now at Qt6… I wonder what Scriv uses and whether moving to Qt6 would help).
I would at least like someone to say why lists are FUBAR’d. Own it or pass it on, so to speak.
And, on the assumption that the fault lies with the Qt framework, I would be greatly reassured if I knew that L&L had opened appropriate bugs with Qt… I’d track them there (if given the chance to).
I don’t think fiction per se mitigates the issue… I’m also writing fiction; genre requirements may vary in their demands for organisation - I certainly value a few levels of structure.
NB I have now given up on built-in lists and bullet points, I now use “*” and tabs… at least they stay where I put them and behave consistently. It’s more work and a distraction, but less frustrating. I could use markdown (which I use in e.g. Jupterlab python notebooks)… will have to see how that works in Scriv.
I tried sync and work with Word but due to an unfortunate set of events suffered a serious loss of confidence that I have yet to recover
@Julian_M1 Julian, more thoughts posted here since you first wrote, and indeed @JimRac’s noting that Qt has involvement in the lists may explain a lot. Unfortunately, that group has a long history of being very slow and very resistive to fixing any difficult issues.
Your comments on how there must be a straightforward ‘programmer’s logic’ way to make repairs made me smile a bit to remember the Postiivists – who thought the world science discovered should be English-gentlemenwise in its patterns. And became annoyed, rather than the possibility of being interested, when it wasn’t…
It’s true, when they’re completed, (indented) lists are a ‘simple’ hierarchy. But adjusting them so they become so again after dynamic changes, and with all the other dimensions of list presentation, becomes a question of altering and maintaining multiple continuously dependent relationships, and so is a bit tougher. I remind again that not even Word after all the years (and brilliant Simonyi who made it work really at all) seems to have gotten this area quite right.
I had an idea, though, this morning, which might cut through all of this. Good if so.
The key would be to stop trying to maintain the relationships during interaction.
Such a plan would move the problem out of the realm of Qt or other detail programming, and eliminate the need for external editing via sync and other processors. This freedom and a much smaller scope might make it attractive to the team.
And it would suit the ideas @Mad_Girl_Disease has contributed on being practical in solving problems like this, by seeing Scrivener clearly for its strengths, no?
You had it correctly with the original project. I just checked, and if you try Sync later with another project, it will as expected have the blank empty, inviting you to put in the path for a new folder for this project which you will have created. Which Scrivener will then remember for the fresh project.
[other things]
I feel very much this is a person I have spoken with before, at much length, and I can only suggest to focus on the simple procedure, and simple results you want. You are already most of the way there, when not annotating your feelings.
I think you can do this, as others have, and wish you well with it.
Clive
You had it correctly with the original project. I just checked, and if you try Sync later with another project, it will as expected have the blank empty, inviting you to put in the path for a new folder for this project which you will have created. Which Scrivener will then remember for the fresh project.
But it obviously does not. Sorry for my bad expression and understanding all the time. I do not use any original project. Blank empty? What fresh project?
I feel very much this is a person I have spoken with before, at much length, and I can only suggest to focus on the simple procedure, and simple results you want.
I may not be entirely sure what that means, but I definitely want to try.
You are already most of the way there, when not annotating your feelings.
Yes, of course, no more feelings, just wanted to describe that the feelings during the procedure seemed to be quite different from the ones you mentioned above, unfortunately.
Okay, nice to hear that, thanks a lot Clive
Thanks for your insights, @Julian_M1
Judging by the dll names in Program Files/Scrivener3, it’s using QT5.
I hesitate to ask because I don’t wish to derail this thread too much, but – are you actually using bulleted structures in your ms or are you refering here to supporting notes, reference materials, etc.?
Best,
Jim
Ah! a fellow tinkerer @JimRac Thanks for the extra info!
LOL. I have done some constrained writing too… and the thought of a novel as indented bullet points is not without entertainment value! (Though having already done a magnum opus of such constrained literary scintillation that no one could bear to look at it for any length of time, I’m in no hurry* to repeat the feat 
)
However, to finally answer the question: mostly for plot notes to drill down motivation/cause & bubble up significance/effects etc., until coherence is achieved - at least enough coherence at the top level to withstand the decoherence that arises from the spontaneity of the the characters!
Cheers!
Julian
* a short story after finishing this MS however might pass the time… in PowerPoint, for obvious reasons.
The blank is the text area at the top of the Sync form. You already chose a folder path to put into it for your original project – the folder you said become filled with ‘many’ files after you accepted the form.
How many files? As many as you have documents in your Scrivener project’s main folder. If you’ve titled those, it shouldn’t be hard to locate the one or ones with lists that you want to improve.
Then. You said, unless it’s a misunderstanding, that you tried another Scrivener project (‘fresh project’) and got more files – in that same folder.
I am telling you this will not occur, unless you deliberately put the same folder path in the Sync form, when you open it for that project. You need to prepare and path a different folder for each Scrivener project.
Otherwise, how is Scrivener to know to keep them separate?
One more discovery here, which may explain why the Word method doesn’t work well for some persons, even though they find the Sync with External Folder straightforward enough after a little experience with it.
I had for a long time Word 2007, as @Mad_Girl_Disease has says she does, and this seemed to work well.
A month ago there was a special low-priced offer, so I upgraded to Office (and Word) 2021. Once a decade or so, just to keep up, might have been reasonable…
However, the lists handling in Word 2021, from likely some point before that, is not the same. There’s in some sense added ability, but as ever with lists, it comes with a feeling of not working so well. The real surprise was in Syncing back to Scrivener. I got some definite messes - double formatting, mixed fonts, not good.
I think I’ve discovered why. Some of the ‘stock’ list formats, which are the ones you’d often use, are now called Multilevel Lists, and have their own Word icon to select them. The gain here is that you can define new ones you’d like – I didn’t take it that far, but it means you’re not stuck with the few academic ‘official’ ones which used to be the only choices.
The problem is that there are new powers, not just in number formats. You can also have them use Document Styles, so that lists become chapter or section headings, actually, not just in look. And when those are imported back into Scrivener, it has no idea how to handle them, thus the multiple numbering on a line, in different formats, font changes, etc… That makes a real problem.
What is the solution? Apparently, in Word, stick with the simpler ‘Multilevel Lists’ selections, or your own constructed equivalents, which only set up letters and/or numbers on each level. These import safely – and have nothing to do with styles. Scrivener accepts them because they are like its own lists, which just use plain indent and tab settings to format, and plain text for the numbers or letters.
This kind of safe setting would work well also with the suggestion for a select-and-format of simply tab-indented texts I’ve made above. The key is keeping it very simple-minded, as where Scrivener gets in trouble is when it tries to let you dynamically change list positions. The bad effect is almost always immediate, as we know, and I showed myself again trying some things to see if there was a way around, by using the idea above in some way. There isn’t, until such a thing might be coded.
So for now, using the Sync and Word or equivalent method, with the care described, looks like it will continue to let you build what you want – as long as you also refrain from touching the layout of the result once it’s back in Scrivener.
Editing text on list line, without moving it, I think should generally work, but if it doesn’t, you can use the Sync method again to recover.
Yes, it would be very fortunate to see this situation improved. Perhaps the idea mentioned will suggest a comfortable answer, as I had a few further imaginations, but leave those properly to the software team.