Michael, thanks for your response.

I do have the data that you presented in your post. I got it from "Near Real Time Earthquake List" and was only mentioning it to show you how they did not even include an earthquake they reported themselves in their 30 year data.

You have skipped over a lot of the meaning of my posts.

Yes, I'll also give you the fact that your probability will be more accurate than anything else available. The data is limited.

Let's put all that aside.

Let's say that you live in a seismically active area. Someone there has an ability to predict M6+ events. They make a prediction and someone feels it necessary to point out that the prediction is less than significant based on some probability calculation. Then they decide not to post anymore since instead of the pat on the back they thought might be due, they get a kick in the pants from someone's calculator.

I just don't see thousands of predictions being posted here or anywhere for that matter. To judge the predictions is bad enough, then when you do it using questionable data, that is even worse. Your current prediction status table is simple and easy to understand. I don't see a huge number of hits on there so far. Do you feel compelled to take the few hits that are there and reduce the significance? If you were having a problem with one person with a huge number of hits, your argument would be much stronger.

If someone makes a hit, it is currently 100%. If they miss, it is 0%. With the probability column added, if you make a hit, it will be less than 100%. This shows that the only reason to use it is to reduce the significance and give people another reason avoid making predictions. Earthquake prediction forums should promote new ideas.