# Is there a standard notation for "no, really" around data that looks incorrect? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 14, 2014, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-standard-notation-for-no-really-around-data-that-looks-incorrect/701311 "2014-10-14T16:14:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-standard-notation-for-no-really-around-data-that-looks-incorrect/701311/21 "2014-10-15T17:31:22Z")
I’m going to take “silly idea” off my earlier one. Which is worse – adding an additional decimal place if the rest of the report has numbers with one, or adding asterisks and footnotes? Do the numbers differ if you add one decimal place? ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-standard-notation-for-no-really-around-data-that-looks-incorrect/701311/22 "2014-10-15T17:45:14Z")
> [@gigi](#): > > I’m going to take “silly idea” off my earlier one. Which is worse – adding an additional decimal place if the rest of the report has numbers with one, or adding asterisks and footnotes? Do the numbers differ if you add one decimal place? In rigorous environments, the number of decimal places reported is chosen deliberately based on the precision of whatever measurements go into those numbers. You can’t validly just alter the formatting to 2 or 3 decimal places. Doing so would be making an explicit statement about precision that’s logically / factually false. In more informal environments (i.e. one where the author and the audience are both math/stats amateurs) you \*could \*do this and get away with it. But it’s still a bad practice. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-standard-notation-for-no-really-around-data-that-looks-incorrect/701311/23 "2014-10-16T20:02:27Z")
As **bibliophage** says, _sic_ means “yes, I meant to write what I wrote.” It is used in quotations to make clear that the transcriber is transcribing an error accurately, and it is used in situations described by the OP as well. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2014, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-standard-notation-for-no-really-around-data-that-looks-incorrect/701311/24 "2014-10-16T22:03:13Z")
> [@bibliophage](#): > > _Sic_ does not always mean there is an error. To quote Fowler, it is used after a quotation or phrase to … [confirm its accuracy as a quotation or occasionally after the writer’s own word to emphasize it as giving his deliberate meaning.; it amounts to Yes, he did say that, or Yes, I do mean that …]. In fact, you could argue that using _sic_ (which is Latin for “so” or “thus”) means there is not an error: that you have quoted the source accurately (whether the source quotation is in error or just surprising) or that you mean what you say. The problem is, as already noted, that _sic_ is seen so often in the context of a quote that has some glaring error, usually in spelling or grammar, that to most readers it carries the connotation that “yes, I know this is wrong, but I’m quoting it just as said”. Formal meaning doesn’t matter if – as I believe would be the case here – it leaves the reader bewildered or, worse, conveys the opposite of what was intended.\* I concur with the others that the best way to achieve clarity in this kind of situation is through an explicit comment or footnote noting the coincidence in question. Also agree with **LSLGuy** that tacking on an extra decimal point could imply a misleading level of precision. * * * \*Which is not at all the same as rejecting incorrect usage simply because it’s common, a different discussion we’ve had here from time to time! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2014, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-standard-notation-for-no-really-around-data-that-looks-incorrect/701311/25 "2014-10-16T22:11:24Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > In rigorous environments, the number of decimal places reported is chosen deliberately based on the precision of whatever measurements go into those numbers. You can’t validly just alter the formatting to 2 or 3 decimal places. Doing so would be making an explicit statement about precision that’s logically / factually false. > > In more informal environments (i.e. one where the author and the audience are both math/stats amateurs) you \*could \*do this and get away with it. But it’s still a bad practice. Thank you, that makes sense. I am used to dollar amounts where a percent is a percent! ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2014, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-standard-notation-for-no-really-around-data-that-looks-incorrect/701311/26 "2014-10-17T03:59:41Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > … he calculated the height of Mt Everest at exactly 20,000 feet - he knew that everyone would assume that to be a rounded figure so he added 2 feet making it 20,002. Actually, 2 **9** ,002 ft. It’s now known to be 29,029 ft. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2014, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-standard-notation-for-no-really-around-data-that-looks-incorrect/701311/27 "2014-10-17T04:13:08Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > How could this be? People don’t spell when they talk. Perhaps he was dictating. ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2014, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-standard-notation-for-no-really-around-data-that-looks-incorrect/701311/28 "2014-10-17T06:13:30Z")
