I’ve recently noticed that typing my name into the search field of technicianonline.com gives me some interesting results.

With the exception of a few articles here and there, my name returns entries containing a total of 85 distinct corrections and clarifications. They reach back all the way to the date when I first took the helm of the Technician.

If readers are so inclined, they can browse through every mistake we’ve been able to catch. Looking back at them as I did this week, it’s clear we have, without a doubt, run the gamut of different screwups, from the mundane to the major.

We’ve spelled names wrong. We’ve printed incorrect sports statistics. We’ve mislabeled photos and printed misleading information. We’ve gotten dates for upcoming events completely wrong or left them out altogether.

And it’s symbolic that it’s my name that brings these entries up.

In the first column of my tenure, I wrote about my desire to improve this newspaper by improving our credibility to the University community. It seems odd that in light of this pledge, we’ve managed to print close to one correction or clarification in every single issue.

But when you really look at it, I don’t think this number, which admittedly is too high for my liking, is a step in the wrong direction. We have a long way to go in getting our credibility where we really want it to be, but the first step in that process is admitting what we’ve done wrong and doing our best to let readers know it.

That’s hard to do sometimes. It can be even harder to correct a mistake with sincerity.

But we try to do that as well, by running corrections in a consistent location (on Page 2) and, if the error is significant enough, emphasized the same way as the original mistake (on the front page, for example).

The key to credibility, though, does not lie in correcting errors, but in figuring out how to minimize them in the first place.

In a focus group we surveyed in the fall, respondents gave us the lowest grade in editing. It ranked lower than writing, design, photography and coverage. It was clear that their highest priority was editing, and they told us time and time again in their comments that focusing on this stage would help us gain ground in producing a better paper overall.

We take that advice very seriously. That’s why we’re refocusing our efforts to edit more effectively and give you a more polished, developed product.

Credibility is the backbone of any news organization. If we fail to gain the trust of our readers and our sources, we will fail to do the best job we can in delivering the news.

It’s my job, and the job of the dedicated and talented staff here, to bring you a quality product every day. But we can’t do it without the help of our readers.

In the preliminary stages of a credibility survey that we will continue to conduct throughout the spring semester, about 87 percent of respondents said they did not report errors to the Technician staff (if they found them).

Now granted, this statistic as of now only includes responses from its 21 respondents. We will continue to monitor this figure as our response rate grows. However, this presents an interesting and disturbing dilemma to my staff and me.

It’s hard to know when you screw up if nobody tells you.

As important as it is for the staff at the Technician to continue to strive to present information that is fair, accurate and complete, it’s just as important for the public to tell us when we make mistakes. That system of checks and balances is what keeps us on target and what tells us how well we are serving our audience.

There are a variety of ways to do it — letters to the editor, corrections, clarifications, even conversations with the staff. Regardless of the method, readers must hold us accountable for the things we print.

This is your paper; we just produce it for you.

Send your comments, clarifications and corrections to Tyler at editor@technicianonline.com.