[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;391690]The date of the 54M milestone should be January [B]5[/B], 2015, rather than the 2nd.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, you're right. And what's worse, I checked in that last result so I have nobody to blame but myself. Apparently I forgot what day it was... that happens on long vacations. :smile:

Corrected now.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;391724]Yeah, you're right. And what's worse, I checked in that last result so I have nobody to blame but myself. Apparently I forgot what day it was... that happens on long vacations. :smile:

Corrected now.[/QUOTE]Have you decided to finish all the <10M exponents? The current holders seem to be prematurely expired with "Manual testing" by Madpoo.

[QUOTE=retina;391725]Have you decided to finish all the <10M exponents? The current holders seem to be prematurely expired with "Manual testing" by Madpoo.[/QUOTE]

I did a couple where it seemed like they'd stopped checking in. There's still those last 3 that have been plugging away that seem fine though. They'll take a few more months to finish, but at least they're making progress.

As of right now I actually don't have any machines running Prime95... feels kind of weird after years of having at least one system going. My system doesn't do well running P95 when it's overclocked, so I wanted to finish it up at regular speed and then set it back to overclocking for the other stuff I have it doing.

I'll probably fire up an instance for a few days at a time when I'm burning in a new system, but for now I may as well focus on making sure the website stuff looks good. Maybe doing the odd test here and there when I see weird entries in the database (false positives, etc).

[QUOTE=Madpoo;391767]I did a couple where it seemed like they'd stopped checking in. There's still those last 3 that have been plugging away that seem fine though. They'll take a few more months to finish, but at least they're making progress.[/QUOTE]So your personal criteria for deciding if they have "stopped checking in" is "it seemed like they'd stopped"?

So when arnaud returns from the Christmas break (last check-in 24-Dec) and turns on his/her computer to continue the LL test he/she will get a message saying (in effect) "Tough luck, Madpoo finished it for ya, hope you don't mind but you were tardy and we are intolerant of tardiness."

[QUOTE=retina;391780]So your personal criteria for deciding if they have "stopped checking in" is "it seemed like they'd stopped"?

So when arnaud returns from the Christmas break (last check-in 24-Dec) and turns on his/her computer to continue the LL test he/she will get a message saying (in effect) "Tough luck, Madpoo finished it for ya, hope you don't mind but you were tardy and we are intolerant of tardiness."[/QUOTE]

If that happens, I'll manually donate twice the applicable credit from my account to theirs. I did two exponents in that <10M range... one hadn't been checked in since mid November I think, and then the one you're talking about. I don't actually recall the details but you're probably right.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;391827]If that happens, I'll manually donate twice the applicable credit from my account to theirs.[/QUOTE]
If I was on the receiving end of that, I would interpret it as: "here's some meaningless compensation to make you feel less bad about being a worthless contributor to GIMPS".

[QUOTE=Brian-E;391831]If I was on the receiving end of that, I would interpret it as: "here's some meaningless compensation to make you feel less bad about being a worthless contributor to GIMPS".[/QUOTE]

Well, whatever the case, I will probably end up owing Arnaud a very public apology for jumping the gun. Looks like that assignment did check in again today at any rate.

See, this is why madpoo's shouldn't poach, they get themselves into trouble. I hope you all learned the lesson I was trying to teach (yeah, right) that poaching is something that should only be done by experts who actually look at more than just a sample day here and there to see if work is stopped. I am not a trained professional and I should not have tried that at home.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;391834]Well, whatever the case, I will probably end up owing Arnaud a very public apology for jumping the gun. Looks like that assignment did check in again today at any rate.

See, this is why madpoo's shouldn't poach, they get themselves into trouble. I hope you all learned the lesson I was trying to teach (yeah, right) that poaching is something that should only be done by experts who actually look at more than just a sample day here and there to see if work is stopped. I am not a trained professional and I should not have tried that at home.[/QUOTE]
:goodposting:

Your candidness and honesty are admirable. I can learn from it.

Now, unfortunately not everyone has the same good conscience as you have and there are other people who don't learn the lesson which you detail above or just don't care. We shall soon will see whether the new stricter re-assignment rules for preferred exponents eliminate poaching when all remaining assignments are governed by those new rules. They certainly, in my opinion, eliminate any [U]need[/U] to poach (if there ever was any), and I feel confident that instances of poaching will be reduced significantly compared to what the problem used to be, but I also have a hunch that poaching will not be entirely eliminated.

Do you, and George, think that not showing the results of poached assignments in the database, at least until the original assignment completes or expires, is a technically feasible and desirable approach?

It shouldn't even be called poaching when the "experts" resolve a "problem."
And poaching by non-experts should (I agree) be avoided scrupulously.

3 DC left below 10M Digits....all assigned since the new rules came into effect....shouldn't be long now.

18 old assignments left for LLK to 56M ...all but 2 have very recent update; those 2 relatively recent...might just be an Xmas break.

I'm thinking 1 will be recycled in a couple days....almost no progress in a year....they rest of the oldies look like they may finish

Exponent 33088277 either has some missing assignment data, or the expiry date for "ANONYMOUS" is incorrect. There appears to be a large gap of 10 months without any LL activity, but it was in the active assignments list as being worked on for that 10 month period.

[url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=33088277&full=1[/url]