“Verbatim” is the fancy word for “I double checked that”… isn’t it ? But it also can imply the same as sic, in that you are merely passing blame for an error … and not making it clear there is no error or copying. Well we know its a “coincidence” ,its an accidental matching up, but not a word used in editing… well you could put a note below … “These data values are coincidentally the same” ---
**Author:** ![Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hilarity_n.suze/32/6223_2.png) [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hilarity_N.Suze)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2014, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-standard-notation-for-no-really-around-data-that-looks-incorrect/701311/29 "2014-10-17T07:08:13Z")
I worked at a newspaper where we used to put [ver] above things that were unbelievable, or spelled funny. However, this was a note to the typesetter, not something that appeared in the paper. Example: “Cylvia [ver] Hayes was illegally married to an Ethiopian…” I’m thinking another place used a different abbreviation, but, again, it was just a note that a name, date, or whatever had already been checked. Since of course everything we published was absolutely accurate. It was not “[sic]”–we used that to state that the source was accurately quoted, right or wrong. But usually, wrong–because why would we point out that it was right? I always interpret “[sic]” to mean “this is misspelled/wrong and we know it, but that’s what it says.” Cylvia [sic] Hayes does not have the same effect, even if it should. (I always assumed “[ver]” stood for verified, not verbatim.) ---
**Author:** ![TruCelt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/trucelt/32/523_2.png) [@TruCelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TruCelt)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2014, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-standard-notation-for-no-really-around-data-that-looks-incorrect/701311/30 "2014-10-17T10:13:33Z")
> [@typoink](#): > > Yeah, (!) gets used for this. I’ve only seen it in informal contexts (and rarely in an itemized list) but, depending on the context it could work. > > My other thought would be to use asterisks and have a single footnote saying something like, “Values are correct as written.” I would just put the asterisk with the word “Verified” after it. > [@Dead\_Cat](#): > > I would take “(sic)” to mean what you intend it to mean, in this context, whereas “[sic]” is more commonly used within quotes to indicate the word “sic” itself was not included in the original, but the author has added it to demonstrate that it is not a typo. But since it seems this meaning is not universally acknowledged even in this thread, a footnote is probably a better bet in your example. Frustrating, but true. I want to start a campaign now to save the true meaning of “[sic]”, but I’m much too busy running around the internet finding ways to insert the word “Autumn” into conversations about "Fall. > [@Hilarity\_N.Suze](#): > > I worked at a newspaper where we used to put [ver] above things that were unbelievable, or spelled funny. However, this was a note to the typesetter, not something that appeared in the paper. > > Example: “Cylvia [ver] Hayes was illegally married to an Ethiopian…” > > I’m thinking another place used a different abbreviation, but, again, it was just a note that a name, date, or whatever had already been checked. Since of course everything we published was absolutely accurate. It was not “[sic]”–we used that to state that the source was accurately quoted, right or wrong. But usually, wrong–because why would we point out that it was right? I always interpret “[sic]” to mean “this is misspelled/wrong and we know it, but that’s what it says.” > > Cylvia [sic] Hayes does not have the same effect, even if it should. > > (I always assumed “[ver]” stood for verified, not verbatim.) Verified, yes. That’s what we always used when copy-editing proposals. And the connotation is more precise to this situation - “I made sure this was accurate” vs “Yes, that’s what I meant to type.” ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2014, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-standard-notation-for-no-really-around-data-that-looks-incorrect/701311/31 "2014-10-17T11:58:18Z")
One problem with using an asterisk is that in certain contexts it means the data is statistically significant. If that’s not true, or not relevant, or hasn’t been tested, you might want to avoid an asterisk. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-standard-notation-for-no-really-around-data-that-looks-incorrect/701311.md?page=1)