Apologies to The Times for my poor analysis

I humbly apologise to The Times and its editor, James Harding, for the final section of my posting yesterday.

I don't know what I was thinking. The whole basis of my statistical analysis of the paper's circulation was hopelessly flawed and inaccurate. I just cannot explain what happened. Perhaps I had a Wiki-seizure.

For a variety of reasons, I was unable to see my blog from midday yesterday until last night, so I remained unaware of the mistake until I read an email from a Guardian colleague. My face has been red ever since.

I have appended a note to the original posting to point out my error.

Thank you also to commenters PietroFergusoni, Richardr1 and Cruelbutfair who expressed their bafflement at the figures, and rightly questioned their veracity.

So what's the truth? As Richard1's second comment on the data says, The Times has gained market share, not lost it, despite the overall market fall.

That does not negate my views about The Times's editorial content. But it drives a massive hole through my claim that there is a link between content and sales. My face is redder still.