I guess the vast majority of these additions are people who doenload Prime95 and join GIMPS only to abandon their test thus not contributing to the throughput at all.

What about the self-cloning issue in Primenet where one CPU will spontaneously spawn itself into multiple IDs? (which can, of course, be manually merged, but most users won't notice this has happened, or bother to merge them).

But yes, a large chunk of users are always going to be the one-timers who GIMPS for a few hours or days then disappear.

Or. There have been an influx of new users after the latest find, and they just haven't returned anything yet?

[QUOTE=axn;182012]Or. There have been an influx of new users after the latest find, and they just haven't returned anything yet?[/QUOTE]

That would be plausible except for the fact that the number has been increasing quite consistently since December when it was at 40,000.

The expected drop when most v4 conversion were done did NOT happen, but then shortly after that there were THREE prime finds that may have bolstered interest....I still think it is odd that the thruput went up so little....this makes me tend towards James' suggestion.

So if I perform double checking and my residue doesn't match the prior result, this doesn't count as a success in the Top LL Double-Check Producers report. However, if at a later time, someone else verifies my result, do I get credit as a first-time LL on the Producers report? Or don't I get credit at all? This has happened to me three times with PrimeNet 5.0 (for example: 19341397).

[QUOTE=richs;186635]So if I perform double checking and my residue doesn't match the prior result, this doesn't count as a success in the Top LL Double-Check Producers report. However, if at a later time, someone else verifies my result, do I get credit as a first-time LL on the Producers report? Or don't I get credit at all? This has happened to me three times with PrimeNet 5.0 (for example: 19341397).[/QUOTE]
You lose the credit for an LL test if your result is later proved bad or a factor is found.

Apart from that, credit stays in the category (first-time test or double-check) the server gave the work to you as. :coffee:

[QUOTE=markr;186645]You lose the credit for an LL test if your result is later proved bad or a factor is found.[/QUOTE]I am almost certain this is not the case. At the moment when you get credit, you keep it, unless there is a manual intervention by the database administrators.

It used to be like that with PrimeNet v4 : Goerge maintained a top producer list that was different from the list automatically computed by PrimeNet.

Jacob

[quote=markr;186645]Apart from that, credit stays in the category (first-time test or double-check) the server gave the work to you as. :coffee:[/quote]

Actually, when doing double checks, you can have them credited as first time tests by editing your worktodo file... :wink:

[QUOTE=S485122;186649]I am almost certain this is not the case. At the moment when you get credit, you keep it, unless there is a manual intervention by the database administrators.

It used to be like that with PrimeNet v4 : Goerge maintained a top producer list that was different from the list automatically computed by PrimeNet.

Jacob[/QUOTE]
I may indeed have made the wrong assumption. You're right about the old setup, of course: one lost GIMPS credit but not v4 PrimeNet credit. I guess it would be more likely that the new PrimeNet would be more like the old PrimeNet than like the old GIMPS.

[QUOTE=S485122;186649]I am almost certain this is not the case. At the moment when you get credit, you keep it, unless there is a manual intervention by the database administrators.

It used to be like that with PrimeNet v4 : Goerge maintained a top producer list that was different from the list automatically computed by PrimeNet.

Jacob[/QUOTE]

Even in V4 (about 2005) I had 1 CPU that turned in several BAD LL results (I just didn't realize it until recently with the new LL by user report) but I never lost any credit for those results ... at least not in the PrimeNet list which I checked regularly. I checked the George list less frequently so I couldn't say whether I lost credit there or not.

The only reason that I asked the question is that on the Double-Checking Producers Report, it still shows that I have had 63 Successes in 66 Attempts, even though it really is 66 Successes.