43187789 needs a triple check please.

The "Exponent Status" report distinguishes between "-Anonymous-" and "ANONYMOUS". In the first case, PrimeNet knows the username but doesn't display it, whereas the other is truly anonymous because no username was given when checking in the result.

However, if you look at the "LL Results" report for the same exponent, it just displays "ANONYMOUS" for both cases.

For example, M40025747, to pick one unremarkable exponent:
[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=40025747&exp_hi="]"Exponent Status" report[/URL]
[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_ll/?exp_lo=40025747&exp_hi=40025747&exp_date=&end_date=&user_only=0&user_id=&B1=#"]"LL Results" report[/URL]

Should the LL Results report also display "-Anonymous-" to help distinguish the two cases? If they're both truly ANONYMOUS, then a triple check might be indicated if you want to be extra cautious, whereas if one is actually "-Anonymous-" then probably not.

[QUOTE=GP2;462114]The "Exponent Status" report distinguishes between "-Anonymous-" and "ANONYMOUS". In the first case, PrimeNet knows the username but doesn't display it, whereas the other is truly anonymous because no username was given when checking in the result.[/QUOTE]

"-Anonymous-" is how I set it to display results turned in where the person didn't bother creating an account... those actually have the generic name "ANONYMOUS" in the database.

Unfortunately, "ANONYMOUS" is also used when someone creates an account but doesn't specify a public display name (I'm not sure if that's a default, or whatever). So yeah, that created some confusion when people look at the publicly available info and can't differentiate the two cases.

Multiple accounts do have "ANONYMOUS" as their public name so there's still some confusion there... maybe it should show up as ANONYMOUS#67 or some such. :smile:

[QUOTE]However, if you look at the "LL Results" report for the same exponent, it just displays "ANONYMOUS" for both cases.
...
Should the LL Results report also display "-Anonymous-" to help distinguish the two cases? If they're both truly ANONYMOUS, then a triple check might be indicated if you want to be extra cautious, whereas if one is actually "-Anonymous-" then probably not.[/QUOTE]

Ahh... you're right about that. To avoid changing the database so it just uses "-Anonymous-" in all cases, I was being too clever by half when I modified the exponent report page. I didn't want to change it in the DB without making sure it wouldn't affect anything else.

Unfortunately I forgot about the report_ll page...

I just tweaked it as well. I need to test it a bit more and make sure I got it swapped out in all the correct spots and then I'll make it live. Good catch.

Another Madpoo quadruple check, in disagreement with one of George's machines that has no known bad results:

[CODE]
DoubleCheck=52065473,73,1
[/CODE]

There are a bunch of routine triple checks involving MadPoo, all from July, where his result is pretty much guaranteed to be correct. If anyone's interested:

[CODE]
DoubleCheck=42741733,72,1
DoubleCheck=43837877,72,1
DoubleCheck=43903393,72,1
DoubleCheck=51614029,73,1
DoubleCheck=51845293,73,1
DoubleCheck=52118167,73,1
DoubleCheck=52673333,73,1
DoubleCheck=52847923,73,1
DoubleCheck=52857067,73,1
DoubleCheck=52871519,73,1
DoubleCheck=52883981,73,1
DoubleCheck=52885837,73,1
DoubleCheck=52912757,73,1
DoubleCheck=52925297,73,1
DoubleCheck=52946507,73,1
DoubleCheck=52952873,73,1
DoubleCheck=53359597,73,1
DoubleCheck=54122111,73,1
DoubleCheck=54338437,73,1
DoubleCheck=57483677,73,1
DoubleCheck=57486971,73,1
[/CODE]

These exponents are quite low, checks should be quick and easy. I have queued them up, including the quadruple check. :tu:

[CODE]
DoubleCheck=52065473,73,1
DoubleCheck=42741733,72,1
DoubleCheck=43837877,72,1
DoubleCheck=43903393,72,1
DoubleCheck=51614029,73,1
DoubleCheck=51845293,73,1
DoubleCheck=52118167,73,1
DoubleCheck=52673333,73,1
DoubleCheck=52847923,73,1
DoubleCheck=52857067,73,1
DoubleCheck=52871519,73,1
DoubleCheck=52883981,73,1
DoubleCheck=52885837,73,1
DoubleCheck=52912757,73,1
DoubleCheck=52925297,73,1
DoubleCheck=52946507,73,1
DoubleCheck=52952873,73,1
DoubleCheck=53359597,73,1
DoubleCheck=54122111,73,1
DoubleCheck=54338437,73,1
DoubleCheck=57483677,73,1
DoubleCheck=57486971,73,1
[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;462542Multiple accounts do have "ANONYMOUS" as their public name so there's still some confusion there... maybe it should show up as ANONYMOUS#67 or some such. :smile:.[/QUOTE]

Gets my vote

Looks like MadPoo and I prevailed on this quadruple check :chevy:

[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=52065473&full=1"]52065473[/URL]

[QUOTE=GP2;464644]Another Madpoo quadruple check, in disagreement with one of George's machines that has no known bad results:
...
There are a bunch of routine triple checks involving MadPoo, all from July, where his result is pretty much guaranteed to be correct. If anyone's interested:
...[/QUOTE]

Thanks for pointing those out... I'd meant to put up a list of my recent mismatches but hadn't got around to it.

I've been running out of the triple-check work to do, which is great but has left my workers starved of interesting things.

As a result, I went through all of the 40M/41M exponents where the CPU that did it had at least one bad result in its past, but didn't really seem all that likely to be bad in this case (like, 20% chance maybe). Lo and behold I've had mismatches on maybe 1 out of 10 of those.

Just goes to show that despite trying to find the bad CPUs out there, there are still plenty of undiscovered bad results.

There is a Madpoo quadruple check for [M]42869513[/M], which is currently assigned to AirSquirrels as of 2017-05-02, but with no updates and 0.0% progress.

Another AirSquirrels exponent, [M]41219279[/M], recently expired. Assigned 2017-05-30, last updated on 2017-06-06, stuck at 44.7%, and now expired.

I hope he doesn't have a glitched machine somewhere.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;464864]Just goes to show that despite trying to find the bad CPUs out there, there are still plenty of undiscovered bad results.[/QUOTE]

There are various users who are actively returning mostly-bad first-time results. Those are rich veins to mine, and highly strategic, since in the normal course of events those results wouldn't be double-checked for a decade or more. The drawback of course is that they are in the high 70M range and we'd all like to churn out some quick 40M's instead.

[QUOTE=GP2;465036]...
There are various users who are actively returning mostly-bad first-time results. Those are rich veins to mine, and highly strategic, since in the normal course of events those results wouldn't be double-checked for a decade or more. The drawback of course is that they are in the high 70M range and we'd all like to churn out some quick 40M's instead.[/QUOTE]

That's where this thread comes in:
[URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=20372"]Strategic Double Checking[/URL]

Which reminds me, I can probably create a new list of potentially bad first-time checks since it's been a little while since the last batch.

Here's a list of the latest exponents that need a triple-check (first two mismatched).

I had been hogging them all for myself but now it's time to share. :smile:

[CODE]48082039
48521923
56717519
57453983
72334631
75319889
75857183
77377661
77380019
77495263
77569637
[/CODE]