[QUOTE=retina;435180]And there is the confusing part. Two expiry dates. But reports only show one expiry date. I was also confused by this. I understand now, but so many others that don't read here probably won't understand.[/QUOTE]

From a snapshot-in-time perspective, the expiration date that shows when work hasn't started yet is actually correct. It may be based on a steady-state assumption that the current condition (not started) won't change, but it is what it is, just a point in time declaration that if conditions stay as they are, it will expire in XX days.

Another example would be an assignment that today shows no expiration, but tomorrow it moves below the mid-cat 1 level and now it has an expiration. Conditions changed so the expiration time changes to match.

We [I]could[/I] exclude the "hasn't started yet" from showing expiration times but consider that a large % of assignments actually never do start and I think it's nice to get an idea of when those are set to expire.

What is the purpose of showing the expiration time at all, I guess? If it's a clue to the assignee that time is running out and they might need to do something about it, they need to see that countdown no matter how it was derived.

To George's point, if we somehow highlight or make note of the fact that some expiration times are due to the work not starting, as opposed to simply taking too long, that might work. I'll explore some options with that.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;435214]We [I]could[/I] exclude the "hasn't started yet" from showing expiration times but consider that a large % of assignments actually never do start and I think it's nice to get an idea of when those are set to expire.[/QUOTE]

If it is ok to show a "date of expiry" instead of "days to expire", you could just show the "deadline to start" and "deadline to finish" dates.

everything below 36M double-checked
 

Ah... the last of the 35M DC's finished. I was expecting that today and had the new page ready to go.

In less than 4 months we went from this:
[CODE]All exponents below 35,049,317 have been tested and double-checked.
All exponents below 63,012,913 have been tested at least once.

Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 64M: 19 (Estimated completion : 2016-05-31)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 65M: 27 (Estimated completion : 2016-05-31)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 66M: 38 (Estimated completion : 2016-05-31)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 67M: 160 (Estimated completion : 2016-05-31)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 68M: 5,316 (4,354 still unassigned)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below M(74207281): 75,758

Countdown to double-checking all exponents below 36M: 4,131 (3,486 still unassigned)

Countdown to proving M(37156667) is the 45th Mersenne Prime: 12,698
Countdown to proving M(42643801) is the 46th Mersenne Prime: 91,788
Countdown to proving M(43112609) is the 47th Mersenne Prime: 100,506
Countdown to proving M(57885161) is the 48th Mersenne Prime: 388,723
Countdown to proving M(74207281) is the 49th Mersenne Prime: 706,261[/CODE]To this [CODE]All exponents below 36,046,457 have been tested and double-checked.
All exponents below 67,364,459 have been tested at least once.

Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 68M: 1,094 (Estimated completion : 2016-12-18)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 69M: 5,665 (2,822 still unassigned)
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below M(74207281): 56,573

Countdown to double-checking all exponents below 37M: 4,047 (3,357 still unassigned)

Countdown to proving M(37156667) is the 45th Mersenne Prime: 4,548
Countdown to proving M(42643801) is the 46th Mersenne Prime: 68,973
Countdown to proving M(43112609) is the 47th Mersenne Prime: 76,489
Countdown to proving M(57885161) is the 48th Mersenne Prime: 357,840
Countdown to proving M(74207281) is the 49th Mersenne Prime: 674,380[/CODE]
I think that the new assignment rules are working really well.:smile:

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;433300]This number is now down to 1,417, and the milestone of 3,000,000 factored Mersenne numbers could be reached by the end of May.[/QUOTE]

Now down to 160.

2016-01-19 3 pm UTC:
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below M(74207281): 81,884

2016-05-03 8 pm UTC:
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below M(74207281): 61,933

2016-05-26 8 pm UTC:
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below M(74207281): 57,649

2016-06-02 8 pm UTC:
Countdown to first time checking all exponents below M(74207281): 56,397

Avg rate since Jan 19th: 188.5 per day
Avg rate last 30 days: 184.5 per day
Avg rate last 7 days: 178.9 per day

So if we count on somewhere between 160 and 200 per day, we will finish between 2017-03-11 and 2017-05-20.

[QUOTE=ATH;435410]So if we count on somewhere between 160 and 200 per day, we will finish between 2017-03-11 and 2017-05-20.[/QUOTE]That fits with the projection of "finishing" the range to 79.3 late 3rd quarter 2017.

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;435402]Now down to 160.[/QUOTE]

That old [URL=http://www.mersenne.org/report_classic/]"colorful stats report"[/URL] lists 2152480 exponents below 35.1M, but there are only 2152470. Are there 10 exponents in that range that are both factored and have 2 LLs, or what's causing the discrepancy?

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;435542]That old [URL=http://www.mersenne.org/report_classic/]"colorful stats report"[/URL] lists 2152480 exponents below 35.1M, but there are only 2152470. Are there 10 exponents in that range that are both factored and have 2 LLs, or what's causing the discrepancy?[/QUOTE]

Fixed. Either a typo or human mis-adding when two lines were merged.

Taking a look at the old [URL=http://www.mersenne.org/report_classic/]"colorful stats report"[/URL]: Only [SIZE="3"][B]19[/B][/SIZE] Mersenne numbers need factored to reach a total of 3,000,000 factored Mersenne numbers in the "classical" exponent range of 0-79.3M.

*Your* factor could be number 3,000,000!

[QUOTE=Prime95;435547]Fixed. Either a typo or human mis-adding when two lines were merged.[/QUOTE]

So, the count of factors had been a little off. Well, I guess a slightly premature celebration will be averted.