What date encoding could this be?
40 years ago I read a book, but couldn't remember the title. I've been looking for it for a while, and I finally (finally!) found it!
And then I worked out why it took so long. It hasn't been released yet! In fact, according to this website I found it on, it won't be released for another seven millenia - when the Earth's spin will be so fast that December will have (at least) 80 days. Global warming? Pah!
http://www.holisticpage.com.au/out-of-this-world-science-fiction-stories-edward-blishen/9780753462461 (Note I’ve told them of this: they may fix it.)
Now obviously no human entered this wild date. It's a mis-decode of something - perhaps the ISBN? My question is: can anyone think of an existing decoding algorithm that was so messed up it would invent an entirely new calendar?
computer-puzzle
asked 3 hours ago
John Burger
1163
New contributor
John Burger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
40 years ago I read a book, but couldn't remember the title. I've been looking for it for a while, and I finally (finally!) found it!
And then I worked out why it took so long. It hasn't been released yet! In fact, according to this website I found it on, it won't be released for another seven millenia - when the Earth's spin will be so fast that December will have (at least) 80 days. Global warming? Pah!
http://www.holisticpage.com.au/out-of-this-world-science-fiction-stories-edward-blishen/9780753462461 (Note I’ve told them of this: they may fix it.)
Now obviously no human entered this wild date. It's a mis-decode of something - perhaps the ISBN? My question is: can anyone think of an existing decoding algorithm that was so messed up it would invent an entirely new calendar?
computer-puzzle
asked 3 hours ago
John Burger
1163
New contributor
John Burger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
40 years ago I read a book, but couldn't remember the title. I've been looking for it for a while, and I finally (finally!) found it!
And then I worked out why it took so long. It hasn't been released yet! In fact, according to this website I found it on, it won't be released for another seven millenia - when the Earth's spin will be so fast that December will have (at least) 80 days. Global warming? Pah!
http://www.holisticpage.com.au/out-of-this-world-science-fiction-stories-edward-blishen/9780753462461 (Note I’ve told them of this: they may fix it.)
Now obviously no human entered this wild date. It's a mis-decode of something - perhaps the ISBN? My question is: can anyone think of an existing decoding algorithm that was so messed up it would invent an entirely new calendar?
computer-puzzle
asked 3 hours ago
John Burger
1163
New contributor
John Burger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
40 years ago I read a book, but couldn't remember the title. I've been looking for it for a while, and I finally (finally!) found it!
And then I worked out why it took so long. It hasn't been released yet! In fact, according to this website I found it on, it won't be released for another seven millenia - when the Earth's spin will be so fast that December will have (at least) 80 days. Global warming? Pah!
http://www.holisticpage.com.au/out-of-this-world-science-fiction-stories-edward-blishen/9780753462461 (Note I’ve told them of this: they may fix it.)
Now obviously no human entered this wild date. It's a mis-decode of something - perhaps the ISBN? My question is: can anyone think of an existing decoding algorithm that was so messed up it would invent an entirely new calendar?
computer-puzzle
computer-puzzle
asked 3 hours ago
John Burger
1163
New contributor
John Burger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
John Burger
1163
New contributor
John Burger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 mins ago
asked 3 hours ago
John Burger
1163
New contributor
John Burger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 3 hours ago
John Burger
1163
asked 3 hours ago
John Burger
1163
1163
New contributor
John Burger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
John Burger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
John Burger is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Not a real answer:
It's not an isolated issue, it seems. There is another one I found here and again the actual date is 16 September 2008
Same is the publishing date of the book in the question. It is worth noting that if we write down the date 16 September 2008 in 'american style' mmddyyyy we get the number 09162008 and this number contains the wrong 'year' 9162.
The likely explanation here is a parse algorithm error:
function getDateString(input) {
let months = ['January', 'February', 'March', 'April', 'May', 'June', 'July', 'August', 'September', 'October', 'November', 'December'];
let match = (input + "00000000").match(/^0*([1-9][0-9][0-9][0-9])([0-9][0-9])([0-9][0-9])/);
let year = match[1];
let month = (12+(match[2]-1))%12; // Make sure we're zero-indexing months
let day = match[3];
return day + ' ' + months[month] + ' ' + year;
}
edited 15 mins ago
Ian MacDonald
10.9k2560
answered 1 hour ago
rhsquared
7,41521644
1
Yes, the likeliest answer here is that whoever is parsing the date has made an assumption about component ordering.
