I am loving Scrivener :mrgreen: and updated to the latest this morning. Now however I am unable to get the word count statistics, or any other project statistics.If I click on the statistics icon in the menu or the project statistics from the drop down from ‘project’ of the main menu I get the same result and that is the wheel spins endlessly until I click ‘ok’. I have changed nothing since the upgrade.
Hi,
Using my crystal ball of magicness I deduce that you are on Tiger. Unfortunately a last-minute bug crept into Scrivener on Tiger (it doesn’t affect Leopard or above) which causes problems with project statistics and compile. Please download the version in the beta thread, which fixes the problem, here:
https://forum.literatureandlatte.com/t/scrivener-2-x-update-betas-download-here/11262/1
Sorry for the inconvenience.
All the best,
Keith
Keith you are a legend. Sorry I forgot to list my OS but your magic ball did the trick 
It works, thank you very much. One question though, for future updates will I need to download a beta version or update as normal. Thanks again!!
Rainbows
You should just have to update as normal; it was an accident that the regular 2.0.4 didn’t work on Tiger. 
World dominators should always have one of these.
Thanks MM!
Yes, as MM says. I’ve deliberately named the beta “2.0.45” rather than something like “2.0.5b” so that when I release the official 2.0.5, this beta will pick up the automatic update (which works by checking for a higher version number on the server).
Glad it helped!
All the best,
Keith
Version numbering gives me headaches…
I want to treat 2.0.45 as 3 distinct numbers, so that I compare 2 to 2, 0 to 0 and 45 to 5, but if I do a textual sort/compare rather than attempt a numeric one, then it’s the opposite (and intended in this context) meaning.
So can you ever have a bug fix release greater than 2.0.9 or 2.9.9? That’s a lot of bug fixes and minor feature enhancements, I know, but … gah! It’s like the month/day/year date format. It just drives me batty!
Time for my morning whiskey, it seems.
You should join me in using the only really sensible date system yy/mm/dd …
Mark
Hear, hear!
(To avoid confusion here in the early years of 21st century, I use yyyy/mm/dd. 93/02/10 is easy to parse, but 11/02/10 takes us into realms of Gödelian undecidability.)
Today is 11048. No fuss. 2011, 48th day. Sorts wonderfully, and works good with math. Since I won’t be writing anything in 1911, I’ll not bother with the two extra digits.
Not having Ioa’s brain, computing which day of the year I’m in is far too laborious, so I usually mark things as 110218 etc. … again it sorts perfectly, but I can see the date in question at a glance, and it’s also always 6 digits. I ignore the 20 bit at the front except in incredibly rare circumstances that there’s also going to be a reference to 19xx. And I don’t do maths …
Mark
I use mark’s system. 
I see far too many 5,6,8,9, and more-digit numbers in my day-to-day to forego separators for my dates. But yes, I insist on naming my files that must have dates in them with the year first. This is my favorite format, because I DO deal with files created before 2000, (which get renamed): yyyy-mm-dd.hh24.mi.ss
I will deal with the carpel tunnel from adding 7 extra characters per file name, but will save myself from the contusions of head->desk frustration coping mechanisms.
Mr Guthrie and I are on the same page:
.20110218.1326.