Funny reservations
 

[code]36603379 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36603473 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36603563 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36603661 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36603667 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36603719 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36603727 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36603731 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36603991 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36604033 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36604129 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36604189 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36604207 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36604313 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36604499 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36604903 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36604921 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36604933 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36604991 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36604993 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36605089 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36605117 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36605299 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36605353 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36605417 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36605467 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36605521 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36605687 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36605707 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36605819 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36605831 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36605887 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36605999 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36606001 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36606047 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36606113 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36606211 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36606307 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36606523 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36606551 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36606587 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36606643 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36606697 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36606793 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36606833 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36606839 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36606853 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36606917 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607049 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607201 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607247 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607267 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607327 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607343 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607411 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607451 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607463 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607531 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607591 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607603 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607673 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607733 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607757 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607829 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607853 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607861 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607873 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607891 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607913 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36607939 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36608057 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36608083 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36608129 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36608171 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36608233 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36608287 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.
36608393 D 81 2015-11-16 2015-11-16 2016-05-04 Terçariol, C. A. S.[/code]

Seems like someone manually reserved an inordinately large number of DCs, likely not realizing exactly what that entails...

[QUOTE=Dubslow;425329]Seems like someone manually reserved an inordinately large number of DCs, likely not realizing exactly what that entails...[/QUOTE]

Don't be surprised... This happens all the time.

We just grit our teeth and think of England, and then wait for them to expire in 180 days....

[QUOTE=chalsall;425332]Don't be surprised... This happens all the time.[/QUOTE]

Does it? I hadn't noticed (not that I really look). I suppose the Cat 1 wavefront is still multiple hundreds of days away.

Those are Category 2 assignments. in "Multiple hundreds of days ahead", I would remove the word "multiple" and the plural of word "hundreds"...

Jacob

[QUOTE=chalsall;425332]Don't be surprised... This happens all the time.

We just grit our teeth and think of England, and then wait for them to expire in 180 days....[/QUOTE]

They were cat 3 when assigned, so they get 180 days to start and will expire in 240 days (if they started at all). I don't think any of those have checked in since being assigned so it'll be 6 months most likely... expiring in May.

Which is fine... they're only cat 2 right now and by May they might be cat 1... depends on how quickly we can churn through the rest of the 35M range.

[QUOTE=chalsall;425332]We just grit our teeth and think of England, and then wait for them to expire in 180 days....[/QUOTE]:missingteeth:[QUOTE=Madpoo;425384]Which is fine... they're only cat 2 right now and by May they might be cat 1... depends on how quickly we can churn through the rest of the 35M range.[/QUOTE]
Which again I think points to a special Cat 0 option. Namely: when an exponent in Cat 1 expires or when a number has become a Cat 1 and expires, the server tags it as a Cat 0. The cat 0's are either handed out to known highly reliable and very productive machines or are held for distribution at the admin's pleasure. I think that this latter option has some potential side benefit. If Aaron ran them (or someone who is willing to co-operate), the results (if matching for DC's) would be held to keep the number to reach the milestone high. Then when they are all that is left, they can be dumped. Viola!, milestone accomplished quicker and less temptation for poaching.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;425391]Viola!, milestone accomplished quicker and less temptation for poaching.[/QUOTE]

Why does anyone care?

The statistical likelihood of finding a new prime is less likely than winning the lottery.

[QUOTE=chalsall;425394]Why does anyone care?

The statistical likelihood of finding a new prime is less likely than winning the lottery.[/QUOTE]

Less temptation for poaching means greater overall project throughput.

Regardless of whether or not an extra category is added (and I think there should be, as does Uncwilly), I'm convinced that the most stringent category should have a far faster requirement than "2 results in the last 90 days", a 45 day average turn around; rather, it should be as low as "2 results in the last 30 days" or perhaps "4 results in the last 60 days" or the like.

Uncwilly & Dubslow, haven't you noticed that MadPoo has already implemented cat 0? It might not be automated at this time, but we definitely already have a cat 0.

Still, user proxy2222 continues his poaching of seemingly abandoned cat 1 assignments. This time, it's M61156283 leaving 4 remaining untested exponents below 62M.

And unfortunately, the cat 0 exponent 61552507 has a reported ETA that is 3 weeks out even though I could have done it in less than a week (but I had zero chance of getting it recycled to me). While I suspect the reported ETA might be a rather bogus value, it's currently the apparent gate to the sub-62M milestone, and also not even updating status daily, making it a potentially attractive target for poachers.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;425430]Less temptation for poaching means greater overall project throughput.[/QUOTE]

OK. Valid argument.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;425430]Regardless of whether or not an extra category is added (and I think there should be, as does Uncwilly), I'm convinced that the most stringent category should have a far faster requirement than "2 results in the last 90 days", a 45 day average turn around; rather, it should be as low as "2 results in the last 30 days" or perhaps "4 results in the last 60 days" or the like.[/QUOTE]

Also a reasonable argument. (And I note in this particular example you're talking about DC Cat 1.)

It is interesting to note that, generally, the DC assignment / recycling rules are working much better than the LL rules for both of the Cat 1 ranges.

It is also interesting to note that very few Cat 2 candidates are being assigned for both LL'ing and DC'ing. Your suggestion of tightening up the historical turn-around time might go a long way in preventing the poaching incentive.

Lastly, I would like to repeat the suggestion that perhaps requiring at least one check-in of progress a week (or perhaps twice a week) would also help.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;425480]Uncwilly & Dubslow, haven't you noticed that MadPoo has already implemented cat 0? It might not be automated at this time, but we definitely already have a cat 0.
[/QUOTE]

How do you mean?

[QUOTE=chalsall;425483](And I note in this particular example you're talking about DC Cat 1.)[/quote]
Yes, my interest (or at least my knowledge and experience) is almost exclusively in the DC range, though I imagine most of what applies to one applies to the other. (Note that poaching LLs, while annoying as hell for the poachee, doesn't actually degrade project throughput, while poaching DCs still does sometimes cause unnecessary triple checks.)
[QUOTE=chalsall;425483]
It is interesting to note that, generally, the DC assignment / recycling rules are working much better than the LL rules for both of the Cat 1 ranges.[/quote]
I had noticed something to that effect from the milestones page, though I wasn't sure if it was still merely cleanup from before the assignment rule change (since the LL wave would presumably take substantially longer to cleanup than DC).

[QUOTE=chalsall;425483]
It is also interesting to note that very few Cat 2 candidates are being assigned for both LL'ing and DC'ing. Your suggestion of tightening up the historical turn-around time might go a long way in preventing the poaching incentive.[/quote]
This would be an argument to eliminate the current Cat 2, rename the current Cat 1 to Cat 2, and then implement the various Cat 0 proposals as Cat 1, while satisfying those who insist that more Categories is a Bad Thing™ (not that I can't see their logic).