Amg (from Glen's link): "Try to focus, if possible, on either Kurils, Kamchatka or Aleutians. They are all different subduction processes, and the eartones you receieve should have differentiation."

The idea of such differentiation is acceptable in Japan too, but it doesn't seem to be actually utilized so much. On EW, Petra has talked about different kind of rock yielding differnt sound, and above Amg is talking about different kind of subduction process. The idea on Frank Condon's thread seemed similar: that EM frequencies are dependent on latitude, but there was not enough detail.

Note to Glen: Just curious, read my comments to Chris below. Do you think you needed a full-blown quantitative method of "prediction evaluation" in order for you to not "take on faith" Jody's predictions? Isn't your personal opinion (which I agree with here) sufficiently based on simple common sense and rudimentary knowledge of the huge numbers of quakes occurring in the world?

Or do you think we should take on faith a "scientific" method of evaluation that by the evaluator's admission cannot be applied to predictions with varying probabilities, and apply it to these predictions anyway, because nothing else is available?

Of course, the new "Monte Carlo" method may be waiting in the wings...