Randall;

I try not to impose any restrictions on the predictor beyond the minimum information needed to have a valid prediction; magnitude range, definable location and time range.

But I evaluate according to what is said. And if "a quake..." is predicted, one is all it takes for a hit and no credit is given for more.

Jim Berkland is finally seeing the light and will be predicting "increased seismicity" but that isn't specific enough to get additional credit either.

Now it would be possible to publish a set of guidelines for predictors to help them make a more valid prediction. Is that what you had in mind?

Roger