I have added 29838439 and 30300539 to my worktodo file. The first one is 97.5% complete according to the server report but it may or may not finish this year. The second one does not seem to have started working on DC yet, while it took two months to do some factoring as it appears to me. The other 9 exponents still out appear to be finished by their owners soon.

[QUOTE=tha;365960]I have added 29838439 and 30300539 to my worktodo file.[/QUOTE]

29838439 is still where it has been for quite some time now. My pc is about to finish it on February 16. The other exponent has been finished by its original owner, so I discarded the work I did on that one.

[QUOTE=tha;366613]29838439 is still where it has been for quite some time now. My pc is about to finish it on February 16. The other exponent has been finished by its original owner, so I discarded the work I did on that one.[/QUOTE]
You're being refreshingly open and honest about your continuing activities and this near accident. Kudos!

Given that there has recently been a major implementation of new assignment and recycling rules, probably thanks in part to your initiative and the discussion it generated, are you now considering stopping this poaching in the near future?

N.B.:
[QUOTE=Prime95;366348]The server applied the new rules for recycling DC assignments in the top 1500.


Assignments over a year old and < 60% complete were recycled. Assignments over a year-and-a-half old were recycled.


The actual SQL query was:

[CODE] ((dt_when_assigned < '2014-03-01' AND -- Grandfathered assignment
exponent < @exp1 AND -- exponent is in the most critical category
dt_when_assigned < DATEADD (DAY, -365, GETDATE()) AND -- and assignment is over a year old
percent_done < 60 + (DATEDIFF (DAY, dt_when_assigned, GETDATE()) - 365) / 3) OR -- plus a grace period if close to finished
[/CODE][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;366687]
Given that there has recently been a major implementation of new assignment and recycling rules, probably thanks in part to your initiative and the discussion it generated, are you now considering stopping this poaching in the near future?[/QUOTE]

I started this in the old v4 days. At that time 'cleaning up the mess' was really needed. I stopped when the v5 was introduced and most of the work was done automatically. After quite some time of v5 activity some cleaning up was needed, so I restarted this effort. Even if there would have been no changes made to the v5 server it wouldn't have made sense to continue poaching for the next six months, simply for lack of rubbish to clean up.

Best thing to do now, with the changes made, is to wait for a year and then evaluate the implementation of the rules. That can best be done if no manual poaching takes place during that year. So to answer your question: yes!

I do take weekly snapshots of the assignment rules page to be able to analyse how things are progressing.

Ah, okay. Thanks.:smile:

Work... It's only work if you do it :smile:

[QUOTE=tha;366613]29838439 is still where it has been for quite some time now. [/QUOTE]

Maybe now ...
32121437
32130779
32133557
32133767
32135659
32137043
32137117
32137163
32137247
32137253
32137267
32137283
32137381
32137403
32137411
32137541
32137583
32137639
32137697
32137927
32137997
32138009
32138011
32138077
32138203
32138269
32138273
32138287
32138297
32138401
32138423
32138437
32138453
32138461
32138507
32138651
32138677
32138731
32138753
32138767
32138783
32138801
32138803
32138831
32138921
32138963
32138969

[QUOTE=Miszka;367029]Maybe now ...[/QUOTE]

I haven't looked at these exponents and their assignments, but as far as I am concerned, the next major milestone for double checks is M44 (M43 is in the bag save for 3 exponents) and I think it would be best if we let the new assignment rules deal with cleaning up that entire range.

If somehow the new rules aren't functioning properly it would in my opinion be best to let that come to light by doing nothing for about a year.