[Roger Hunter]

(02-23-2015, 12:40 AM)Skywise Wrote:

(02-23-2015, 12:23 AM)Duffy Wrote: I private messaged Brian a couple of weeks ago with concerns of my lack of computer literacy, ( didn't want to spoil the quake thread with different subject) amongst other things, he told me as this was an unusual prediction method, I could dispence with the usual prediction formalities and post images and text instead. Unfortunately, the image refused to go unless I filled in the big red boxes that kept flashing before me.

I should clarify. This forum does require certain forms to be filled in. The intent was to force a minimum of quantified data to make a meaningful prediction. That is, from the point of view of us who evaluate predictions. The problem is that there is a looooooooooooong history of folks saying things like "big quake in Japan tomorrow" and then they claim a particular quake as a hit. But what is a "big quake"? What magnitude? M6? M7? M25? Where is "Japan"? What if the quake was 500 miles off shore? Does that count? What does "tomorrow" mean? What if it was a M9 on the southern tip of the Kamchatka Peninsula? Well, technically, that's in Russia, but would be felt in Japan. Does that count? They said "Japan", not "Russia".

I see four options:

1> Leaves things as they are, but then in posts if you don't really mean the data put in the forms, then the poster would have to clearly say so.

2> Remove the requirement of the forms.

3> Remove the forms altogether.

4> Make a new forum for "informal predictions".

Input is most appreciated.

Brian

I vote for making the form optional, reserved for format predictions. Duffy is just learning at this point so what he's doing now shouldn't be part of his permanent record.

Roger