– Ian MacDonald
1 hour ago
2
I can imagine that the date was 9/16/2008. Strip all non-digits, pad with a zero at the back, because we need 8 digits, then interpret as yyyymmdd. That would mean that December was represeted by 00. I can also imagine that every illegal month is shown as December, if the code goes like this::...; if (m==11) return "Nov"; return "Dec"; /* Treat everything else as Dec ;) */
– M Oehm
40 mins ago
@MOehm Yep, sounds possible but basically it's a algorithm/programmers mistake.
– rhsquared
33 mins ago
Follow-up game: find all entries on the website that have the incorrect date format entered in their database. Bonus points if you use the open API to scrape all their data, then report back to them with a list of date conversions they need to update.
– Ian MacDonald
13 mins ago
With regards to 00 being December, maybe they just applied a mod 12 to bring every input into the range 1 to 12, i.e. something like month = ((input-1)%12)+1. This makes 01=13=25..=January, and so on until 00=12=24..=December.
– Jaap Scherphuis
3 mins ago
add a comment |
This could be a human error - people are very capable of doing more messed up things than computers! It looks like it was published on the 16/09/2008 or 9/16/2008 in american date format. the year probably comes from 9162 being put into the yyyy section, and the 80 from a corruption of '08, however not sure where December has come into it!
(From a quick google it doesn't look like date is stored in the ISBN number https://www.isbn-international.org/content/what-isbn)
answered 3 hours ago
olim
613
New contributor
olim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It could be human error - but this was from a book site, so I assumed it was coming from some database somewhere. Yes there was a 2008 edition (some 10 years after the anthologist’s passing), but it has an ISBN-10 number, which ceased being used after 2006. Also, according to trove.nla.gov.au/work/5510591 there was a 1988 edition - plus I know I read it before then
– John Burger
2 hours ago
Hi, thanks for the extra info! It appears that the older edition (first published in 1988) was titled just "Science Fiction Stories" link and had different ISBN numbers (as appears to be the norm for any variations wiki ISBN ). Which website was it from? Is it a common issue across the site?
– olim
1 hour ago
That was my thought too. I didn’t investigate too deeply, but I checked other titles - they seemed fine. I’ve edited the question with the URL (apologies for forgetting!)
– John Burger
9 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "559"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
John Burger is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f78196%2fwhat-date-encoding-could-this-be%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Not a real answer:
It's not an isolated issue, it seems. There is another one I found here and again the actual date is 16 September 2008
Same is the publishing date of the book in the question. It is worth noting that if we write down the date 16 September 2008 in 'american style' mmddyyyy we get the number 09162008 and this number contains the wrong 'year' 9162.
The likely explanation here is a parse algorithm error:
function getDateString(input) {
let months = ['January', 'February', 'March', 'April', 'May', 'June', 'July', 'August', 'September', 'October', 'November', 'December'];
let match = (input + "00000000").match(/^0*([1-9][0-9][0-9][0-9])([0-9][0-9])([0-9][0-9])/);
let year = match[1];
let month = (12+(match[2]-1))%12; // Make sure we're zero-indexing months
let day = match[3];
return day + ' ' + months[month] + ' ' + year;
}
edited 15 mins ago
Ian MacDonald
10.9k2560
answered 1 hour ago
rhsquared
7,41521644
1
Yes, the likeliest answer here is that whoever is parsing the date has made an assumption about component ordering.
– Ian MacDonald
1 hour ago
2
I can imagine that the date was 9/16/2008. Strip all non-digits, pad with a zero at the back, because we need 8 digits, then interpret as yyyymmdd. That would mean that December was represeted by 00. I can also imagine that every illegal month is shown as December, if the code goes like this::...; if (m==11) return "Nov"; return "Dec"; /* Treat everything else as Dec ;) */
– M Oehm
40 mins ago
@MOehm Yep, sounds possible but basically it's a algorithm/programmers mistake.
