Encyclopaedia Britannica Almanac 2004

Rating:
Summary: At one time, sailors relied on almanacs for navigation...
Review: But detailed data of tides and star positions have been eliminated from popular almanacs long ago.

But they still supposed to be more than books of historic or trivial facts, but should present important, and timely, data at one's finger tip in order to help navigate through the difficulties of life.

And once such piece of data, for me, was the current postal rates (or at least current at the time of printing.)

I was shocked that such an important collection of data was not available in this book!

Yeah, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an interesting and important document; but it was passed and promptly ignored by much of the "universe" over fifty years ago.

If I have a package to send out, I want to know the cost NOW!

On the other hand, purchasing this book IS a cheap way to truthfully claim that you have the Encyclopaedia Britannica...

Rating:
Summary: Full of Errors
Review: For a book that is supposed to be a place of reference when you need to look something up this book is surprisingly inaccurate. It is filled with errors and contradictory data that makes you question the reliability of the information presented. For example, the Congo is said to have an annual per capita GDP of $85, and on the same page the annual per capita expenditure on the military in the Congo is said to be $102. So according to this Almanac people in the Congo pay taxes of 200%. There are numerous other such examples of ridiculously erroneous data, and it simply makes the whole almanac an unreliable reference source. Save your money, or buy the Time Almanac 2004, or The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2004, they are much more accurate.

Rating:
Summary: Still a little ways from #1
Review: For the past twelve years, I have used the World Almanac. However, it has been interesting to see what the other almanacs have been up to. This brings us to the Encyclopaedia Britannica Almanac. It starts with the general review of the year. Unlike the other almanacs, the Encyclopaedia Britannica Almanac profiles the first six months of the previous year and the last six months of the last the previous year. In other words, the 2004 edition covers June 2002 to June 2003. I don't like this. It leads a hole in the coverage. The next section is personalities. This has to be the most detailed list of people. As a test, I looked up an person that was not well known to most Americans. I chose the (then) UK Conservative Party leader, Iain Duncan Smith. The Encyclopaedia Britannica Almanac had the basic details on him. Next in the Almanac is awards. It has the big ones, such as the Nobel prizes and the Pulitzers, along with some awards I have never heard of. In summary, the Encyclopaedia Britannica Almanac has the best personalities and awards sections I have seen.

Next we come to Science, Medicine, and Nature. That section has information on those topics. The Encyclopaedia Britannica Almanac repeats the errors of the New York Times Almanac by put the bulk of material in 'World' and 'US' sections. I generally don't like this due to the fact that it cause material to be repeated. Both sections have histories, lists of states and nations and leaders, along with information on the military and religion. However, there are a few gems. The Almanac has the text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is the first time any almanac has had this. There is a listing of terrorist groups. Again, a first. However, I am disappointed there are no congressional results nor a listing of books of the Bible.

Other areas covered are sports an entertainment. They are filled to the brim with sports (with all the Olympic and World Series results) plus sports I have never heard of along with various entertainment awards such as the Grammies, Tony awards and Oscars.

In the end, the Encyclopaedia Britannica Almanac is a ok almanac. It still has a long way to go towards being #1. For now, stick with what you currently use.

Rating:
Summary: "Leading" certainly does NOT mean best!
Review: This year I added this almanac to my "rotation." (I buy a different almanac each year because each of the major almanacs have slightly different coverage.) However, this will be a one-year wonder. It is the worst, least useful, most out of date almanac I have ever seen, with useless, and even repeated tidbits of trivia. The information is neither up to date, nor logically organized. The Encyclopaedia Britannica was once the standard of usefully arranged knowledge, but this almanac is a poor reference, which covers 2002 much better than 2003!