Hi Don.

Please see post 4361 with regards to my analysis of Martin's prediction. I made another (yikes) error when I entered 24.5 Km instead of 24.15 Km for the radius. That would probably explain the difference your seeing with regards to 1983,1984.

It is interesting that different URLs give different lists. I will play with it some tonight and try to figure it out.

Maybe an analysis of a prediction should produce several sets of odds based on historic quakes for each different appropriate catalog. Maybe the odds should be figured based on the last 10 years or so, given the fact that catalogs are more complete the more recent they are, assuming monitoring has improved through the years. Maybe we should look at 10 years for 3.0-3.9, 20 years for 4.0-4.9, 30 years for 5.0-5.9, 40 years for 6.0-6.9, 50 years for 7.0-7.9, and 60 years for 8+. It seems that the larger the historic quake, the further back one can find an accurate catalog entry.