Re: TEC prediction failure
Posted by Skywise on December 27, 2012 at 18:43:24:

I was thinking simply to have a defined system for a reasonable allowance of
'close enough'.

If someone predicts a mag 4-5 within 300km, and one hits at 350km, yeah, that's pretty much a miss.

But if the prediction was a 4+, and again, only a 4, still a miss. But what if the quake was mag 9? Couldn't consideration be made that such a large quake, although technically outside the radius, was so large that it would certainly affect the predicted bullseye?

Those are the situations I'm thinking of.

Brian


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: TEC prediction failure - Roger Hunter  19:21:36 - 12/27/2012  (80928)  (1)
        ● Re: TEC prediction failure - Skywise  19:39:06 - 12/27/2012  (80929)  (1)
           ● Re: TEC prediction failure - Roger Hunter  20:00:05 - 12/27/2012  (80930)  (1)
              ● Re: TEC prediction failure - Skywise  20:05:00 - 12/27/2012  (80931)  (1)
                 ● Re: TEC prediction failure - Roger Hunter  20:10:55 - 12/27/2012  (80932)  (1)
                    ● Re: TEC prediction failure - Skywise  20:58:37 - 12/27/2012  (80933)  (2)
                       ● On the importance of mag. - Roger Hunter  09:09:53 - 12/28/2012  (80937)  (1)
                          ● Re: On the importance of mag. - Amit  03:44:01 - 12/29/2012  (80940)  (1)
                             ● Re: On the importance of mag. - Roger Hunter  07:07:39 - 12/29/2012  (80941)  (1)
                                ● Re: On the importance of mag. - Amit  01:29:16 - 12/30/2012  (80949)  (1)
                                   ● Re: On the importance of mag. - Roger Hunter  07:02:39 - 12/30/2012  (80950)  (0)
                       ● Re: TEC prediction failure - Roger Hunter  08:17:27 - 12/28/2012  (80934)  (3)
                          ● Re: TEC prediction failure - Skywise  12:54:15 - 12/28/2012  (80938)  (1)
                             ● Re: TEC prediction failure - Roger Hunter  13:13:17 - 12/28/2012  (80939)  (0)
                          ● Re: Evaluation rules - Roger Hunter  08:34:40 - 12/28/2012  (80936)  (0)
                          ● Re: Evaluatipon rules - Roger Hunter  08:34:18 - 12/28/2012  (80935)  (0)