It happens.

Something intended by New York Times editors and reporters for one audience gets seen by another.

We in the newsroom were reminded this week to be more scrupulous in flagging phrases like “Here are New York Times stories about —” with embedded links, which serve web and mobile readers but make no sense if they appear in the newspaper, as they have.

This contemporary problem is not the only way The Times has challenged readers’ comprehension and sanity over the years.

Occasionally, a “cq” will creep into Times copy. This standard proofreading mark means that what may look like an error — or a word, number or phrase that could easily be rendered incorrectly — is in fact correct. It stands for “cadit quaestio,” meaning “the question falls,” if you speak Latin. If you don’t speak Latin, it means, “Just leave this alone and move on to the next paragraph.” When a “cq” makes it all the way on to whatever platform you’re reading us, it’s embarrassing. It signals that in our eagerness to be accurate, we have made an error.