Well, the question of Greg's plans, as far as he has them, seems to have been answered - he will go back to the easiest remaining sextics. Though octics have been done on the big siever before, they will be ignored for now (again there are 38 under 300). And 'most wanted' 10,332+ was also omitted from this round of requests - I assume it has not been overlooked.

To answer the other points in passing: genuinely it _is_ surprising to see so many 'opaque' pseudonyms - I have not noticed that elsewhere on the Internet, though I'd not be surprised that there are such places, but not where I like to read. And of course I'm not an expert - I pick up some things very quickly, but never deceive. I simply can't help being interested.

Factor #6724 purports to be a [B]72[/B]-digit factor found by ECM. Yet it is not in the ECM records page, and there has been more than enough time for them to synchronise. Who is wrong here?

I think you know the answer to that question yourself.

[SIZE="1"]There are a couple of factors from Sam on page 143 that are also big enough for the top 10. Looks like everyone's slow to submit this year :)[/SIZE]

Yes, that's what I would expect. The factors on page 143 show that it's not Zimmermann not updating causing this, but whoever is supposed to report them not doing so.

[QUOTE=Andrew Usher;632087]supposed to report them[/QUOTE]
There is clearly no obligation here. They will get picked up eventually.

[QUOTE=frmky;632111]There is clearly no obligation here. They will get picked up eventually.[/QUOTE]

Sam believes that ECM factors under 70 digits are common enough that they aren't worth reporting.

[QUOTE=Andrew Usher;632087]Yes, that's what I would expect. The factors on page 143 show that it's not Zimmermann not updating causing this, but whoever is supposed to report them not doing so.[/QUOTE]

What is "supposed to"?? Who is "supposed" to do what?

These are all completely volunteer projects.

[QUOTE=mathwiz;632132][QUOTE=Andrew Usher;632087]Yes, that's what I would expect. The factors on page 143 show that it's not Zimmermann not updating causing this, but whoever is supposed to report them not doing so.[/QUOTE]What is "supposed to"?? Who is "supposed" to do what?
<snip>[/QUOTE]The real issue is - Who is doing the supposing?

Using the passive voice ("is supposed to") is often an attempt to make a personal opinion ("I suppose" or "I think") sound like something authoritative.

:sick:

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;632150]The real issue is - Who is doing the supposing?

Using the passive voice ("is supposed to") is often an attempt to make a personal opinion ("I suppose" or "I think") sound like something authoritative.

:sick:[/QUOTE]

I suppose so.

The ECM records page (which is being updated) has always in the past been the reference for that subject, and I now notice that what apparently is the second largest factor of 2023 is missing, so that at least deserves to be noted, irrespective of who if anyone should be held responsible. The 72-digit factor (#6274) I indicated, and the 71-digit factor charybdis alluded to (#6695; actually that one is a bit strange as I'd expect a remaining c148 to go immediately to gnfs) are indisputably so (and are not less than 70 digits); the next largest factor (70 digits on 2,2278M) is on the list (from yoyo).

I am not going to nit-pick about language; I think it's clear what I meant by 'is supposed to', a phrase I did think about before using.

Given his concern, I suppose that it is Andrew's responsibility to identify and report any missing record ecm factors to Paul Z.