Where can I go for a list of known bugs in Scrivener?

I keep finding bugs in Scrivener. The process of discovering these problems takes much time and causes much confusion before I realize after much testing, that these are in fact bugs in the software or how it interacts with the MacOS. Was wondering if Literature and Latte publishes a live list of current bugs and problems with Scrivener? If so, where can I view it? If not, perhaps this would be a kind way to support your customers and to honor our decision to purchase and use Scrivener.

Reporting problems here on this forum really isn’t solving the problems I am experiencing with Scrivener.

Those responding don’t often seem to be Scrivener Tech Support employes. The responses often feel defensive and obfuscating. Rarely is anyone from Scrivener admitting problems and or acknowledging confusions that we customers are experiencing and taking the time to communicate here. Inmates are running the asylum?

Anyway, if there was a published bug list, I could avoid a whole lot of frustration and lost productivity. If there is a live bug list, please point me to it!

Thank you,

We are.
(Some days they let us think we do. Other days they let us run around. – I chose the purple pill.)


We do not publish a list of known bugs.

We do respond to tech support queries. To create one, go here:

If you believe that you have encountered a bug, please provide a clear reproduction case, ideally including a test project that demonstrates the bug. Without knowing exactly what you are doing, it’s very hard to say whether what you are seeing is or is not expected behavior.

I must be doing something drastically wrong. In recent times I have struggled to find bugs in Scrivener in any of the 10 books I’ve written (Fiction and non-fiction), or the 5 I have on the go.

I’ve always found the L&L team on this forum leap to answer questions, (as do users) and Keith (The grand Poobar) the first to admit if there is an issue. While the development tools in macOS are great, Apple does conspire to make life difficult with unresolved bugs.

Or, am I just obfuscating. or perhaps one of the inmates? :lying_face: :lying_face: :crazy_face: :crazy_face: :crazy_face: :crazy_face: :crazy_face: :crazy_face:


10 books that’s great, hey.

1 Like

I think you’re correct, especially with regard to Apple making life difficult. In the years I’ve been using Scriv I can’t confess to finding ‘any’ bugs, but maybe my work - academic in the main - doesn’t lend itself to stressing the software too deeply.

Your remark regarding Apple is especially true with the latest MacOS Sonoma, which seems to have thrown up more issues than usual.

Well, academic work usually requires a lot of research material. May I ask if you had that in another app? Or did you split it over several Scrivener projects?

Well, academic work usually requires a lot of research material. May I ask if you had that in another app? Or did you split it over several Scrivener projects?

The research material is logged in Bookends, (Mac only) making it simpler to derive citations. In the past I’ve put most of the research material in the project file, but much of this is in pdf or jpg format, which Scriv doesn’t display particularly well.

Since Bookends keeps pdf/jpg/etc copies in a separate folder I’ve started experimenting with Hookmark:
https://hookproductivity.com (a paid App unfortunately. I have only the standard version at this stage)

Using this I can put a link to a file or folder within the Scrivener text. The link can either be in a separate list or at the top of the particular chapter. Clicking on the link opens the doc in preview, or a folder in Finder. If you put the links on separate lines with a row of XXXXX it’s easy enough to find/delete them from the compiled doc. To be fair this does depend on which format you’re compiling to. In my case it’s usually rtf with final cleaning up and formatting in Nisus Writer.

If I want to insert a citation: cmnd tab takes me to Bookends and I then insert the appropriate marker for the citation.

Any research material in the Scriv project is then confined to my notes and I can link to these within Scriv itself. Those notes that are relevant to a particular doc are also in Bookends along with a copy of the doc as an attachment.

As I say, experimental at this stage but it seems to work OK for a doc of around 20k words. Anything really big, say a Phd thesis of around 90-100K, it might get messy.

I’ve not really explored Hooklink 's capabilities but I think it is possible to create a link to a document within DevonThink, but this may only be possible with the ‘pro’ version. The only major problem I can foresee is that the links my not travel, so if you are working across two machines it could be a disaster. Some of this may possibly be avoided by having the relevant files/folders in the same positions relative to each other.

Use at your own risk etc … :grinning:

This thread getting a little off topic, but I’ll bite anyway.

