My intention is to point out forecasts which are useful - in the sense that they beat
the odds of success and are specific enough to be of some use in making mitigation
and investigatory decisions regarding future events. This applies to all forecasts, not
just Don's. Although many posters make occasional predictions, Don is the only one
making regular forecast to this board which are specific enough to be analyzed for
random probability of occurrence. Hence it APPEARS that I concentrate more
on his forecasts than on others. I would welcome predictions from anyone, and
if possible, will analyze them in the same way I do any others.
I do not consider myself lenient - I consider any forecast which beats the odds
relatively successful, but will cease grading forecasts with letter grades since
that seems to detract from the overall analysis. A forecast does not have to
be perfect to be successful. A general indication of a magnitude, location and
time, if consistently correct, can indicate a procedure which is onto a grain
of physical truth. If we ignore all attempts at earthquake prediction, other than
those officially sanctioned, we could well miss out on significantly important
science. And, if there is nothing there, then how, we may ask, do certain predictors
consistently beat the odds? If I need to be a bit more accepting than some other
investigators to find the answers to these questions, then so be it.

considered useful