P-1, ECM and LL results are now justified to the left while factor results are right justified.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;387210]Okay, I tweaked a few things now in the reports for column alignments.

I also added handy links on the exponents in the recent results/cleared to go to the detailed stats for that exponent.[/QUOTE]Much better now. Although the last column seems to be having an identity crisis of not not knowing which side it is supposed to stand on.

But we have that ugly horizontal scrolling thing. I would like it so much better if my browser is allowed to activate its scrollbar at the bottom of the window, where I can always get to it. Rather than the table having its own scrollbar all the way at the bottom where I have to scroll all the way down to find it.

[QUOTE=flagrantflowers;387221]P-1, ECM and LL results are now justified to the left while factor results are right justified.[/QUOTE]

Well... yeah... what I was *trying* to do there was right-justify factors, but the masked residues would be left-justified. I don't know, in my mind I thought that would make the different results kind of stand out from each other. Honestly, it made perfect sense in my brain. :smile:

I may have neglected to include factors found by P-1 and ECM in the "right justify", so I can certainly take care of that.

Does it help at all to have the residues left-justified though? Or is that just blowing people's minds? :smile:

When sorting by factor size the ll results (hex) gets sorted in with the factor results. If you could have the hex sort independent of the factors that would be ideal.

So it sorts each but independently.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;386748]Well, my only chance at finding a prime in the next week turned out to be composite.

Honestly, I'd be finding loads of primes except that the server keeps giving me duds.[/QUOTE]

Two of my three chances have turned out composite (big surprise). That 49th Mersenne Prime should be received by the server in another 72 hours or so...

[QUOTE=Primeinator;387227]Two of my three chances have turned out composite (big surprise). That 49th Mersenne Prime should be received by the server in another 72 hours or so...[/QUOTE]

I was really hoping one of those triple-checks I was doing on false positives would show that, hey, the original was right after all. :smile:

Okay, not really, I knew that wouldn't be the case, even the "mystery" result that had a log entry but didn't have an entry in the LL results table. On that one I bet George or others double-checked it on the spot and saw it was bad, and it was maybe held back from being inserted into that other table to make sure it didn't show up in any reports or something. Just a guess.

Oh well, now they're "official" as being composite. Well... I have 2 more triple checks running... one due in 20 minutes, one due about 5 hours later.

[QUOTE=flagrantflowers;387226]When sorting by factor size the ll results (hex) gets sorted in with the factor results. If you could have the hex sort independent of the factors that would be ideal.

So it sorts each but independently.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, the table sorting looks at the column data to figure out how best to sort it (alpha, numeric, or even things like URLs, floats, etc).

With the mix of stuff in there, it does sort strangely. All of the residues that start with a number show up first, then the factors, then residues that start with A-F.

For better results, sort on the result type first, then while holding shift, sort on the result column. Then it'll be more pleasant.

I'll be the first to admit, the table sorting can be a little sluggish with 3000 rows, but that's dependent on your computer since it's done via javascript locally. On my laptop it's not so bad... on a faster box it does a little better.

I still need to do a 2-tier sort to get my assignments ordered so that both "Estimated Completion" and "days to go" at least appear to be in the correct order.

The first is sorted by Estimated Completion, and the second is sorted by days to go.

I apologise if this is not the right place for this suggestion, it not being a visual design matter, but would it be possible to expand the search capabilities on the Factoring Limits page? Though I know some will bemoan the point of this, I would like to be able to search for exponents that don't meet certain B1 and B2 requirements. (e.g. Give me all exponents from Mn to Mx that have had P-1 done with B1 less than 10^6 and B2 less than 10^7.) If the added boxes makes the page too ugly, you could put something like an "Advanced Search" text element (if that's the right term) which, when clicked on, expands the input.

If there is a good reason not to do this, then I will withdraw my request. There may be a good reason why we don't already have it.

[QUOTE=Jayder;387249]I apologise if this is not the right place for this suggestion, it not being a visual design matter, but would it be possible to expand the search capabilities on the Factoring Limits page? Though I know some will bemoan the point of this, I would like to be able to search for exponents that don't meet certain B1 and B2 requirements. (e.g. Give me all exponents from Mn to Mx that have had P-1 done with B1 less than 10^6 and B2 less than 10^7.) If the added boxes makes the page too ugly, you could put something like an "Advanced Search" text element (if that's the right term) which, when clicked on, expands the input.

If there is a good reason not to do this, then I will withdraw my request. There may be a good reason why we don't already have it.[/QUOTE]

I can look into it. To make sure I understand... you basically want to have the option of setting a max size on bound #1/bound #2 in the range of exponents.

Would the main reason for this be to find exponents that haven't been ECM factored as far? If that's the case, you'd probably want to find the exponents with the smallest current bounds, and not just the ones in some arbitrary range of exponents?

Or would you still want to have some kind of limit on the exponent? For example, the exponent that's had some ECM work done and has the lowest bound1/2 is 6907157 with b1=50,000 and b2=5,000,000. Do you care about the exponent size and just want the ones with the lowest current bounds?

Another way you might find some exponents with minimal ECM work done is if I looked at the "total ECM effort" measurement the DB stores. By that measure, exponent 67281391 has had the least ECM work done (ecm effort=2000).

Anyway, understanding your end goal might help me figure out how best to set something up.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;387230]I still need to do a 2-tier sort to get my assignments ordered so that both "Estimated Completion" and "days to go" at least appear to be in the correct order.

The first is sorted by Estimated Completion, and the second is sorted by days to go.[/QUOTE]

There's probably just some "rounding" going on since the dates don't include the hour/minute, but when it calculates the "days to go" it might cross some boundary from the current time that technically pushes it a day later, again just due to it quantizing by day, not the hour.

If you sort just by days to go it would probably do what you're after (i.e. it would be sorted by that, and the estimated completion column would also be sorted correctly.