Hello Michael,

If somebody predicts an earthquake during an aftershock sequence, and they do not mention the mainshock, that would be #3 on your list. If somebody predicts an earthquake, in a known region of high rate seismicity, and does not tell the audience, that would be cheating. So it would be the amount of honesty used to make the prediction in light of the audience. If I make a prediction for a 1 mag at the Geysers, and 99% of an unknowing audience showers me with flowers, that would be cheating. It is when the predictor presents the seismicity as a
phenomenon known only to themselves, by a higher means of knowledge or capability. If I predict a 1 mag earthquake in California during the next 30 days, are you saying that has scientific validity? Where does science and grandstanding part ways? Cheating is taking credit for something that has already been scientifically proven, including hit rates. If all predictions are scientifically valid, then the relevence of all predictions goes out the door.
Useful or not? You are correct. Like I said, it gets messy. No reason to quit trying.

glen