Comments on: i'm going back to the start… http://deborahkalin.com/damselfly/2009/07/im-going-back-to-the-start/ Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:19:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: damselfly http://deborahkalin.com/damselfly/2009/07/im-going-back-to-the-start/comment-page-1/#comment-2085 damselfly Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:54:35 +0000 http://deborahkalin.com/?p=1747#comment-2085 Hi Keith! It may interest you to know that one of the reasons I switched to a Mac, back in December when my faithful desktop choked on its own motherboard, was so I could use Scrivener, as all my Mac-owning writer friends were taunting me with it. Taunting me! The only reason I waited so long to really try it out is because I didn't want to switch across in the middle of a novel. Thanks for the clarification on the way Scrivener counts words. I was figuring the 200ish difference would just be a formatting thing between Scrivener and Word, and really, in a novel, 200 words isn't a significant difference. The 6000ish difference...is probably an artefact of my writing process, which is to litter my manuscript with comments in the margin, since MS Word doesn't count those. 6000 words ia a LOT of comments in the margin :oops: I'll just go with the Project Statistics figure for now! (PS: I promised myself I'd stick to MS Word until the novel was finished, but today's efforts were in Scrivener. I am digging that typewriter scrolling feature!) Hi Keith! It may interest you to know that one of the reasons I switched to a Mac, back in December when my faithful desktop choked on its own motherboard, was so I could use Scrivener, as all my Mac-owning writer friends were taunting me with it. Taunting me! The only reason I waited so long to really try it out is because I didn't want to switch across in the middle of a novel.

Thanks for the clarification on the way Scrivener counts words. I was figuring the 200ish difference would just be a formatting thing between Scrivener and Word, and really, in a novel, 200 words isn't a significant difference. The 6000ish difference…is probably an artefact of my writing process, which is to litter my manuscript with comments in the margin, since MS Word doesn't count those. 6000 words ia a LOT of comments in the margin :oops: I'll just go with the Project Statistics figure for now!

(PS: I promised myself I'd stick to MS Word until the novel was finished, but today's efforts were in Scrivener. I am digging that typewriter scrolling feature!)

]]> By: KB http://deborahkalin.com/damselfly/2009/07/im-going-back-to-the-start/comment-page-1/#comment-2083 KB Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:28:34 +0000 http://deborahkalin.com/?p=1747#comment-2083 Hi, thanks for trying out Scrivener. There are a couple of reasons why the word count may vary from Word a little. For instance, what constitutes a "word" can vary from word processor to word processor (as strange as it sounds). Some count hyphenated words separately, some as one word; some accidentally count hyphens between words and so on. All the same, 6,000 words is a bit drastic! However, Project Statistics should give you the most accurate count, as you have discovered, as that generates statistics based on how the manuscript will be printed or exported using Compile Draft, cutting out footnotes, comments and anything else that won't be included. The Project Targets are live so aren't as accurate - they will include any footnotes or comments you have in your work. Drop me a line at support AT literatureandlatte DOT com if you continue to have problems, though. And even if you decide Scrivener isn't for you, I'd still love to hear any feedback you may have. Hope you feel better soon! All the best, Keith (Scrivener developer) Hi, thanks for trying out Scrivener. There are a couple of reasons why the word count may vary from Word a little. For instance, what constitutes a "word" can vary from word processor to word processor (as strange as it sounds). Some count hyphenated words separately, some as one word; some accidentally count hyphens between words and so on. All the same, 6,000 words is a bit drastic! However, Project Statistics should give you the most accurate count, as you have discovered, as that generates statistics based on how the manuscript will be printed or exported using Compile Draft, cutting out footnotes, comments and anything else that won't be included. The Project Targets are live so aren't as accurate – they will include any footnotes or comments you have in your work. Drop me a line at support AT literatureandlatte DOT com if you continue to have problems, though. And even if you decide Scrivener isn't for you, I'd still love to hear any feedback you may have. Hope you feel better soon!
All the best,
Keith
(Scrivener developer)

]]> By: damselfly http://deborahkalin.com/damselfly/2009/07/im-going-back-to-the-start/comment-page-1/#comment-2081 damselfly Tue, 07 Jul 2009 05:48:21 +0000 http://deborahkalin.com/?p=1747#comment-2081 We have faeries. We do not yet have unicornasaurus (man that's tricky to type). Nor do we have pterodactyls. Also, did you see? It turns out <a href="http://deborahkalin.com/damselfly/2009/06/this-totally-counts-as-content/#comment-2080" rel="nofollow">you were right re the xbox butterfly</a> We have faeries.

We do not yet have unicornasaurus (man that's tricky to type).

Nor do we have pterodactyls.

Also, did you see? It turns out you were right re the xbox butterfly

]]> By: Sir Tessa http://deborahkalin.com/damselfly/2009/07/im-going-back-to-the-start/comment-page-1/#comment-2079 Sir Tessa Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:58:01 +0000 http://deborahkalin.com/?p=1747#comment-2079 Okay, so the faeries have turned up...what about unicornasaurus? Okay, so the faeries have turned up…what about unicornasaurus?

]]>