Nothing catastrophic, but could you please consider adding an option so that when splitting a document, the suffix of the newly created document’s title be “-2” as a starting point, rather than “-1” ?
I find “-1” illogical, given it is intended for a second document of the same title.
I am systematically rewriting them.
The original document is “-1” – although unspecified.
I ask for an option to modify the behavior rather than a change in the app because – my mortal user status aside, lol – perhaps for some people the logic is “-1 means first duplicate / first split” ..? (OK… but which in any case just doesn’t work for me.)
Computers – and programmers – start counting at Zero.
People start at 1
4 Likes
While I agree that computers start counting at zero, and programmers have learned not to argue, think about how the British call the floor immediately above the ground floor of a multistory building the “first” floor. Unless you argue that the British aren’t people, I submit that some non-programmer people start counting at zero.
3 Likes
When I was a kid, I really liked the movie with the big shark. – Scary and all.
Even after all these years I’m still eagerly waiting for the release of Jaws 1 ; I think it’s truly a shame Spielberg chose to skip it. 
When you duplicate a file or folder in macOS, let’s call it “stuff”, the first copy becomes “stuff copy”, and from then on the numbering is “stuff copy 2”, “stuff copy 3”, etc. Windows (11) goes with “stuff - copy”, “stuff - copy (2)”, “stuff - copy (3)” etc.
There seems to be a general aversion to starting with “1”. That’s of course copying / duplicating, the original item isn’t changed at all.
Maybe the actual solution in this case would be to also rename the “source” item of the split to “-1”. After all, it is the modified and “first part” of the split.
(But this would probably also piss off some users, who don’t appreciate having to edit the original name again.)
I think that the best solution would be an option to let people decide whether they consider the base/original file as “0” or as “1”.
Everyone could have his/her coherence.
The first new document would be “DocTitle-1” or “DocTitle-2” depending on this setting.
No need to suffix the original at all. (Although this could be a side option, perhaps – why not ?)
Windows is starting at “1” in your example. It appended “copy” but didn’t number it. I think it is obvious that without “copy” the new file would have been “OriginalName (2)”.
What I mean is that in this case it is counting copies, not instances of a file.
It looks to be the very same for Mac.
How is this not avoiding calling it “copy 1”? It’s just “copy”. Until there are more than one.
If Scrivener did the same, it would be “document - split” (instead of “document - split 1”), and then “document - split 2”, “document - split 3” etc. But there’s no “split”, so it starts with only “-1”. That’s the cause of the confusion.
I agree. Yes.
But initially you said :
It is not the same.
I was strongly led to think you meant they prefer to start with “0”.
It’s exactly the same. They could have called it “copy 1”, but decided against it. Both Apple and Microsoft. (“0” is obviously the original file.)
If Scrivener did the same, it would be “document” (the original), “document - split” (the first split) and “document - split 2” (the second split), “document - split 3”, etc.
But it doesn’t. So the first split becomes “-1”.
It’s not practical, but in theory (!) the most logical and intuitive way of representing what actually happens under the hood would be:
(- document)
- document - split 1
- document - split 2
The original document (in brackets) optionally left untouched, but could as well be removed (or even renamed to “document - before split”). The split actually creates to two new documents, each containing a part of “document”. It’s not just counting copies / versions of the original.
So, “-3” is “Part 4”
I’ll title it “Thisandthat Part IV”, which is “Thisandthat-3” in the binder. But is not “Thisandthat Part III”.
And if I completely create the files myself, I’ll name my part 5 “-4” in the binder to keep things neat and organized logically.
And, of course, Part 1 is… “Part”.
… For some odd reason, I just can’t get my brain to accept it.
No. It’s what it says on the label; “split 1” is the first part of the splitted document, “split 2” the second part.
It could be “Counting farts up to 99”, “… -split 1” and “… - split 2” (or just “split” and “split 2”). If we remove the original document, we kind of end up with your proposal. (Either “Counting farts up to 99” or “Counting farts up to 99 - split”, and then “Counting farts up to 99 - split 2” or “Counting farts up to 99 - 2”).
Please re-read my last paragraph where it says
If we remove the original document, we kind of end up with your proposal.
That’s way too many farts for me. You should consider changing your diet.
1 Like
The bottom line is, if you play this through logically, and the original file gets not renamed (to “split 1” or “-1”), you’ll end up with your proposed numbering scheme:
- document (“split 1”)
- document-2 (“split 2”)
It just looks wrong, because it begs the question “and where is -1?” (unlike the copy example, where you have “document”, “document copy” and "document copy 2, which is pretty self-explaining.)
That’s why there can’t be a one size fits all setup.
To me, the original IS the “-1”.
Just like Jaws wasn’t titled “Jaws 1”… but everybody knows it is Jaws 1.
For some people I think my way of seeing things would be just as confusing or non-functional as the way it currently is is for me.
That’s why I think that an option to tweak the behavior so to start with the original as an invisible “0” or “1” is the viable solution.
If someone wants the suffix to speak of splits/duplicates : Original is “0”
If you want the suffix to represent the number of instances/segments : Original is “1”
I agree that, if anything, “-1” makes less sense than starting with “-2”. Because “-1” is actually the original document before splitting, or at least part of it is. Who would release “Jaws 0”? Maybe a programmer would.
1 Like