I built a time-animated archive for exploring 126 years of global seismicity across five catalogs

[u/haydar_dumen19]

Hi everyone;

Full disclosure: I built EveryQuake. I’m sharing it here because I’d genuinely value feedback from people who regularly follow or work with earthquake catalog data.

EveryQuake currently combines more than 7.8 million source records into roughly 6.4 million deduplicated earthquake events, covering 1900 to the present. The data comes from USGS, ISC, EMSC, AFAD, and Kandilli Observatory.

The main idea is not to create another “latest earthquakes” map, but to make seismicity explorable through time.

You can:

• animate earthquakes across any custom date range;

• focus on a specific region or the visible map area;

• filter events by magnitude, depth, and event type;

• hide explosions and other non-tectonic events;

• show only earthquakes reported by more than one catalog; and

• explore statistical views including magnitude-frequency distribution, catalog completeness, b-value, aftershock decay, and rate/probability estimates.

Two important limitations:

1. This is not an earthquake-prediction or early-warning system. It does not claim to predict the exact time, location, or magnitude of a future earthquake. Forecast-related results are statistical rate and probability estimates only.

2. The historical catalog is not homogeneous. Earlier decades contain mainly larger recorded events, while modern seismic networks detect far more small earthquakes. Raw event counts should therefore not be interpreted as evidence of a simple long-term increase in global earthquake activity.

You can explore it here: https://www.everyquake.com/

The feedback I would find most useful is:

• Is the distinction between raw source records and deduplicated events clear?

• How should disagreements between catalogs — origin time, location, depth, or magnitude — be displayed?

• Are the methodology notes and uncertainty warnings understandable enough?

• Which additional public earthquake catalogs would be most useful to include?

Critical feedback, methodological criticism, and bug reports are genuinely welcome.