<<snipped>> By all means let them have comments but the outpouring of vitriol from some posters is bordering on the intemperate. <<snipped>> I agree. Letting off steam is a relief but it doesn't get the job done. Rule 1 - don't upset the techy who you are relying on to fix the job! <<snipped>> If HMRC released a new site that was as badly designed, there'd be hell to pay, and their site is free to access. <<snipped>> Err - I think that might have more to do with the impact of people inputting the wrong tax figures. The impact of family historians not getting expected answers really doesn't compare. (Besides which - HMRC IS riddled with oddities - I spent ages on my first self-assessment typing in a zero to show I had no State Pension and having it rejected - turns out I had to leave it blank. That's what happens when you give a mathematician a form to fill in.) <<snipped>> Remember the launch of the 1901 Census? That was bungled - and it took nearly 9 months to get it working. <<snipped>> Indeed - but the 1911 one was a Brightsolid operation, like FMP, and went fine, which is why I think the FMP debacle is not just appalling but rather a surprise. <<snipped>> Competitors are now going all out to recruit disillusioned FMP users. <<snipped>> The problem is that beyond the basics of censuses and civil registrations, there is little duplication of stuff. The only competition for the Cheshire Parish Registers, e.g., is a train to Chester and a day in the Record Office. <<snipped>> I think that it is realistic to have expected FMP ... to have beta tested it [using both experienced and inexperienced users], to have provided comprehensive training documents and videos. <<snipped>> I agree with you up to the training bit. This is the 21st century - if we need a video to use a menu system, then something is wrong. Besides, no-one reads manuals, do they, else there'd be no need for the acronym RTFM! Adrian B