[QUOTE=Madpoo;418250]Here's another batch of things needing triple checks to sort things out.[/QUOTE]

Taking 46793191 through to 48469711 inclusive.

[QUOTE=chalsall;418800]Taking 46793191 through to 48469711 inclusive.[/QUOTE]

And I'll take the rest of that batch.

Updated list of 3:1 bad/good... you know what to do. :smile: I fixed a (minor) bug in the part of my query that assumes "awesome" systems (15 or more good/zero bad) were the right one for purposes of docking the other one with an extra "bad" count. It adjusted a handful of systems into the 3:1 category.

Plus a few more juicy ones here where the old assignment expired, so those ought to be ripe for the picking.

[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
35115601 3 1 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=35115601,71,1
35462837 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=35462837,71,1
35500249 3 1 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=35500249,71,1
35585257 3 1 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=35585257,71,1
36063751 7 0 1 3 1 3 DoubleCheck=36063751,71,1
37146203 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=37146203,71,1
37660853 6 2 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=37660853,71,1
38276081 3 0 1 3 1 3 DoubleCheck=38276081,71,1
38472611 8 1 1 1 1 1 DoubleCheck=38472611,71,1
48410573 6 1 5 3 5 3 DoubleCheck=48410573,72,1
50379383 4 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=50379383,73,1[/CODE]

[QUOTE=Madpoo;418983]Updated list of 3:1 bad/good... you know what to do. :smile:
...
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
35115601 3 1 4 1 4 1 DoubleCheck=35115601,71,1
35462837 3 1 1 0 1 0 DoubleCheck=35462837,71,1
...[/CODE][/QUOTE]

I took the first two (shown above).

[QUOTE=Madpoo;418983]Updated list of 3:1 bad/good... you know what to do. :smile:[/QUOTE]
And I took the rest.

Couple more:
[CODE]exponent Bad Good Unk Sus Solo Mis worktodo
36840007 3 1 2 0 2 0 DoubleCheck=36840007,71,1
48429497 6 1 5 3 5 3 DoubleCheck=48429497,72,1[/CODE]

I will take [CODE]DoubleCheck=36840007,71,1[/CODE]

Registered.

I've taken 48429497

[QUOTE=Madpoo;418250]Here's another batch of things needing triple checks to sort things out.[/QUOTE]

OK, the last four of my latest "take" from this batch will be completed in about six hours. It's perhaps not surprising that a cursory glance suggests it was always the second run which was correct.

I like this class of SDC... A match with one of the two previous tests is very likely (thus continuing my primary mandate of ensuring machines I'm responsible for continue to be sane) while at the same time helping finding flaky machines.

Please sir, may I have some more? :smile:

I got one more, where I guess my machine is the wrong one: [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=36670573&full=1"]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=36670573&full=1[/URL]
First I didn't want to bother anyone with that exponent anymore, so I tried (failed) to factor it.
This Test was from a new machine of mine, which I OC'ed propably a little too far and turned in a false result. At least I think that's what it is. The OC has since been turned down.

[QUOTE=manfred4;419217]I got one more, where I guess my machine is the wrong one: [URL="http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=36670573&full=1"]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=36670573&full=1[/URL][/QUOTE]

I took it.