Why do you say this? I think many people have made deliverable docs (thesis, books, etc.) at this size and beyond?

Yes, what could slow down Scrivener a bit is when you load up a large amount of data in the Research folder, waiting for the all-important automatic backups. How much is too much is really up to the user and the machine.

For what it’s worth, for my big writing projects (none on the go at the moment but contemplating something), all the research material goes into DEVONthink as it’s built for purpose. All the writing goes into Scrivener. Two adjacent windows. I don’t need to do extensive citations so what little I do, I use Zotero if I want/need automated assistance.

Why is that bad? We exchange ideas and experiences. :slightly_smiling_face:

Unfortunately that’s not true. Your mac can be as fast as it wants, Scrivener will stop playing along at some point. And it’s not about backups, but about the search.

That’s true, of course. But there are 1000 reasons for me not to use DT. Instead, I prefer to find workable solutions with Scrivener. And now you say, why not use both apps? Maybe I will at some point. Maybe Scrivener 4 has a more powerful search. Or maybe the new L&L app. We’ll see :slightly_smiling_face:

Ah, and thank you @Tacitus for your explanations.

I am not telling you what to do. I’m only telling you what I do, and do successfully. No need to disagree.

Exactly, we’re just exchanging ideas.

I was referring to the possibility of the method I outlined using Hookmark getting messy. There’s no reason it shouldn’t scale, but I’m only experimenting at this stage and haven’t used it for a document with more than around 18K words.

I’ve used Bookends since it came on a single floppy disk so I stick with what I know. It should be possible to use Bookends purely for references/citations and DEVONThink as the repository for documents. Since I use archives a lot, I photograph many relevant documents so as to make the best use of my time there, especially if I’ve had a long(ish) journey. Put a lot of jpegs in Scriv even at a reduced resolution and it does have an effect.

“Hookmark” looks to have possibilities and if you can connect to a single document within DEVONThink or a specific page in a .pdf then it could be very useful indeed.

Still, each to their own. :grinning:

@fto: I suspect what we are seeing with the new ‘simplified’ Scrivener app is the groundwork and early stages of the code base for Scriv 4. As time goes on KB will build on it to create the full Scriv experience. I’ve no insider knowledge, but I’d be surprised if I was completely wrong


Yes, that sounds plausible. It has already been mentioned here and there that the accumulated knowledge of one app could be used in the other … in my words :slightly_smiling_face:

Devonthink itself will create links to DT documents (just as Scrivener will create links to Scrivener documents). In DT, they are portable across devices (provided the linked device is accessible) and even “follow” the document if it moves between databases.

1 Like

Would be very helpful if you did publish a live known bug bug list. Just this week I’ve encountered 3 serious bugs. One where importing and splitting a text document (.txt) resulted in the entire original .txt file existing in the binder’s trash folder and by default being marked as included in compile and as such returning a million matches in project searches. The second being project search and search collections searching for strings that had nothing to do with the criteria specified. The third being the find next instance command not working even where a collection does seem to be returning the asked for string matches. The forth is with the “whole word” option in the project search which when selected still returns “fitness” and “soffit” and “refitted” when I specify the string “fit” Also, and I’m not sure if this is a separate issue, but RegEx expressions also seem not to be interpreted as expected.

PS: all of these problems occurred within brand new “blank” or “nonfiction” projects with only text documents in the manuscript folder, with no added docs in the research folder or outside of the manuscript itself, and with absolutely no formatting anywhere. I am using the latest rev of Scrivener on a 2018 Intel MBP with 16GB RAM, running Sonoma. May I suggest as a starting g point to make sure that any and all docs moved to trash be automatically labeled as not included in compile.



1 Like

I believe Ioa commented extensively on your discussion of the Import and Split functionality, here:

He also offered troubleshooting steps for your search issues, here:

If the search function were indeed as catastrophically broken as you suggest, we would be seeing a lot more reports about it than we are.

Again, if you believe you have encountered a bug, please open a support ticket with detailed reproduction instructions and, ideally, a demonstration project.


Thanks for this. Although I have tried it in the distant past, I’m not currently a user of DT so was unaware it could do that. Worth bearing in mind.