Customer Reviews

The New York Times Almanac 2010: The Almanac of Record

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I have been reading almanacs for more than 40 years. This is without a doubt the worst edited almanac I have ever read. Errors are everywhere. Parents do not let your kids use this book as a reference book for their school work. Numbers are simply wrong such as the population of North Korea (2 million, instead of 22 million). Dates are wrong such as the Lakers winning the NBA title in 2008 (instead of 2009). Don't trust it even for crossword puzzles.

An Almanac without a "famous persons" section is kinda like a newspaper without the news. I did not bother to check to confirm this almanac had a "persons" section - I just assumed it would be there; I mean, what else changes from year to year - Russia is still a big country, they still speak English (sorta) in Great Britain, and George Washington was still the first President of the U.S.; the things that changed are the famous people - some became famous and some died, and the principle reason for an Almanac is to keep the reader up to speed on that info. But, it does have a nice cover.

I use the almanac for working crossword puzzles. I don't always find every word I'm looking for but it's fun looking, and the book is organized well.

Although less expensive and less well known, this almanac is every bit as good as the World Almanac and Book of Facts. The two actually complement one another, so don't expect the same facts, just a set of facts that either way are entertaining and informative. Very enjoyable 'brain candy' when one is otherwise paused for a few minutes, and I suppose useful, too, as a reference work, although my interaction with it was browsing-based.

I haven't really looked at this in depth, but what little I've looked up seems to indicate that it's somewhat limited in scope to things the NY Times has covered during the year.

I agree with the earlier reviewer who laments the poor editing.
Besides the instances of blatantly incorrect data, I have run across several instances of "why did they do that?"
An example is on page 489 where a column of data for every country is displayed to one decimal place except for Sierra Leone which has two.
You also have NFL passer ratings rounded to the nearest whole number on one page and on the next page the same type of data is displayed to the nearest tenth.
I will be returning this almanac for a World Almanac (my trusty stand-by; the NY Times version was a gift).

In the order of things, professional football in the U.S.A. is important.

From 1960 to 1970 there was a second pro league, called the A.F.L. (American Football League) ...From that existence there came "The Superbowl". The first four of those annual championships were played after the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th seasons of the AFL.. The upstart league won the 3rd and 4th of those matches, against the veteran NFL. So, maybe those newbies could play...

The NY TIMES almanac has ZERO records pertaining to those AFL seasons, its history, etc. The editor should have caught this, and not allowed for this stupid omission. (The AFL then, after these 10 years, merged into and with the NFL, creating the "AFC and NFC", within the expanded NFL.)

I was introduced to the New York Times Almanac during the 1990's when a copy was sent to me by friends in Philadelphia. Ever since, I have been buying updated versions every few years as I have found this one of the best reference books on every imaginable topic. It is an invaluable aid in solving many of the clues in crosswords. The latest issue for 2010 is an excellent reference book and will take a prominent place on my bookshelf.The New York Times Almanac 2010: The Almanac of Record

For the price, this is the best almanac available out there. Very informative and and great source of information on just about everything