Thanks.
They said to ask here!
But your latest question is about how Scrivener saves things. Why would DEVONthink give a view to this?
You are probably in a very small group of people in the world trying to use these two tools this way.
If Scrivener does save (dependent) files ‘outside’ its package, I can see why Christian would warn me not to try and reply on DTP to include all such files, and am grateful for his advice.
I use DTP as intended - as a document management system. Scrivener files are documents 
.
Yea, but please do all you can to not permit DEVONthink manage those documents. Don’t want your documents broken before you ask Scrivener to manage them.
Thanks, @rmschne - not sure I understand
???
On the Scrivener forum I am told:
The potential exceptions are Research files imported as Aliases, and linked images.
So that really helps. (Though I don’t think it applies to me.)
Let Scrivener manage the files. do not put your Scrivener projects into DEVONthink. I said that up at top.
I guess everyone uses DT(P) differently
For me it’s a document management system. (The best one I have ever used, BTW.)
I have a carefully worked-out hierarchy (as I said in my OP) in which I keep all my documents - classified by ‘area-of-interest’… ‘household’, ‘finance’, ‘writing’, ‘software’ etc.
Within (DTP’s) ‘science’ hierarchy, for example, is a Group, ‘biochemistry’; within that ‘virology’ and within that ‘Covid-19’.
In all my 50+ years of computer use, I haven’t discovered a better way to classify and group documents.
When I took notes - at the beginning of the pandemic - on virology, immunology and the statistical logic behind the disease, I did so in Scrivener - because of its ability to cross reference notes, definitions, images, graphs etc.
Rather than just dump that (and other) Scrivener project(s) in some - subsequently - obscure, unlocatable, or difficult-to-locate folder in ~, I wanted to rely on the amazing functionality of DTP.
If I can do so by importing my notes into DTP, I’d be happy - even if I am in a world minority
1 Like
Scrivener and DEVONthink are my two core working programs. My workflow is pretty much the same as @rmschne’s and to no surprise my advice is the same too: Don’t store packages in packages. If for no other reason than to keep the option open to sync one day.
… rather than that you could name the folder “Scrivener” and keep it quit high in the Finder folder hierarchy.
I’m not sure if I got right how you use Scrivener. If all your projects result in a final draft you could compile it to, say, PDF and store that in DEVONthink. Then you always have access to it in DEVONthink, can reference to it, etc. without risking any damage on the project file.
That will work less good when you use it more like an always in use notebook though. A purpose DEVONthink with its ability to cross reference notes, definitions, images, graphs etc. is more apt for by the way.
2 Likes
Thanks very much, @suavito !
Your help much appreciated.
I would export a Scrivener package/project if I ever needed to synch. So I’m really attracted to the idea that I can (could) keep like with like: all my texts on, say, C20th music and Physics in the same place… in DTP.
So I try to have as few sub-directories under ~/Documents as I can. I want to make the most use of DTP.
Yes, I am using Scrivener as an ‘always in use notebook’ (great description!); that’s exactly how I use it.
Note taking app which can cope with more resources and better, more flexible, formatting than Obsidian, whose Vaults I index into DTP.
But the weight of opinion on both this and the L&L forum is to avoid import.
Why ask if I don’t then follow the advice I’m given! I shall.
Much appreciated .
1 Like
Hi there
Apologies that I’ve only just seen this thread. I can only speak from my experience, but I have been keeping Scrivener packages inside DevonThink databases for some time and have not experienced any problems.
My usage is that I have a DevonThink database for each cohort of the research students I supervise. Each student has their own group in DevonThink database, and one of the items included in each student’s group is a Scrivener package. I do this because I find Scrivener the easiest way to maintain and comment on the multiple research drafts sent to me as Word documents by the student. (I use Scrivener’s ‘import and split’ to move the Word text into Scrivener.) I open the packages in Scrivener directly from DevonThink.
I have never had any problems with this approach, but I only use these DevonThink databases on one computer (an iMac) and nothing in either DevonThink or Scrivener is indexed or aliased.
with best wishes
Claire.
1 Like
Thanks, Claire!
That’s more or less how I would use Scrivener inside DTP… no synching, no updating. As a document repository. And fully imported. I can see how indexing its packages and then trying to move them would be problematic.
I’m tempted because I happily use DTP for almost every other document I have; and am using Scrivener more and more… it truly is a remarkable piece of software (as is DEVONthink) !
Appreciated.
Coming to this topic very late indeed. So sorry. If the principals are no longer around or interested, no complaints. \
To mksBelper, I wonder why, for your needs, simply indexing the Scrivener files isn’t less anxiety-producing? I have just started experimenting with Scrivener files in DTP and assume I can use no DTP search-tools to plumb the components of Scrivener files anyhow, so I’m not sure why they need to live there.
I have used a Scrivener project for years at a time to store, sort, organize short fiction. Each of project is like a volume of short stories, and I can search through them easily in Scriviner. But the files get very big, as they include the internal backups. I’m using them, to some extent, as very large project databases–it’s the way I’ve always used DTP, but there I can easily segregate them into different databases, when they overgrow their utility.
So, now I’m trying to use Scrivener in a more judicious way, with no more than one story, or perhaps a series of three, in each Scrivener project. I’m projecting having 30 or 40 of these and then putting them into DTP makes sense, because tags, comments, and groups would be more helpful than organizing them within the Finder.
