Atomic Scribbler Home · SmartEdit Home · Help

Version 2 released today


Version 2 contains a couple of big additions, along with some smaller changes. It’s an important release as it moves Atomic Scribbler from being just a tabbed word processor to being a full on project management tool for creative writers.

Large Changes

  1. A Research tree has been added, where you can add images, files, bookmarks to websites, as well as the now common notes and scenes. More details on the Knowledge Base here.
  2. A “Find in Project” section has been added, which allows you to search for words or phrases across every scene or note in your project. More details here.

Small Changes

  1. “Save as… ” button that saves the current scene as a Word document out of Atomic Scribbler.
  2. The PageFour Import process has been changed to maintain the sort order of your tree data when it’s imported.
  3. Shortcut key changes for all “Add” buttons and for the three trees (Document, Fragments and Research). Hover over the button to see the shortcut keys.

Full details are on the Change Log page of the Atomic Scribbler website.

To install Version 2, close Atomic Scribbler if it is open, then download and install from the Download Page. When you open a Version 1 project in Version 2, the project will be updated automatically.

Sample Research Tree

Sample Project Search


Thank you. I enjoyed Page Four, but am very excited about the streamlining you are doing with Atomic Scribbler and the new kick-ins with version 2. Your approach and focus on a clean and utilitarian program/application is closing in on what I have been looking for. I have a number of other writing software programs. Some were too “lite”, others were very cool but contained a lot of bells and whistles that seemed to sidetrack from the project as it was built instead of getting right to the meat of what needed to be worked on. I’m looking forward to the progression of Atomic Scribbler. Meantime, your program layout and chapter/note/fragment (and now research) access is answering the need to organize my hard copy notes and electronic fragments into a much more practical space. Thanks!


Thanks for the feedback Scott.

I’m trying to keep Atomic Scribbler as simple and light weight as possible. This means leaving out a lot of things that only a small percentage of users would use and focusing on selected core features. The difficulty here is choosing what to leave out rather than what to put in — not as easy as you’d think, especially when some features can be added quite quickly. In the weeks leading up to version 1 I found myself removing features I’d already added.

One of the key elements of Atomic Scribbler is what I call a non-lecturing layout. The writer is never forced to structure their project in certain ways or conform to the software. The user decides what a Folder is, what a Scene is, what a Note is. Writers write in so many different ways that even if a regimented structure were desirable, it would be impossible to build one that more than 1% of writers agreed with.


Just starting to use 2.0 on Win10.

I would highly recommend changing the label for “Save as…” to “Save scene…” because the conventional meaning of “Save as…” is to save a current document under a new name and then (usually) continue editing under that new name. This caused confusion when I saved and the File Dialog defaulted to the name I had Exported the (entire) document to previously. I was afraid to save under a new name, since it wasn’t immediately obvious that ONLY the scene was being saved.

This is just a small thing, but avoiding these little confusions goes a long way to making a new tool more familiar and easier to learn.

On that note, I’m glad you’re not calling a “chunk” (scene or whatever) a “document” the way Scrivener does. Surprisingly, it took me a long time to get used to “Document” not meaning the whole book / play / project that I currently have open. Nomenclature is sooooo important . . . .



That’s a good suggestion. Maybe “Export scene” would be a better term to use, as it’s more consistent with the terminology used elsewhere and there’s less room for confusion.


Yes, definitely. “Export” is even more consistent.

'Twould be nice to eventually have more export formats, too.