[QUOTE=cheesehead;365195][U]Not one single person has EVER been able to explain to me what "waste" occurs in these case![/U][/QUOTE]Please provide data showing how Capitan Entropy helps GIMPS. Specifically CE has taken out blocks of manual assignments and held on to them for [B]4 years[/B], with no work shown on the exponents. That seems to be a waste. Taking out a single year's worth of work on an isolated machine is one thing. But 4 years?

That seems like willful obstruction.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;365198]Please provide data showing how Capitan Entropy helps GIMPS.[/quote]That's just a diversionary strawman request having nothing to do with what I posted.

[quote]Specifically CE has taken out blocks of manual assignments and held on to them for [B]4 years[/B], with no work shown on the exponents.[/QUOTE]

Lack of progress is not "waste"! It can be dealt with through assignment rules, not poaching.

[quote]That seems to be a waste.[/quote]... only because the endless highlighting of "milestones" misleads folks into thinking that they are a realistic measure of progress.

What was actually, objectively _wasted_ (other than Captain Entropy's waste of his own time)?

[quote]Taking out a single year's worth of work on an isolated machine is one thing. But 4 years?[/quote]... and where was the threshold of "waste" there, between 1 and 4 years?

[quote]That seems like willful obstruction.[/quote]Whose GIMPS work got wasted (besides Captain Entropy)? What meaningful measure of actual GIMPS project progress was obstructed? Why can't this be dealt with via assignment rules rather than by poaching?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;365200]Lack of progress is not "waste"! It can be dealt with through assignment rules, not poaching.[/QUOTE]
Would you be fine with me taking an exponent just below a known prime (via a manual assignment) and then reporting exactly 0.005% completion per week? That would hold up the proving a prime's position past the lifespan of everyone here today. Since it was a manual assignment, one could seek the number out and get it without the normal restrictions.

Cheesehead, all we're trying to do here is trim the fat and speed up the process of finishing the lower end of assignments. There was a bit of talk about just poaching some of the stragglers but we found that not very many of them were really being held up by users planning on taking several months.

We're trying to clean things up without poaching. We're changing the assignment rules. We're leaving wiggle room for the "slow" computers that take months for a single double-check so that we don't demean their work. We're in the process of determining what rules allow for swift progress while giving users a reasonable amount of time to do their work.

So far, it looks like far from the trailing edge, computers will still be given two years for an assignment as long as they update once in a while.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;365207]We're trying to clean things up without poaching. We're changing the assignment rules. We're leaving wiggle room for the "slow" computers that take months for a single double-check so that we don't demean their work. We're in the process of determining what rules allow for swift progress while giving users a reasonable amount of time to do their work.[/QUOTE]

Exactly!

If we get this right, there we never, ever be an incentive to "poach" because even computers which take a year to complete a single DC will be assigned work which is appropriate for their ability.

It's all about optimizing the curves....

[QUOTE=cheesehead;365200]


Lack of progress is not "waste"! It can be dealt with through assignment rules, not poaching.

[/QUOTE]

To my understanding recent conversation on this thread as transitioned from the 'morality' of poaching to a thoughtful discussion on changing assignment rules that will remove all temptation for such actions to be desired or a temptation in the future.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;365195]I've seen this and similar complaints many times over the years.

[B]If anyone disagrees, then please publicly explain just how there is any [U]"waste"[/U] when milestones are not achieved as fast as impatient people want them to be completed.[/B] Do NOT confuse project "waste" with internal feelings of impatience because of poor self-control.[/QUOTE]

The primary goal of GIMPS is to find new primes. But frankly, if there would be a Mersenne prime below the record prime as of today that we have missed, I would attribute more value to finding that prime, rather than a new record high prime. So, finding all primes below the record high and their assured rankings is a secondary goal.

Regularly DC's prove a LL residue to be incorrect. Being sure of each LL residue is the only method to be sure of a ranking.

Furthermore I care a little more about the findings during my lifetime than after it.

For statistical and other analysis a continuous range of results simplifies work.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;365195]Such people need to learn self-control, not propose rules that unjustifiably demean the contributions of "slow" systems.[/QUOTE]

Cheesehead... Will you agree that part of your position is based on you, personally, being targeted for poaching (and, thus, an emotion position)?

How many years ago did that take place?

Do you not think that it is reasonable that a slow system is given appropriate work from now on, and that the work will be recycled after a year or two if it isn't completed?

Must we wait for the rest of our lives for a slow machine to complete its work?

[QUOTE=Primeinator;365240]To my understanding recent conversation on this thread as transitioned from the 'morality' of poaching to a thoughtful discussion on changing assignment rules that will remove all temptation for such actions to be desired or a temptation in the future.[/QUOTE]
This is a good, pragmatic aim. I'd like to think that the new assignment and re-assignment rules currently being drawn up are geared towards precisely this. I suspect that this is indeed a primary aim.

[QUOTE=chalsall;365258]Cheesehead... Will you agree that part of your position is based on you, personally, being targeted for poaching (and, thus, an emotion position)?

How many years ago did that take place?[/QUOTE]
Not addressed to me, but sometimes I can't keep my nose out and this is one of those times. We [I]all[/I] have emotional reasons behind our positions. Sometimes they are altruistic (I suspect cheesehead's are indeed mainly altruistic) and sometimes they are purely selfish. But bringing them up in a discussion is rarely helpful and usually inflammatory. Its purpose is often simply to devalue someone's arguments on the basis of irrelevant personal situations, and whether that is your purpose here or not it is certainly likely to be perceived as such. Please let this one go.

[QUOTE]Do you not think that it is reasonable that a slow system is given appropriate work from now on, and that the work will be recycled after a year or two if it isn't completed?

Must we wait for the rest of our lives for a slow machine to complete its work?[/QUOTE]While agreeing with cheesehead's arguments, I also think that applying some new assignment standards is necessary in the interests of keeping as many contributors happy as possible. This needs to be done in such a way that users of slower systems remain happy as well. I think George Woltman's recent suggestions are striking the right balance.

:goodposting:
I think it summarizes most of the motivation and aim of this thread, and of people participating in this common effort.
+1!

[QUOTE=Brian-E;365272]This is a good, pragmatic aim. I'd like to think that the new assignment and re-assignment rules currently being drawn up are geared towards precisely this. I suspect that this is indeed a primary aim.


[/QUOTE]

The above (and what followed) was a great post. Reading it made me realize how poorly constructed my previous post was. One should not visit forums on two hours of sleep and make a posting. I sounded like a head injury victim.

Some very interesting points have been brought up in the other threads for determining DC and LL rules. I have not been a member of this forum for nearly as long as some members and also do not have the same level of appreciation for the intricacies of how the server integrates handling manual and automatically assigned tasks. Therefore, I do not feel like it is my privilege to throw out any suggestions myself. I do think something needs to be done to increase the lag of DC milestones. (Several) someones pointed out earlier that these milestones do add to a sense of community achievement. Achieving these milestones could become more predictable than finding the next prime- be it tonight or in three years. However, I also understand that users who possess slow machines need to be protected. Batalov and Cheesehead (and George) all made great points for my slow/remote machines and manual assignments are at risk with any aggressive type of change. Chalsall also makes great points. We should not have to wait five years for an assignment to be completed when the computer is over a year into the assignment and indicating virtually no progress. Someone else (I do not remember who) make a great point that many of the machines that are "delaying" milestones are likely users that only have their machines on a couple of hours/minutes per day or are users who have forgotten that they even have Prime95 installed. These users, especially the latter, likely care nothing for credit for assignments. It is the other group that needs to be protected- but how? How much protection is warranted? I'll leave that to wiser minds to solve!