– rhsquared
33 mins ago
Follow-up game: find all entries on the website that have the incorrect date format entered in their database. Bonus points if you use the open API to scrape all their data, then report back to them with a list of date conversions they need to update.
– Ian MacDonald
13 mins ago
With regards to 00 being December, maybe they just applied a mod 12 to bring every input into the range 1 to 12, i.e. something like month = ((input-1)%12)+1. This makes 01=13=25..=January, and so on until 00=12=24..=December.
– Jaap Scherphuis
3 mins ago
add a comment |
Not a real answer:
It's not an isolated issue, it seems. There is another one I found here and again the actual date is 16 September 2008
Same is the publishing date of the book in the question. It is worth noting that if we write down the date 16 September 2008 in 'american style' mmddyyyy we get the number 09162008 and this number contains the wrong 'year' 9162.
The likely explanation here is a parse algorithm error:
function getDateString(input) {
let months = ['January', 'February', 'March', 'April', 'May', 'June', 'July', 'August', 'September', 'October', 'November', 'December'];
let match = (input + "00000000").match(/^0*([1-9][0-9][0-9][0-9])([0-9][0-9])([0-9][0-9])/);
let year = match[1];
let month = (12+(match[2]-1))%12; // Make sure we're zero-indexing months
let day = match[3];
return day + ' ' + months[month] + ' ' + year;
}
edited 15 mins ago
Ian MacDonald
10.9k2560
answered 1 hour ago
rhsquared
7,41521644
1
Yes, the likeliest answer here is that whoever is parsing the date has made an assumption about component ordering.
– Ian MacDonald
1 hour ago
2
I can imagine that the date was 9/16/2008. Strip all non-digits, pad with a zero at the back, because we need 8 digits, then interpret as yyyymmdd. That would mean that December was represeted by 00. I can also imagine that every illegal month is shown as December, if the code goes like this::...; if (m==11) return "Nov"; return "Dec"; /* Treat everything else as Dec ;) */
– M Oehm
40 mins ago
@MOehm Yep, sounds possible but basically it's a algorithm/programmers mistake.
– rhsquared
33 mins ago
Follow-up game: find all entries on the website that have the incorrect date format entered in their database. Bonus points if you use the open API to scrape all their data, then report back to them with a list of date conversions they need to update.
– Ian MacDonald
13 mins ago
With regards to 00 being December, maybe they just applied a mod 12 to bring every input into the range 1 to 12, i.e. something like month = ((input-1)%12)+1. This makes 01=13=25..=January, and so on until 00=12=24..=December.
– Jaap Scherphuis
3 mins ago
add a comment |
Not a real answer:
It's not an isolated issue, it seems. There is another one I found here and again the actual date is 16 September 2008
Same is the publishing date of the book in the question. It is worth noting that if we write down the date 16 September 2008 in 'american style' mmddyyyy we get the number 09162008 and this number contains the wrong 'year' 9162.
The likely explanation here is a parse algorithm error:
function getDateString(input) {
let months = ['January', 'February', 'March', 'April', 'May', 'June', 'July', 'August', 'September', 'October', 'November', 'December'];
let match = (input + "00000000").match(/^0*([1-9][0-9][0-9][0-9])([0-9][0-9])([0-9][0-9])/);
let year = match[1];
let month = (12+(match[2]-1))%12; // Make sure we're zero-indexing months
let day = match[3];
return day + ' ' + months[month] + ' ' + year;
}
edited 15 mins ago
Ian MacDonald
10.9k2560
answered 1 hour ago
rhsquared
7,41521644
Not a real answer:
It's not an isolated issue, it seems. There is another one I found here and again the actual date is 16 September 2008
Same is the publishing date of the book in the question. It is worth noting that if we write down the date 16 September 2008 in 'american style' mmddyyyy we get the number 09162008 and this number contains the wrong 'year' 9162.
The likely explanation here is a parse algorithm error:
function getDateString(input) {
let months = ['January', 'February', 'March', 'April', 'May', 'June', 'July', 'August', 'September', 'October', 'November', 'December'];
let match = (input + "00000000").match(/^0*([1-9][0-9][0-9][0-9])([0-9][0-9])([0-9][0-9])/);
let year = match[1];
let month = (12+(match[2]-1))%12; // Make sure we're zero-indexing months
let day = match[3];
return day + ' ' + months[month] + ' ' + year;
}
edited 15 mins ago
Ian MacDonald
10.9k2560
answered 1 hour ago
rhsquared
7,41521644
edited 15 mins ago
Ian MacDonald
10.9k2560
edited 15 mins ago
Ian MacDonald
10.9k2560
edited 15 mins ago
Ian MacDonald
10.9k2560
10.9k2560
answered 1 hour ago
rhsquared
7,41521644
answered 1 hour ago
rhsquared
7,41521644
answered 1 hour ago
rhsquared
7,41521644
7,41521644
1
Yes, the likeliest answer here is that whoever is parsing the date has made an assumption about component ordering.
– Ian MacDonald
1 hour ago
2
I can imagine that the date was 9/16/2008. Strip all non-digits, pad with a zero at the back, because we need 8 digits, then interpret as yyyymmdd. That would mean that December was represeted by 00. I can also imagine that every illegal month is shown as December, if the code goes like this::...; if (m==11) return "Nov"; return "Dec"; /* Treat everything else as Dec ;) */
– M Oehm
40 mins ago
@MOehm Yep, sounds possible but basically it's a algorithm/programmers mistake.
– rhsquared
33 mins ago
Follow-up game: find all entries on the website that have the incorrect date format entered in their database. Bonus points if you use the open API to scrape all their data, then report back to them with a list of date conversions they need to update.
– Ian MacDonald
13 mins ago
With regards to 00 being December, maybe they just applied a mod 12 to bring every input into the range 1 to 12, i.e. something like month = ((input-1)%12)+1. This makes 01=13=25..=January, and so on until 00=12=24..=December.
– Jaap Scherphuis
3 mins ago
add a comment |
1
Yes, the likeliest answer here is that whoever is parsing the date has made an assumption about component ordering.
– Ian MacDonald
1 hour ago
2
I can imagine that the date was 9/16/2008. Strip all non-digits, pad with a zero at the back, because we need 8 digits, then interpret as yyyymmdd. That would mean that December was represeted by 00. I can also imagine that every illegal month is shown as December, if the code goes like this::...; if (m==11) return "Nov"; return "Dec"; /* Treat everything else as Dec ;) */
– M Oehm
40 mins ago
@MOehm Yep, sounds possible but basically it's a algorithm/programmers mistake.
– rhsquared
33 mins ago
Follow-up game: find all entries on the website that have the incorrect date format entered in their database. Bonus points if you use the open API to scrape all their data, then report back to them with a list of date conversions they need to update.
– Ian MacDonald
13 mins ago
With regards to 00 being December, maybe they just applied a mod 12 to bring every input into the range 1 to 12, i.e. something like month = ((input-1)%12)+1. This makes 01=13=25..=January, and so on until 00=12=24..=December.
– Jaap Scherphuis
3 mins ago
1
1
Yes, the likeliest answer here is that whoever is parsing the date has made an assumption about component ordering.
– Ian MacDonald
1 hour ago
Yes, the likeliest answer here is that whoever is parsing the date has made an assumption about component ordering.
– Ian MacDonald
1 hour ago
2
2
I can imagine that the date was 9/16/2008. Strip all non-digits, pad with a zero at the back, because we need 8 digits, then interpret as yyyymmdd. That would mean that December was represeted by 00. I can also imagine that every illegal month is shown as December, if the code goes like this::
...; if (m==11) return "Nov"; return "Dec"; /* Treat everything else as Dec ;) */– M Oehm
40 mins ago
I can imagine that the date was 9/16/2008. Strip all non-digits, pad with a zero at the back, because we need 8 digits, then interpret as yyyymmdd. That would mean that December was represeted by 00. I can also imagine that every illegal month is shown as December, if the code goes like this::
...; if (m==11) return "Nov"; return "Dec"; /* Treat everything else as Dec ;) */– M Oehm
40 mins ago
@MOehm Yep, sounds possible but basically it's a algorithm/programmers mistake.
– rhsquared
33 mins ago
@MOehm Yep, sounds possible but basically it's a algorithm/programmers mistake.
– rhsquared
33 mins ago
Follow-up game: find all entries on the website that have the incorrect date format entered in their database. Bonus points if you use the open API to scrape all their data, then report back to them with a list of date conversions they need to update.
– Ian MacDonald
13 mins ago
Follow-up game: find all entries on the website that have the incorrect date format entered in their database. Bonus points if you use the open API to scrape all their data, then report back to them with a list of date conversions they need to update.
– Ian MacDonald
13 mins ago
With regards to 00 being December, maybe they just applied a mod 12 to bring every input into the range 1 to 12, i.e. something like month = ((input-1)%12)+1. This makes 01=13=25..=January, and so on until 00=12=24..=December.
– Jaap Scherphuis
3 mins ago
With regards to 00 being December, maybe they just applied a mod 12 to bring every input into the range 1 to 12, i.e. something like month = ((input-1)%12)+1. This makes 01=13=25..=January, and so on until 00=12=24..=December.
– Jaap Scherphuis
3 mins ago
add a comment |
This could be a human error - people are very capable of doing more messed up things than computers! It looks like it was published on the 16/09/2008 or 9/16/2008 in american date format. the year probably comes from 9162 being put into the yyyy section, and the 80 from a corruption of '08, however not sure where December has come into it!
(From a quick google it doesn't look like date is stored in the ISBN number https://www.isbn-international.org/content/what-isbn)
answered 3 hours ago
olim
613
New contributor
olim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It could be human error - but this was from a book site, so I assumed it was coming from some database somewhere. Yes there was a 2008 edition (some 10 years after the anthologist’s passing), but it has an ISBN-10 number, which ceased being used after 2006. Also, according to trove.nla.gov.au/work/5510591 there was a 1988 edition - plus I know I read it before then
– John Burger
2 hours ago
Hi, thanks for the extra info! It appears that the older edition (first published in 1988) was titled just "Science Fiction Stories" link and had different ISBN numbers (as appears to be the norm for any variations wiki ISBN ). Which website was it from? Is it a common issue across the site?
– olim
1 hour ago
That was my thought too. I didn’t investigate too deeply, but I checked other titles - they seemed fine. I’ve edited the question with the URL (apologies for forgetting!)
– John Burger
9 mins ago
add a comment |
This could be a human error - people are very capable of doing more messed up things than computers! It looks like it was published on the 16/09/2008 or 9/16/2008 in american date format. the year probably comes from 9162 being put into the yyyy section, and the 80 from a corruption of '08, however not sure where December has come into it!
(From a quick google it doesn't look like date is stored in the ISBN number https://www.isbn-international.org/content/what-isbn)
answered 3 hours ago
olim
613
New contributor
olim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It could be human error - but this was from a book site, so I assumed it was coming from some database somewhere. Yes there was a 2008 edition (some 10 years after the anthologist’s passing), but it has an ISBN-10 number, which ceased being used after 2006. Also, according to trove.nla.gov.au/work/5510591 there was a 1988 edition - plus I know I read it before then
– John Burger
2 hours ago
Hi, thanks for the extra info! It appears that the older edition (first published in 1988) was titled just "Science Fiction Stories" link and had different ISBN numbers (as appears to be the norm for any variations wiki ISBN ). Which website was it from? Is it a common issue across the site?
– olim
1 hour ago
That was my thought too. I didn’t investigate too deeply, but I checked other titles - they seemed fine. I’ve edited the question with the URL (apologies for forgetting!)
– John Burger
9 mins ago
add a comment |
This could be a human error - people are very capable of doing more messed up things than computers! It looks like it was published on the 16/09/2008 or 9/16/2008 in american date format. the year probably comes from 9162 being put into the yyyy section, and the 80 from a corruption of '08, however not sure where December has come into it!
(From a quick google it doesn't look like date is stored in the ISBN number https://www.isbn-international.org/content/what-isbn)
answered 3 hours ago
olim
613
New contributor
olim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
This could be a human error - people are very capable of doing more messed up things than computers! It looks like it was published on the 16/09/2008 or 9/16/2008 in american date format. the year probably comes from 9162 being put into the yyyy section, and the 80 from a corruption of '08, however not sure where December has come into it!
(From a quick google it doesn't look like date is stored in the ISBN number https://www.isbn-international.org/content/what-isbn)
answered 3 hours ago
olim
613
New contributor
olim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 3 hours ago
olim
613
New contributor
olim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 3 hours ago
olim
613
answered 3 hours ago
olim
613
613
New contributor
olim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
olim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
olim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It could be human error - but this was from a book site, so I assumed it was coming from some database somewhere. Yes there was a 2008 edition (some 10 years after the anthologist’s passing), but it has an ISBN-10 number, which ceased being used after 2006. Also, according to trove.nla.gov.au/work/5510591 there was a 1988 edition - plus I know I read it before then
– John Burger
2 hours ago
Hi, thanks for the extra info! It appears that the older edition (first published in 1988) was titled just "Science Fiction Stories" link and had different ISBN numbers (as appears to be the norm for any variations wiki ISBN ). Which website was it from? Is it a common issue across the site?
– olim
1 hour ago
That was my thought too. I didn’t investigate too deeply, but I checked other titles - they seemed fine. I’ve edited the question with the URL (apologies for forgetting!)
– John Burger
9 mins ago
add a comment |
It could be human error - but this was from a book site, so I assumed it was coming from some database somewhere. Yes there was a 2008 edition (some 10 years after the anthologist’s passing), but it has an ISBN-10 number, which ceased being used after 2006. Also, according to trove.nla.gov.au/work/5510591 there was a 1988 edition - plus I know I read it before then
– John Burger
2 hours ago
Hi, thanks for the extra info! It appears that the older edition (first published in 1988) was titled just "Science Fiction Stories" link and had different ISBN numbers (as appears to be the norm for any variations wiki ISBN ). Which website was it from? Is it a common issue across the site?
– olim
1 hour ago
That was my thought too. I didn’t investigate too deeply, but I checked other titles - they seemed fine. I’ve edited the question with the URL (apologies for forgetting!)
– John Burger
9 mins ago
It could be human error - but this was from a book site, so I assumed it was coming from some database somewhere. Yes there was a 2008 edition (some 10 years after the anthologist’s passing), but it has an ISBN-10 number, which ceased being used after 2006. Also, according to trove.nla.gov.au/work/5510591 there was a 1988 edition - plus I know I read it before then
– John Burger
2 hours ago
It could be human error - but this was from a book site, so I assumed it was coming from some database somewhere. Yes there was a 2008 edition (some 10 years after the anthologist’s passing), but it has an ISBN-10 number, which ceased being used after 2006. Also, according to trove.nla.gov.au/work/5510591 there was a 1988 edition - plus I know I read it before then
– John Burger
2 hours ago
Hi, thanks for the extra info! It appears that the older edition (first published in 1988) was titled just "Science Fiction Stories" link and had different ISBN numbers (as appears to be the norm for any variations wiki ISBN ). Which website was it from? Is it a common issue across the site?
– olim
1 hour ago
Hi, thanks for the extra info! It appears that the older edition (first published in 1988) was titled just "Science Fiction Stories" link and had different ISBN numbers (as appears to be the norm for any variations wiki ISBN ). Which website was it from? Is it a common issue across the site?
– olim
1 hour ago
That was my thought too. I didn’t investigate too deeply, but I checked other titles - they seemed fine. I’ve edited the question with the URL (apologies for forgetting!)
– John Burger
9 mins ago
That was my thought too. I didn’t investigate too deeply, but I checked other titles - they seemed fine. I’ve edited the question with the URL (apologies for forgetting!)
– John Burger
9 mins ago
add a comment |
John Burger is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
John Burger is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
John Burger is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
John Burger is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Puzzling Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f78196%2fwhat-date-encoding-could-this-be%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
