"Michael,
a couple thoughts: If you just have a bunch of predictions with no input and comments like there are in Earthwaves, then who is going to ever look at these? Someone (Roger) has to do some analysis before people who do this for living would want to even look at it. This site (earthwaves) is suitable but no one does quantifiable predictions here regularly any more."

I hear what you are saying. The key here is to get the critical criteria into a format that makes sense for automation, which will allow others to evaluate to their hearts' content and allow predictors to create a public track record for their methods. I don't see a problem with adding a comment field that would allow the predictor to add whatever info they'd like. Of course, comments would have no bearing on the prediction itself.

"You should look into what the Southern California Earthquake Center is doing with their effort to study earthquake predictability based on physics, but I think also based on predictions or prediction schemes. But, if they think a prediction scheme does not make physical sense, or the method of prediction is not documented, they would not be interested in looking at it (my opinion)."

Thanks, I'll take a look at it. It will be up to everybody else if a prediction or set of predictions are interesting or not. I'll have no say so.

Thanks Chris!