Major Major wrote:I must say I'm absolutely stunned by the sheer numbers of people who come on this forum to say that Scrivener has somehow eaten their work, and that the responses are so mild, like "well, find your backups" --- as if it was perfectly normal for a program to lose one's work!
Hello??!! It's not!!
I'm amazed that there isn't a more concerted effort by the L&L folks to find out why this happens to SO MANY PEOPLE, and to stop it from happening.
Really, boys and girls - you seem like a decent company. THIS IS NOT NORMAL. Please do something to fix it.
IMHO there is no mystery, although I can't say yet what happened in this poster's particular case.
I've been hanging around these boards long enough to see that *most* times--not all, but most--a poster who has lost work was syncing their projects.
Syncing is inherently risky, when you're working with something as complex as Scrivener's file structure.
It's simple enough to do correctly, but very easy to screw up, not to mention there are forces at work outside the user's control. I've seen dozens of posts where it's apparent that a syncing mistake botched a project, and, I've got to tell you, it breaks my heart when people lose writing, but I've learned to move on. It's a never ending current of folks who don't understand the risks involved until it's too late.
And that's also when we learn they haven't implemented a backup strategy, And *that's* what results in lost work..
I had a back and forth here a few days ago with a guy who insisted on storing his live project on Dropbox *as a backup*,despite the fact he was (properly) taking zipped backups and storing them elsewhere on the cloud, and despite the fact that he wasn't sharing his project with another computer, In other words, he had no reason to put the project on the cloud, yet still he did so. And he was wondering why he started getting errors in his project.
People just don't understand the risk, until it bites them in the ass.
So, to answer your specific point: People lose work because they embark on a program of syncing without understanding the risks, *and* they don't implement a backup strategy.
It's sad, and it doesn't have to be that way, but IMHO, it's no mystery at all.
(Again, I can't say that this is the current poster's challenge. We'll see what they say.)
The fine people at L&L couldn't have made implementing backups any easier, and there's only two faults I can find with their approach:
1) I disagree strongly with the default of retaining only 5 backups. Their reasoning is they don't want to clutter the user's hard drive with backups. My thinking is that cluttered hard drive is better than empty broken project + 5 zipped backups that look just like the empty, broken project, and are useless for restoration purposes.
2) They don't explain clearly enough in the manual that Scrivener's "save after 2 seconds" is *not* the same thing as Word's "save", at least on the Windows platform. This gives people a false sense of security that Scrivener's *save* is fully backing their project up, when in fact it's not. (Then again, since it seems many people don't read the manual, making this change probably wouldn't help anyway.)
I've wandered far off the original poster's concerns, so I'll stop here.