Vanishing footnotes

Hi there -

It seems that if you create a new inspector footnote in the same place as an existing one, you get a new footnote but the old one vanishes. I havn’t figured out any way of recovering text lost when this happens, you don’t seem to be able to ‘undo’. A bit scary for someone who frequently has large footnotes which later get copied into the main text!

This seems to be, in a way, related to the fact that inspector footnotes are always related to a highlighted word, making it impossible to have two consecutive notes. Why not have superscript style (is that the word for the floaty little numbers?) footnote tags, as in conventional word processor programs?

Cheers,
David

can anyone confirm that there is no way of getting back text lost in this way?

if so, i’ll have to change the way I currently use footnotes, i think

many thanks,
david

You should be able to use the Undo command to restore your deleted note when the focus is in the editor–you may need to click back there or press Escape to return focus, if you’re working in the footnote itself in the inspector, and you’ll need to press Undo several times to undo creating the new footnote all the way back to restoring the text of the previous note.

Although you cannot currently have multiple adjacent inspector footnotes, you can achieve this by using an inspector footnote followed by an inline footnote. If you do this, be sure not to convert the footnotes later (either inline to inspector or inspector to inline), as that would end up merging or potentially replacing the notes as they folded in on themselves, so to speak. So if you need to be switching back and forth for some reason, that wouldn’t be an ideal solution, but generally it should be fine and will compile with the notes adjacent.

We do have some footnote features in the pipeline that should better accommodate the way you’re working. I also have a bug report filed for the immediate issue of the note being deleted when you create a note with that note’s anchor text as part of the selection–this should just apply that note to the full selection and start editing the existing note, rather that replacing it.

Many thanks for this - great to know that it is in fact undo-able.

David

I don’t know if this is possible in the Windows version yet, but on the Mac, in using inspector notes, you can set it in the <> so that instead of a highlight on a word, you can use a marker like *, with the option of setting that as the default. If you can, then you can set more than one footnote at the same point in the text, with the markers appearing side by side, and no overwriting of the text of the previous footnote.

If you can’t do it in Windows yet, apologies, but it is something to look forward to …

:slight_smile:

Mr X

That’s not possible yet in the Windows version, but it will of course be coming. I believe though even in the Mac version you need to separate the two symbols in some way, e.g. even with just a word joiner, to prevent the footnotes being merged on compile. I meant to check on that and see if it might be something that could be done automatically on compile in the case where someone did have back-to-back footnotes like that, although I’m not sure how common a scenario it is. At any rate it can be done, it just might need that additional step from the user when creating the footnotes.

I haven’t tried compiling with two contiguous footnotes, I just did a quick check to ascertain what happened within Scrivener. I’ll give it a go and report back.

:slight_smile:

Mr X

Yes, you need a space or something between contiguous footnotes, but that’s not a bad thing. If you remove the space, the index markers in the text “… 1 2 …” end up looking like “… 12 …”

:slight_smile:

Mr X