Here's my 1 cents worth (so 2 cents can also get his in) Roger

It seems to me that there are two questions involved:

1) the geological significance of the prediction

2) the cultural significance of the prediction

These two overlap a bit, but are in some ways different.

For example, take Don's Davao City, Philippines forecast for example. The forecast
was for an event near Davao City, while the earthquake occurred 200 km away
but was felt and did cultural damage at Davao City. The earthquake of M 5 that
was forecast, had it occurred at Davao City as expected, would have had pretty
much the same effect there as did the Mw 7.3 200 km away.
Likewise the forecast for a microearthquake in an unusual place could be quite
important geologically and in terms of developing any earthquake forecasting
technique because if it occurred as expected it could be as important in determining
the correctness of the procedure as a large earthquake 100 km away, perhaps
more so.

The real question is this:

What are the claims of the forecaster in regards to the procedure he/she uses?

If the forecaster claims or wishes to develop a technique that will warn people
of a disastrous earthquake in a populated area on a short-term basis, that is
a very different forecast/prediction than a forecaster who is trying to develop a
technique which will determine where strains are capable of producing earthquakes
(and thus is very interested in microquakes in calibrating and adjusting the
parameters of the forecasting techniques) with an ultimate goal of determining
when large or destructive quakes may occur.

It seems to me that the most important criteria in any evalutation technique is
not time or magnitude or location alone, but rather the probability that an event
would occur by random chance given the stated parameters of the forecast compared
with the claimed correct hit/miss. If it is highly improbable that a forecast and
event would coincide, then it should be considered a hit, no matter how small.

Otherwise we get into the problem of imposing our own judgments of what is
important on the evaluation. That is as bad as being told what is important to
judge by the forecaster. In both cases, the final evaluation is subject to controversy.