Don and others, all I'm looking at is whether a prediction is interesting or not...I did educated-guess that Don's had about a 1 in 10 chance of being by chance.....so, that is not so bad. So, I don't fully agree with Roger, and tend to agree with Petra's post above. I objected to Don's prediction being called "spectacular" or whatever the word was by Canie. I don't hold missing the high end of magnitude against...did not bother me with Petra's Parkfield prediction...but Petra is probably doing the right thing to not have a top end...since that does not make the odds of being by chance much longer. I did not hold Shan's missing by 500-1000 km on location because if Shan knew more about earthquakes and subduction earthquakes and the earthquake history of that area he would probably have hit on location...and, say, 800 km is only a couple rupture lengths for the M8.7...while 1 km is many rupture lengths for a M3...As for Don's record...I can't make sense of numerous predictions of small quakes...that would take a formal evaluation, and Roger is the only one doing that here. I think Roger has said that there is something to Don's (or Geoforecaster's?) predictions, but I have not seen more information than that

I'm not working towards prediction myself...I'm working towards understanding fault geometries and kinematics (slip) well enough that others might one day be able to predict......if you don't know the fault geometry well, then you don't know which fault some deep small quakes are on, and you can't model the GPS correctly....
Chris