Hi Roger. I must admit that I really and truly don’t understand how your program evaluates a prediction. I know of at least 70 of my predictions were all met in regards to the window of time, location and radius and the magnitude range. I thought that in order for the prediction to be a good prediction all 3 of the parameters (time, location, magnitude) had to be met which they were.

The other thing that is curious is that I got perfect hits on the more difficult predictions as opposed to the ones that weren’t difficult. Why is that?

I know from talking to various seismologists that the location of any quake is always suspected. The location can be off as much as 5 miles and magnitude off by 0.3. It’s not perfect so why does the person making the prediction have to be perfect? I’m not even sure I understand what perfect is in regards to your program.

Today’s M=1.5 near Rohnert Park even though it is a miss in all respects told me a lot about the data I use. Kind of interesting in what one can learn from failure. Take Care…Don in creepy town