|
|
|
|
|
|
by another-one-off
2891 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
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.