But extra columns for comments had been asked for before and it was turned down because somebody thought it would be too "subjective".

I'm also looking for the same procedure to be applied to all participants without any one person receiving "special" treatment.

Look, earthquake prediction is a fledgling science (though some would use other terms). Because of this, nobody is going to get it exactly right until after years and years of trial and error have gone into it. But what we need is a way to show that a predictor may be onto something that needs to be looked into further. They may be right on magnitude, but off on location and/or time. They may be right on time, but off on location and/or magnitude. That doesn't mean that what they posted for was a figment of their imagination (though some would claim otherwise if the predictor didn't hit the nail on the head). It may be that they are on to something but are still learning things about what they are using.

We need to learn how to walk before we try to run. That means that we need to allow for "fuzzy edges" on each prediction and track those fuzzies.

We need to start somewhere and being dead on is not the place to start.