serious but probably not well-founded
Posted by John Vidale on February 17, 2003 at 21:20:44:

EDF,

I'd like their method to work.

However, it is hard to take seriously a scheme that claims to identify days to months in advance individual earthquakes as small as magnitude 2's. Individual 3.5's are claimed to be predicted all around the world.

The scoring is also quirky, unpredicted events are not penalized, events only need to be with 100-200 km of the prediction, and missing by 4 magnitude units (calling for a 3.5 and getting a 7.5, for instance) can still result in a nearly perfect score.

The only way to judge their efforts is when they show what their predictions were in detail for the test period, or better still when they predict some future events.

We'll know soon.

John


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: Let Us Have A Positive Thought - Petra Challus  22:49:11 - 2/17/2003  (18050)  (1)
        ● Claimed to be ready for prime time - John Vidale  06:44:29 - 2/18/2003  (18053)  (2)
           ● Re: My Oh My - Aren't We Open Minded - Petra Challus  19:08:56 - 2/18/2003  (18061)  (1)
              ● cold facts aren't always friendly - John Vidale  19:49:19 - 2/18/2003  (18062)  (2)
                 ● Re: cold facts aren't always friendly - Petra Challus  20:34:13 - 2/18/2003  (18064)  (1)
                    ● different approaches - John Vidale  21:25:09 - 2/18/2003  (18067)  (1)
                       ● Re: different approaches - Petra Challus  22:38:35 - 2/18/2003  (18068)  (1)
                          ● practicality - John Vidale  23:18:14 - 2/18/2003  (18069)  (1)
                             ● Re: practicality - Canie  12:04:37 - 2/19/2003  (18080)  (1)
                                ● Geoforecaster - chris in suburbia  13:44:56 - 2/20/2003  (18088)  (1)
                                   ● correlations - John Vidale  14:48:32 - 2/20/2003  (18089)  (2)
                                      ● Re: Scoring - Canie  23:00:41 - 2/20/2003  (18092)  (1)
                                         ● automatic hits from loose scoring - John Vidale  06:38:58 - 2/21/2003  (18096)  (0)
                                      ● I meant only geoF, not Don's work - John Vidale  15:11:31 - 2/20/2003  (18090)  (1)
                                         ● Re: I meant only geoF, not Don's work - EQF  22:40:17 - 2/20/2003  (18091)  (0)
                 ● Re: cold facts aren't always friendly - Don in Hollister  19:56:53 - 2/18/2003  (18063)  (1)
                    ● facts are useful - John Vidale  20:40:41 - 2/18/2003  (18065)  (0)
           ● Re: Claimed to be ready for prime time - chris in suburbia  06:57:18 - 2/18/2003  (18055)  (1)
              ● must be Don, not me - John Vidale  07:11:12 - 2/18/2003  (18056)  (2)
                 ● Re: must be Don, not me - chris in suburbia  11:48:41 - 2/18/2003  (18060)  (0)
                 ● Re: must be Don, not me - Canie  10:49:59 - 2/18/2003  (18059)  (1)
                    ● Re: must be Don, not me - Mary C.  09:18:55 - 2/19/2003  (18073)  (0)