Are these the Best lists?

I apologize in advance if this seems like a self-congratulatory post!
In a few posts, I've named the sources I've used to create and update my T&F Record Book.
These include:
Track and Field News (1956-2015)
Track Newsletter (& eTN) (1990-2001 paper edition & 2002-2015 eTN)
Athletics Annual (an IAAF publication out of the UK, edited by Peter Matthews (mid-90's-2014)
FAST Annual (& USATF Media Guide) (2001-2014, but the 2014 edition had the FAST part only, with the Media Guide being posted online only)
High School Track 1961-1964, then some editions between 2001 and 2015, most edited by Jack Shepard
TFRSS (the online Collegiate NCAA Qualifying lists, 50 deep per event)
IAAF (online lists, but don't contain all events)
MileSplit (weekly HS leaders, but only the leader)
History of T&F, History of Long Distance Running (1860-2000 for the former, 1860-2002 for the latter, both edited by Roberto Quercetani)
History of Indoor Track and Field (1850-2013, edited by Grant Birkinshaw)
Twitter (many people and groups provide marks)

I'm going to focus on T&FN, eTN, TFRSS, and IAAF lists.
How do they compare to mine?

IAAF
This is an excellent source, with a few flaws.
It has separate lists for Indoor and Outdoor marks.
They're divided into event groups, like sprints, jumps, throws, etc.
But they don't include the Two Mile, the Weight Throw, the 300, 500, or 600 meters.
They have complete birthdates for most athletes, which is great for Age Records.
It's updated constantly.
One bad thing is that you can only get one event at a time (as far as I know!).
Much easier if you could scroll ALL events (for each sex) at once!

TFRSS
This one's good, but has HUGE flaws!
For one thing, it includes only NCAA meet Qualifiers!
Thus, it includes only those events contested at the NCAA Championships.
Then, it uses some sort of conversion equation, factoring in altitude and track size.
That means that the times you see aren't always the ACTUAL times!
Also, they don't differentiate between regulation 200 meter INdoor tracks and OT's.
However, if you sift through it carefully, it's fairly valuable for Collegiate marks.

eTN
I believe the only way to see this is to buy it!
The price is $38.95 per year, and includes also the online edition of Track and Field News.
(The subscription also gives you free access to all issues from 2002 forward!)
This is probably the best source for marks!
Why?
For each INdoor meet, they tell you the size of the track, so you know if it's an OT or not.
They have marks I don't see elsewhere!
They have fairly complete results of all the major meets, and highlights from lesser meets.
It also has Road Race results, for all distances from the 5000 to the Marathon.
Also, deep Cross Country results for the NCAA, Footlocker, NXN, and World and USATF XC
It has a schedule of upcoming meets, though the list is by no means complete!
So what's wrong with it?
They've included some marks that turned out to be false.
Occasionally, they won't highlight what I call a significant mark.
I think the reason for that is that they'll go just Top 10, as against my Top 24 DDD lists.
This causes some good marks to not be included at all, because it doesn't meet their standards.
Another "flaw", if you want to call it that, is that the only lists they provide are the year-end lists, and they follow the standards and rules of Track and Field News. (See T&FN below.)
They USED to have lots more lists, throughout the year (as did T&FN!!), but not the last several years.

T&FN
You know the Dickens sentence "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times."?
Well, the "Bible of the Sport" is both the best, and the worst, source of marks.
Let me state right here that I'm talking about the entire T&FN website, not just the magazine!
In fact, the magazine (except for the Annual issue, which has the Yearly Rankings and Top 40 World and US lists) is of little use as a source for marks all by itself!
But the website's lists have NUMEROUS flaws!
While the INdoor lists are entirely made up of INdoor marks, they do NOT separate the seasons once the INdoor season is finished (in mid-March)
After that date , they have what they've dubbed their "absolute" lists.
(These were also recently called their "comprehensive" lists, but I believe they've now landed on "absolute"!)
This means that, post-INdoors, if an OUTdoor mark is NOT as good as that athlete's INdoor mark, the INdoor mark is the ONLY one listed on that "absolute" list!
Thus, it's impossible to know, by looking at their lists, what Athlete X did OUTdoors, if their INdoor mark was better!
They include the same 4 groups as I do---World, US, Collegiate, and HS.
However, I've noticed some mistakes and exclusions.
(One example is in their new 2015 INdoor lists.  Raven Saunders's opener of 56-3.75 is NOT listed.  They show her latest--and inferior--mark of 53+ feet!)
However, as with the eTN, you'll sometimes find marks on these lists that I haven't seen elsewhere!
One more "flaw", if you will, is that they separate "foreign collegians" from American collegians.
So if you want ALL the Collegiate marks IN ORDER, you will NOT find that on the T&FN website.
You'll have to integrate the marks yourself.

Aaron K's Track and Field Record Book (and this blog)
I completely separate the INdoor and OUTdoor seasons.
There is no "absolute" or "comprehensive" list!
I go 24 deep (and sometimes more, if there are ties at the bottom end!!).
I omit ALL Oversize Track marks, although I'll make mention of some of them in my blog.
(See my previous post, which included many marks from the Seattle meet!)
Like the IAAF and TFRSS lists, I don't have every event (although I've added several events in the past year!).
Still omitted are every Road distance except the Marathon.
From OUTdoor lists, still omitted are the Walks, "junior", "youth", and "masters" throwing implement sizes.
For example, for the Shot Put, I have just the 12 and 16 pound shots.
Also excluded are most Relays.
INdoors, I omit the 55 and 55H, the 300 and 500, and the Walks, as well as several Relays.

I try to be as INclusive as possible, even mentioning some marks from events I don't have lists for.
I also try to be as ACCURATE as possible, but in many cases, I rely on OTHER'S accuracy!
However, I try to correct any errors I find!

I also present my marks in complete sentences, and try to make my remarks as entertaining and readable as this type of material can be!

So yes, I'm biased when I say I believe my lists are the BEST source for records and marks you'll find ANYwhere!!
If you agree, please continue to read my blog, and please tell everyone you know (who's into T&F records, marks, and lists) about it.

Up through an hour ago, I had 9500+ views on this blog.
I should reach the 10000 mark by the end of January!

Please comment on anything I say, or tell me if you believe my facts are wrong.
I want this to be an important and RELIABLE source for T&F records, marks, and lists.
And fun to read!

Thank you, everyone, for at least "viewing" Aaron K's Track and Field Record Book blog!