Anomolous dates in Stats/memes

Tinkering with my catalogue to see the old year out, I see that according to Stats/Memes, https://www.librarything.com/profile/Cynfelyn/stats/library, I have two pre-1700 books. Anyone any idea where these come from?

In reality my catalogue starts with 1744 and 1794, then eight books 1800-1849, which Stats/Memes gets right, then ends with a bunch of auto-generated "?", n.d., n.k. and d.d. (Welsh for n.d.), which I assume are all returned under "No date".

Thanks. And a happy new year to all.

Tacitus for one.

Penillion Omar Khayyâm might be the other

>2 Maddz:, >3 Aquila:

Thanks for the replies, but I don't think so. The Stats/Memes dates are taken from the "Publication date" of your own copies, rather than the CK "Original publication date". My two copies of Tacitus are Penguin Classics copies dated 1975 and 1976. And the Penillion Omar Khayyâm is dated 1928.

The no dates match what I counted. The only thing I can think is deletions that haven't worked through the system yet, but if I add just the final digits I get 6, so that seems unlikely. (Too lazy to add them all together.)

None of the options that should be returned for "No date" occur exactly twice, so that isn't it. My second guess would be a formatting issue, that at some point you have something like

2018-1010 rather than 2018-10-10 which is being interpreted as a subtraction and returning 1008. Bit of a long shot, but you should be able to check from the download if this is what's going on.

>6 lorax: Bingo!! "Bit of a long shot" or not, it came up trumps, to mix my metaphors.

I had two books with the "publication date" 190- (for nineteen-o-something), which the catalogue's presumably text-based date order buried between 1899 and 1901, but which the presumably formatting Stats/Memes's dates display presumably interpreted as 190 AD. Problem solved.

Now I just need to sit down sometime, and work my way through all those "No daters".

Many thanks all.