[QUOTE=retina;366487]30402401 was registered to BigBrother (Minipax)

But the results page say:[code]Fredrik stella 30402401 C Feb 9 2014 9:07AM 0.0 31.6692 5EF4440792DFC1__[/code]If took only 0.0 days to run a 31.7 GHz-days test. That makes it an infinite-GHz CPU.[/QUOTE]

Maybe it didn't report during the run? I don't know.. With a newer CPU, it can take only up to 24-48 hours or less.

If the user did not get the assignment through PrimeNet, there is no way of tracking its age. Hence the "0.0" age for such results. You see this with poached results (because you can't make PrimeNet assign you an already-assigned workunit) and with results where the user just selected a workunit and ran it without ever talking to PrimeNet.

I see that the exponent reserved by GIMPSChina is now showing 12.3% completion, while it wasn't even started a few days ago, so maybe it just took this long to get to the top of the queue.

Honestly, it seems to me that BigBrother should get the credit for this apparently poached result, especially with 77.8% reported completion. If the server could answer the next update with a message to the effect "result not needed, but full credit is awarded", maybe that would deter poachers to some extent.

I expect that most do not poach for the credit.

Honestly, if any result is poached the poach[B]er[/B] should be denied [B]all[/B] credit, which is to say their name should not appear anywhere and they should be given 0 GHz-Days of credit. Like the assignment never happened.

The one being poached upon, on the other hand, should be given full credit if they finish the assignment on time according to the rules. Their name should appear as the one who completed the test, and in the unlikely case that their exponent turned out to be prime, they should be credited as the discoverer as they would have been had poaching not occurred.


I agree that the credit thing is not a deterrent. If I ever did intentionally poach, it would be to move things forward rather than anything else. Luckily, that won't be an issue with the new rules in place.

I haven't followed all the new rules as of yet... if an exponent is already assigned to someone then will the new rules disallow reporting of the same work type while still assigned?

Well frankly I don't see why we should prevent reporting of the work.

Where poaching an assignment is wasting of resources, spending two months work to complete an already finished assignment is just further waste.

[QUOTE=flashjh;366535]if an exponent is already assigned to someone then will the new rules disallow reporting of the same work type while still assigned?[/QUOTE]

That will never happen. The primary goal of GIMPS is build an accurate mathematical database on Mersenne numbers. Disallowing data will not further that goal.

The secondary goal is to create a fair assignment/recycling/credit system to keep as many users as possible motivated to continue working on GIMPS.

[QUOTE=philmoore;366510]I see that the exponent reserved by GIMPSChina is now showing 12.3% completion, while it wasn't even started a few days ago, so maybe it just took this long to get to the top of the queue.[/QUOTE]

And now it's done - without poaching! Down to 7 left.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;366518]The one being poached upon, on the other hand, should be given full credit if they finish the assignment on time according to the rules.[/QUOTE]

Quite honestly, if it is a double-check which has already been verified by poaching, it seems a waste of time to require the one being poached upon to finish an unneeded triple-check. I would go ahead and just give them full credit if they have done any work at all on the exponent.

I agree, that credit is not often a reason for poaching. I just think that these kind of policies will send the message that poaching is frowned upon.

Over 900,000 computers have been assimilated into the Borg. :smile: