
A Correction; Welcome to 51,254 (2000) - hk__2
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/01/us/c-a-correction-welcome-to-51254-000005.html
======
mc32
I don’t think this should have been corrected. Now any reference to an issue
number has to be corrected by 500, depending on whether it references an issue
before or after the correction.

Other than correcting a number sequence error, this doesn’t fix anything
important.

~~~
starmftronajoll
That said, it doesn’t break anything important, either, and it does bring the
numbering in line with a major newspaper’s understandable insistence on
accurate representation of the facts wherever possible. The numbers could
quite reasonably be construed as arbitrary identifiers, as you have. But to
the Times, they are a statement of fact — i.e., a statement of how many issues
have been published. You’re right that it was silly to correct the numbering,
but it was corrected as part of adherence to a journalistic culture that
exists for un-silly reasons. So I appreciate the correction and find it pretty
amusing.

~~~
another-one-off
> That said, it doesn’t break anything important

No, they clearly damaged something important - the uniqueness of each issue
number.

If the issue number identifying a specific issue is not important, why have an
issue number? They may as well label all their editions '1', and save ink.
They already have thousands of editions that bear the wrong number; they can't
fix that.

Indeed, I am suspicious that someone surely noticed the misprint in the weeks
or months following when it was first made, then chose not to fix it for that
exact reason.

~~~
OskarS
I take issue with issue number being "important". Each NYT still has a much
more useful unique identifier, which is the day it was published.

The issue number is probably entirely useless, but the reason to keep it
around are historical. It's a neat thing that they've labeled all their issues
like this, right from the start, and that they've kept up the tradition. Like
quote from the linked article:

> ''There is something that appeals to me about the way the issue number marks
> the passage of time across decades and centuries,'' said a memo from Mr.
> Donovan, who is 24. ''It has been steadily climbing for longer than anyone
> who has ever glanced at it has been alive. The 19th-century newsboy hawking
> papers in a snowy Union Square is in some minute way bound by the issue
> number to the Seattle advertising executive reading the paper with her feet
> propped up on the desk.''

He's not wrong!

Not everything has to have absolute utility. Not everything has to be
perfectly calibrated for storing in a database. Some things we keep around
because of tradition, or because we're romantic creatures who sometimes
appreciate things which have little practical use.

------
rossdavidh
The importance of just giving each issue a UUID.

~~~
folli
The date itself is already a universally unique identifier (provided there is
never more than 1 issue per day).

~~~
cabaalis
Also naturally sortable if represented as YYYYMMDD, unlike default guids
(unless specifically using sequential guid generator)

