ever. ‘On Wall Street, a late rally provided shares with their largest ever one-day rise’ (The Times). Many authorities (including the style book of The Times itself) object to ever in the sense used here on the grounds that the word covers the future as well as the past, and we cannot possibly know what Wall Street shares, or anything else, will be doing tomorrow.
The logic of the argument is impeccable, but it has two shortcomings. First, it fails to acknowledge that the usage has been well established for the better part of a century and can thus be defended on grounds of idiom. A more important conisderation perhaps is that ever often adds a useful air of embracing generality. If I say, ‘Have you ever been to Paris?’ there is no doubt that I mean at any time in your life. If, however, I say merely, ‘Have you been to Paris?’ there is some ambiguity as to what span of time we are considering.
In short, there may be a case for using ever carefully, even sparingly. But to ban it outright is fussy and unidiomatic and can easily lead to unnecessary confusion.
— Bill Bryson, Troublesome Words
Bologna 