I have made no personal attacks on Janet, either privately or publicly. Pointing out errors in a person's work should not be misconstrued as criticism of the person. I deeply regret embarassing anyone. My new website is designed for doing research. Therefore, accuracy is very important. In several private emails, I pointed out the errors in the titles of Janet's census transcriptions, and her introductions to each. Censuses that were originally done by NY for a Town(ship), she has recorded as if they were done for a village. The introductions to each census also lead one to believe that the census was for a village. This leads to the assignment of a wrong location to most records that are extracted. I offerred to help correct all censuses (I believe there are nine of them, and most of them are posted in two places, so it would be quite a job). I also offerred to post them for her on her own site. I was willing to spend a lot of time on this for the sake of accurate research. This would have meant checking the original microfilms or actual census books, and using French's Gazetteer and other sources. I praised her work with the exception of the titles and introductions. In my final email, I pointed out that, because of the nature of my website, if she wouldn't let me help her, I would have to write cautionary notes about each of her censuses and that I might have to highlight them (which I had to do because of the complexity of trying to explain the problem to others). I told her that I did not want to do that because of any embarassment that might cause her (I have a great respect for 99% of what she did). I ended my last email by saying, "Please say that you will work with me to revise the introductions." As I recall (I can't access the end of that email), she told me to do what I had to do. Ignoring the errors is not an option for my kind of site. I did not want to highlight my references to her census transcriptions, but without the highlighting, I found that I was unable to write clear cautionary remarks that would be understood by the reader. I chose a light yellow color so that it would not be too offensive to Janet or to others using the site. I have notes of caution about other posted records, but those were not highlighted because they were much simpler to explain. The duplicate set of censuses which were posted on RootsWeb had their titles corrected before being posted, so I am not the only one who noticed the errors. However, the introductions remain wrong and may still mislead people. I was very unhappy that cautionary remarks became necessary. I knew that to some people, it would seem like I was picking on Janet, and that some of those people would dislike me as a result. For the sake the integrity of the site, I was willing to let that happen rather than direct people to data that they would record with a mistaken location. My site will direct visitors to all of the online records that I can find. And when necessary, I will point out errors. What good would a research site be, if I didn't do that? I received two emails that thanked me for the cautions that I have included on the site. At least some people appreciate the approach that I am using. Janet has performed a wonderful service by transcribing the censuses and putting them online. It would have taken an unbelievable number of hours to do all of that work. Similar censuses are not available for many other counties, so we can see how special her efforts really have been. Her accomplishment is tempered, however, by the fact that 1/10th of 1% of her work leads to errors in much of the rest of it. For everyone who did not live in a village, genealogists will record the wrong location of their residence. I did offer to make the corrections and, regretfully, I was not allowed to do that. I am still willing to work on it. As I began this message, "I have made no personal attacks on Janet, either privately or publicly. Pointing out errors in a person's work should not be misconstrued as criticism of the person." Cliff