A common question in Facebook Scrivener Group is where to find the actual Beta version of Scrivener 3 for Windows.
Since the date of the forum post never changes, it is hard do see that this is the place to find the most actual version, especially if you are not familiar with the version numbering.
I suggest to add the release or expiry date in the Subject line, so that everybody can see that this is the most actual Beta .
Additionally you could post a reply to this topic, so that the last answer shows the actual date and not something from 2018.
Thanks for your effort!
Karin
You mean like this they are already doing, updating the beta release version number?
It’s beta software. If one can’t be bothered to look around for a few minutes and figure out the numbering, find the release notes, etc., maybe one shouldn’t be using it.
Please try not to look through your eyes but with the eyes of somebody who wants to give the beta a first try. It looks like an old thread which isn’t updated anymore.
Until September 2018 at least an answer was posted in addition to editing the opening post so one could see that there were some changes. It can’t be so complicated to do this again.
I think this is a fair point, TBH. Speaking as someone who’s been using the beta since its start and who is very conscious at all times of which version we’re up to and how new it is, it’s easy to forget that there are others out there – either ‘casual’ beta users who don’t pay attention to such things, or those looking to jump in and start testing – who may not be aware, or have any reason to assume that the current version really is ‘current’, given the date and timestamps.
Add to this the fact that opening the beta just says ‘this version will expire on [date]’ and doesn’t automatically specify what version number that is, and I can definitely see a good argument for including the release date alongside the version number in the thread title.
There is only one beta for Windows. If your beta copy stops working then it is out of date. There is only one listed here in the beta area and its numbered (…17). Just because you want to stare down a date reference, does not make this confusing! I rather people post bugs here that actually helps the program then comfort labels. 
I disagree. I’ve been involved in software development for over 30 years. Even I found the way L&L links to the current beta in an old, VERY old post confusing. It was only by the logical process of elimination that I figured out where the link was.
From the perspective of a newbie, who is a bit intimidated by the whole process, anyway, I can see why they would give up looking. Not only is this a bad thing in terms of Beta testing because you lose the input of the non-technical user, but you also drive new users away because they think the whole thing is just too damn hard to figure out. That results in a lot of lost sales when these people move on to a more user-friendly environment.
The absolute worst thing a software publishing company can do is create the impression that their software is used by an exclusive and closed club of ‘old boys’ with an arcane and smugly self-satisfied view of the world.
Ha ha. Nice bit of irony. I ended up on this thread as I tried to locate the download link for the latest beta…
Considering I have the beta installed (won’t open now because I hadn’t updated it before it expired) and I’m ending up at this post because I assumed the one labeled from 2018 didn’t seem like it was appropriate, yeah this guy has a point. Listing the EXPIRATION DATE not just the version number (Sorry, I genuinely don’t have that memorized), does make sense.
Some people will disagree with me, but I would posit the opinion that if you’re not prepared to do a little bit of learning and finding things out on your own, you probably should stay far away from beta software.
Within the software itself, yes. But as a counter-point, maybe those things are better put into actually using the software rather than trying to find it in the first place.
Again, I am someone who does keep an eye on version changes and such, so I have nothing to gain from this. But I do think it’s fair for new people coming into the beta and the forum for the first time to expect the download would be clearly signposted, as much for the devs themselves as the users – no-one wants to be bogged down with threads like this when people on both sides could be using their time and effort in actually testing the software. Especially when it’s as simple as adding a couple of extra numbers to a title you’re already in the process of updating anyway.
As another point, I also think it’s understandable if users in an internet forum, on seeing a thread where the only visible dates are several months old, were to assume that the thread itself is similarly outdated, and thus scroll past it entirely.