The definitions of two coreference scoring metrics—B3 and CEAF—are underspecified with respect to predicted, as opposed to key (or gold) mentions. Several variations have been proposed that manipulate either, or both, the key and predicted mentions in order to get a one-to-one mapping. On the other hand, the metric BLANC was, until recently, limited to scoring partitions of key mentions. In this paper, we (i) argue that mention manipulation for scoring predicted mentions is unnecessary, and potentially harmful as it could produce unintuitive results; (ii) illustrate the application of all these measures to scoring predicted mentions; (iii) make available an open source, thoroughly-tested reference implementation of the main coreference evaluation measures; and (iv) rescore the results of the CoNLL-2011/2012 shared task systems with this implementation. This will help the community accurately measure and compare new end-to-end coreference resolution algorithms.