Roger:

I like to point out that it's very nice of you to offer to set up the evaluation program. Also, Canie is to be thanked for hosting it on this site.

I can't say I'm all that up on CGI programs. I suggest pinging George Gallen since he has offered to assist (see linked msg.).

Once this program is operational though I will certainly volunteer to run some people's numbers through...just to see "whom talks and whom walks".

The true value of such a program is give the lay person the ability to contribute to trying to solve the eq. prediction problem by evaluating their own (or others') predictions (without having to be an expert).

In this way, persons who are so interested can more quickly jettison ideas that have been shown Not to work by way of this evaluation program. This is more efficient than spending time (maybe even decades?) whipping a dead horse idea which will never produce consistenlty accurate short term predictions, etc...).

Another benefit is that it will force serious reseachers to make proper predictions with location, time, and magnitude ranges. BTW, this will also allow the lay person to understand who is serious about solving this problem and who is all about "blowing smoke" and generally wasting people's time....

Again, I applaud the both of you for talking this step in advancing in this area by allowing more timely identification of worthless eq. predicition methods (of which there are many it seems).

Cheers 2 u,

.02

• George Gallen's offer & email addy