OK Shan, I have to give you a little credit...when that quake occured I recalled that you had predicted something similar...but that was one of 11 locations on your prediction. You featured it, but if someone goes to evaluate it, they can't take that into account. They would find that you missed on magnitude, and that the chances of being correct by chance on one or more of the 11 locations is very high. You need to sharpen up the wording of your predictions: you say "around 6.5 to 7.5+". You need to predict "6.5 or larger". Or "6.5 to 7.5". If you have high confidence in a prediction, put it in a separate prediction from those other 10 that you have less confidence in, and make that more clear.

Also...because your sun method makes no physical sense to earthquake scientists, at least not to me, you have a higher barrier to convince us that you can predict earthquakes at better than chance. On the other hand, if you are basing this on some precursory pattern of smaller quakes, like Glen does or his link just below, then the predictions might become a little more interesting...yo may want to explain those patterns in a little more detail...like what you saw in North Sumatra last week.
Chris