Yes, I think we can say that a quake that hits on all parameters is a hit and I'll agree that we still have more work on deciding what a total miss is.

My feeling is that with the current state of affairs with the evaluation of earthquake predictions, sight has been lost of the human equation. A signal of some type may be a precursor for a quake, but the person observing it is very poor in interpreting that signal. This other person that I use to work with on this process had a problem where he kept making assumptions. These assumptions were his downfall in the world of quake prediction. There may be other limiting factors as well that the predictor may or may not be aware of that affect how well they can formulate a prediction. These are some of the things that bother me because they are not factored into the earthquake prediction evaluation. Other things I've mentioned in the past as well such as trying to correlate the size of a precursory signal to equate to subsequent seismic waves. Sure the largest magnitude is what a quake is finally reported as, but is that scale the right scale to be using for the particular precursor being used for the prediction?

There's just lots of questions and no answers.

Thanks for being patient Roger.

Dennis