An important component of the mammogram database prepared by the University of South Florida is the detailed "truth" information which was included. Every pixel in each of the images containing some abnormality was matched by a "truth image" pixel whose value indicated the nature of the underlying tissue, whether entirely normal or any combination of a set of possible abnormalities. It is these truth images which make possible the objective determination of comparative algorithm performance. Inspired by the possibility of such comparative analysis, in these remarks I suggest an enhancement of the database that will permit the sort of evaluation favored by radiologists, and propose some steps that we in the computer mammographic analysis community can take to most effectively compare and communicate our work. In both cases the primary concern is the clear and most effective use of metrics.