Sonny Software

Hello all,

Some suggestions would be appreciated, as I'm fairly sure I'm missing something useful.

I pulled existing Word documents (created prior to my days using BE, or any other reference manager) into Scrivener, and am now in the process of working through these, replacing the manually-typed-out citation references, with BE's automatic citations.

Currently, my workflow runs as follows:

I have Scrivener and BE open on two separate screens.
As I work through the Scriv document, when I come across a manual entry, I highlight it in its entirety - taking note of the pages that were referred to.
I call-up BE with the Cmd+Y shortcut.
Doing that - takes me to BE, with the last reference I had search for, highlighted -- if this is the reference I need again, then great -- I invoke "Copy Citation & Modifiers" with Cmd+^+Y, and fill-in the page numbers cited.
That takes me back to Scrivener, where the selected manual citation, is replaced with the BE automatic citation -- as it should.

My 'problem' comes in when the citation being sought, is different to the previous one. [Obviously, if its the same, I don't even invoke BE -- and simply use Cmd+Alt+Shift+V, with the original cited pages left as is]

In other words, assume I have citations on a page as follows:

1.) Citation AA
2.) Citation AA
3.) Citation BB
4,) Citation BB; CC
5.) Citation AA
6.) Citation DD
7.) Citation AA; DD
etc.

1-2 is easy;
3, sees me invoke BE - click into the search bar, type up the author's surname [BB], select the relevant citation, and then continue as per normal [invoke "Copy Citation & Modifiers" with Cmd+^+Y, and fill-in the page numbers cited etc.];
4 sees me paste the same citation again, but then I need to invoke BE, and repeat the same procedure as above -- this time looking for Author CC;
5 sees me repeat the above, this time searching for author [AA] again;
6 sees me repeat the above again, this time searching for [DD];
7 Repeat above

It happens quite often that a 'series' of authors are referred to extensively over 10-20 pages -- so the same set of authors, and articles, are constantly being jumped between...

There must surely be an easier way?

I thought "Hits" could be it, but I'm clearly missing a step.
When I select "Hits" from the side-entry, it has what appears to be a somewhat random selection of articles, presumably based on those opened last, or some-such.

With this being said - even if the "Hits" group was to somehow 'collect' all the citations most recently used/selected or whatever, what do I do about the Cmd+Y? In other words, the latter takes me to the previous 'search-result' each time, so it will in any event involve a few clicks to get to the "Hits" list...

I realise I might be doing something not commonly done by many, since presumably most don't do bulk insertions like I am doing -- but surely, were I simply to be doing things in the normal course of events, I would still have a situation where Citation AA might be used 5/10/15 times on a page, albeit interspersed with Citation BB, CC and DD...

What do others do?
Am I missing something obvious [smart groups or something?] -- or is this simply how things need to be done?

You know that temp citations are just text, right? You can type them in by hand even. So if you have the same citation 5/10/15 times on a page, you can just copy it once and paste, paste, paste. The Bookends Copy Citation function is a convenience, a timesaver, and it ensures that temp citations are unique. But it's nothing you couldn't do yourself manually. In fact, if the temp citations you added by hand in Word are not ambiguous, why replace them at all?

Jon
Sonny Software

Jon wrote:You know that temp citations are just text, right? You can type them in by hand even. So if you have the same citation 5/10/15 times on a page, you can just copy it once and paste, paste, paste. The Bookends Copy Citation function is a convenience, a timesaver, and it ensures that temp citations are unique. But it's nothing you couldn't do yourself manually. In fact, if the temp citations you added by hand in Word are not ambiguous, why replace them at all?

Jon
Sonny Software

Thanks Jon,

I am aware of the above -- I played around with it, and whereas it does work well, it remains dependant on a fully complete reference library (which I don't have yet), and my keeping a cool-head at the scan-end of things, and not replacing a selection of citations with the incorrect article (a 2004 version, instead of a 2006 version, for instance). BE handles the temp citations brilliantly, but for MY particular workflow, where I'm at at the moment, it's not something I'm using. No doubt it will get used more when I generate new content from afresh.

With this being said, I've been playing around with things, which appears to be working.
I created a ActionsApp flow on my iPad, which invokes the Hits view, after I invoke BE from within Scrivener. [I could have this run through Keyboard Maestro as well, presumably - but I'm still learning to use KM properly.]
Assuming I remember to tick the checkbox when I do need to search for a particular article, it populates the Hits list as expected.
I am then faced with a Hits list of those articles I have searched for recently, which allows for a quicker selection of the relevant article.

Don't forget that hits are evanescent -- if you want to keep them around for a while, make a new group (and select "add hits" when you do). When you're finished, delete the group.

Jon
Sonny Software

Jon wrote:Don't forget that hits are evanescent -- if you want to keep them around for a while, make a new group (and select "add hits" when you do). When you're finished, delete the group.

Jon
Sonny Software

Ah. I see that now.
The groups option will no doubt work.

Could you possibly explain how the evanescence is regulated?
What triggers the reset of the Hits? Jumping out of BE? New search query? Combination of the aforegoing?

All sorts of things: Find (not Live Search, but Command-F), scanned a document, clicking on the mark checkbox, importing into the Hits list, and no doubt a half dozen things that don't come to mind at the moment. The hits are to be created and used immediately for whatever purpose you have. Don't count on them not changing, however. That's what static groups are for.

Jon
Sonny Software