On Wednesday, July 6, the Getting it Straight column consumed a fair amount of space.

We published 10 straights that day, correcting several errors that were easily avoidable, and a couple that were not really in our control because we either were given incorrect information or a production process failed us.

The next day, we corrected a misidentified photo of the head of a major institution — the CEO of Queen's Medical Center — and the following day we published another four corrections, including two photos. We had to run the photos because in connection with a story on the red-hot housing market, we ran the wrong photo to show a house in Kaimuki near the freeway selling for $875,000. The photo we used was of a house selling for some $200,000 less. Both of those errors were our fault and could have been avoided if more care had been taken.

In all, it has been a bad run over the last couple of weeks.

This embarrassing litany of errors mars what actually is an improving record on errors.

Over the past couple of years, I have used this column to give readers a midyear and end-of-year assessment of our progress in reducing the number of errors that make it into the paper.

We do that because we feel it is important to let readers know that we really do take accuracy seriously. And, just as importantly, we take seriously our goal to do better.

Despite the impression we might have left over the past two weeks, the number of corrections published in The Advertiser has declined over the past couple of years.

And over this period, our standard on what we correct has not changed.

It is our policy to correct all errors and anything that needs clarification, even if it is a minor point.

There may be some instances in which we do not agree that something is a factual error but more a difference in interpretation. In those circumstances, we invite the person who disagrees with us to write a letter to the editor.

In the first half of this year, we published 242 corrections, down 15 percent from the same period last year and down 25 percent from the same period in 2003.

As usual, the errors ranged from downright silly missteps to misstatements of fact and getting names or telephone numbers wrong.

All are taken seriously because we know that even minor errors chip away at our credibility. And we know that errors in telephone numbers and dates of events can inconvenience readers.

Even though I handle the bulk of the corrections, I don't take credit for the reduction in errors.

That is due in large part to the commitment by the staff to check and recheck anything that doesn't sound right or doesn't make sense.

Obviously, errors have still slipped through. I hope that in six months I can again report a decline in the number of corrections.