The thought occurs to me that there is a difference between evaluating a prediction and developing a theory or methodology

A prediction is when someone says a quake will occur in this area on this date and be this big.
That's testable.

But if you're trying to develop a method or skill you want to correlate your idea/sensation/meter reading with what later happens.

So maybe we do need a "best fit" program which takes a prediction of sorts and finds the quake which is the best fit. Keeping this sort of record should be an invaluable tool for research, while Michael's table is an invaluable tool for establishing credibility.

Comments? Volunteers?

Roger