I currently access a series of Scrivener projects via Keyboard Maestro frin in a Macro Group where I select projects from a menu-list. If I move these into a DTP database, I have to track down its location in the DTP hierarchy to be able to hot-key my way to it outside of DTP.
I have (rarely) run into DTP corruption (or perhaps user confusion) and felt compelled to rebuild the database. At that point, all Keyboard Maestro hotkeys which reference these (or other) files, were broken; I had to track them down again and modify the KM macros.
This served to educate me that these specific hotkey-accessed files need to be indexed, not moved into DTP. When I double click them (not only Scrivener documents, but Pages and Numbers as well) they are opened in their own apps anyway. So indexing instead solved a problem or a potential problem.
So my question to you: Why is indexing not a solution to your problems, or angst, instead of moving files completely into DTP?
– Gerry
Thanks, Gerry! All contributions welcome
As I said in my OP, my main reason for actually (thinking about: I haven’t done it) importing Scrivener files into DTP, rather than indexing, is purely one of tidiness.
I really don’t like the idea of having such valuable files (as those written in Scrivener) scattered about my ~/Documents hierarchy when I have the very best document management software available (DTP) inside which I can keep them… one enclosing system with all the advantages of indexing (as in indexing for search and statistical purposes), tagging and hierarchical organization of ‘subjects’ etc.
It’s really a matter of consolidation and making the most of DTP’s amazing all-embracing ways of organizing potentially all the documents I have .
Thanks again for your thoughts…
1 Like
What are you using for the macro - the file path to the Scrivener file?
What are you using for the macro - the file path to the Scrivener file?
Yes. But, as indicated, I have discontinued doing that, because it sometimes shifts its location. For instance if I’ve converted it to rtf, or renamed it in DTP.
Yeah, this is one of my rationales too, though I think indexing will help with this.
My intent is to start producing smaller scriv files, say named Proj2301, Proj2304, Proj2307–each indicating the beginning of the quarter of a certain year and the work produced during that period. Every scriv project file will be located in a single folder in Documents. That’s tidy, I figure.
These are then indexed, and I use tags, comments, aliases, annotations, etc. to be able to easily identify what contents are where within these files. The other option is to keep only one short story in each project file or to endlessly export them to .rtf files for named inclusion in DTP, etc. It’s just a thought.
My curiosity is specifically why indexes were not considered since the project will be loaded/edited into Scrivener in any case. I get the tidy rationale, certainly. But it seems that indexing is actually more tidy, and less complicated than larding up DT databases with Scrivener files and their many components.
– Gerry
Gerry,
Up to a point, it may very well be tidy.
But, the older I get, the simpler I try and make lots of things - including my computer’s data files.
Like Codd’s rules for database design, amongst which is his advocacy of only storing any one set of data once… hence relational databases.
I do see your third paragraph’s rationale. I really do. But doesn’t that place the emphasis/onus on the software (in this case DTP) to ‘reach out’ (to the ‘original’ (Scrivener) file) and do the organizing?
I just like the idea that I have as few places as possible to store (mostly) text files. Like those generated by Scrivener.
If, for example, I have a Scrivener document covering compositional techniques (one of my great interests) and it alludes to, say, plainchant, then having that document inside DTP - as opposed to some subdirectory directory of ~/Documents under a parent folder of Music > Composition > Plainchant - I know where it is, how to get to it and how to browse any/(all?) relevant texts.
I guess I resist the idea of having carefully-organized hierarchies of (such) documents both inside DTP (imported) and outside DTP (indexed) is redundant and potentially confusing.
But I’d never suggest that my way is ‘better’ than others’ ways - we all think and conceptualize differently, thankfully
I can see how you would not assert your way is better–because mine is clearly better!
Seriously though, I’m glad to know that your basic issue with avoiding indexing of Scrivener, which seems the safest and most controlled approach to me (as of 1/5/2025), is simply one of personal preference rather than a fear of some programmatic issue.
If, for example, I have a Scrivener document covering compositional techniques (one of my great interests) and it alludes to, say, plainchant, then having that document inside DTP - as opposed to some subdirectory directory of ~/Documents under a parent folder of Music > Composition > Plainchant - I know where it is, how to get to it and how to browse any/(all?) relevant texts.
Perhaps I’m not following the logic, but this follows my rationale exactly: Whether indexed or copied, the most significant utility of DTP is not knowing or caring where the actual file is, but being able to access it conveniently through a host of various methods.
Incidentally, the bulk of my zillion non-scriv links are devoted to music-related issues as well.
– Gerry
1 Like
“Converting to RTF” is not a meaningful operation for a Scrivener project.
The data files containing your writing are RTF already. The metadata files are XML and Scrivener wouldn’t be able to parse them as RTF files. If you have produced a RTF file from a Scrivener project, the result is no longer a Scrivener project.
1 Like
As I said at post above, I only put the final “deliverable” PDF from Scrivener into DEVONthink—imported. I do archive finished Scrivener “projects”—the final backup Zip file—into a Scrivener archive folder on my NAS (Synology). Don’t see the point of putting that archive into DEVONthink, but I can get why some people do. I would never put a raw Scrivener project in DEVONthink—imported or indexed. Let Scrivener manage Scrivener projects.