reply to post by BO XIAN
Great to see that your suggestion has resulted in some excellent input from several members. Thanks to everyone for that!
Re my comment about members not needing to add in quake data at the time they make their own, personal observation notes: there are three points of
reasoning I'd like to explain as to why I said that.
The first is that not everyone will either have access to the various quake data sets available, or be able to fully interpret them. There are several
good sources for data (and some pretty poor ones as well!) but even within the relibale databases there is a lot of variation in what is recorded. For
the same quake, magnitudes can vary (and the type of magnitude scale used), depths, timing and location can also differ, and even what quakes get
included at all has a fair range of variance: a quake posted in one data base might not even exist in another, or if it does, it may seem to be a
Secondly, I can see problems if people feel the need to try and determine what quakes they feel might be affecting them. Again, while some may be able
to do this quite well, others could struggle with it -- especially as there are so many quakes every day round the world and figuring what to include
in or out is going to be a heck of a task. This is not to put people off, by any means. I'm just pointing out that we are going to be pretty busy!
On the other hand, I'm very supportive of people using their intuitive abilities. If a member feels that a certain quake event is very likely the one
that influenced him or her, far better to say so at the time and (where possible) reference the quake via a database. I expect that for some people,
such cases are likely to show a pattern of consistency that strongly supports their intuitive assertions.
Finally, especially with smaller quake events, there can be delays of several days between the time the quake occurs and it actually gets confirmed
and added to various databases. Also, over a period of some days, it's not uncommon for quake data to be reviewed (sometimes repeatedly) and
magnitudes can be revised upwards or downwards; some quakes can be deleted altogether when it's determined that they're a duplicate of another event
or they were not quakes to start with.
In short, I'm just saying that while it's no problem if people want to note possible related quake events, it will likely be necessary to
cross-correlate all of them at a later time anyway. But that's okay. We all know that this is going to take time.
About the stats side: I studied statistic methods in college as it was a compulsory subject but frankly that was decades ago and the technicalities of
such methods are not my bailiwick. I have never created anything in Excell except a complete mess
so I'd rather leave that to members who have
a better idea of what they're doing. I can help with collating info, for sure, but turning it into numbers is something I'm not so good at, beyond
the very simplest "P < 0.090" sorts of data that you'll find in many academic journal reports across a whole range of disciplines.
There are posts going right back through this thread that could provide some useful data so it might be necessary to review them all over time, rather
than just recent ones. Some of the posting members are no longer active on ATS but I believe others are and they could be contacted and invited to
rejoin the thread.
Finally I'd support the notion of keeping things within this thread for now. It just seems to me that we are less likely to have to deal with trolls
that way. Also, it's good to have it all in one place.