Hey Rog!

Have a project for you...

At first you may think - "quick and easy"...but something tells me it will grow as you ponder it.

Here it is...

A chart that is scaled by significance. One that is updated quarterly - yearly...whatever...

The particulars would be "factors" scored by "significance".

Factors could be, *gasp* "syzygy", natural well output before/short_before/after/long_after as noted in another post, precipitation, air pressure, celestial body alignment, barking dogs and biting ants, funny clouds, etc. I think you get the picture...

Significance can be a two or more column entry - for example - significance relative between the factors and significance relative to "chance".

It might be worthwhile to have a publication that contains two charts - one for observables with measurements that are collected as hard data (NEIC) and one for anecdotal factors - those that depend more on what people say or claim.

This way, people can compare the two while at the same time looking at the record of the individual factors themselves and how they perform versus others.

You might even have a third chart that is simple overlay of the hard and anecdotal charts showing how the two categories perform relative to each other.

The difficult part I think is determining what is "hard" and what is "anecdotal". Some might say "missing animals reports" is hard. Others might say, "Is their an equivalent of an NEIC for missing animals that removes duplicates and the like?" As of now, people go fishing in the Mercury News as JOB probably does...which leaves alot to be desired. That entails some discussion among multiple parties.

How's that sound for a project?

=8-)