I'm uncomfortable with the server sometimes deciding to completely reject a result. After all, poaching may be bad for GIMPS, but ignoring accurate data just because it wasn't assigned properly would be worse IMHO. Especially for things besides exponents of high interest. Imagine if you had a load of results (say, TF in a low-priority area) to submit, but hadn't reserved it all in advance. It wouldn't be good if the server just ignored the results.

It should definitely notify people however possible that they are working on (or just completed) something that was assigned to someone else, so they can avoid that in the future (not all poachers are doing it maliciously/intentionally, e.g. [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=214898#post214898"]this recent event with cheesehead and GrunWalderGIMP/Graff[/URL]).

Another scenario: poachers get no credit. If you have a result for something assigned to someone else, you can submit it and the server will accept it, but you will get no credit for your work, and the rightly-assigned person will still get full credit when they finally submit their work.

[QUOTE=Mini-Geek;214950]Another scenario: poachers get no credit. If you have a result for something assigned to someone else, you can submit it and the server will accept it, but you will get no credit for your work, and the rightly-assigned person will still get full credit when they finally submit their work.[/QUOTE]

I like that idea.

[quote=garo;214935]we do know that it drove Kevin away [/quote]Kevin's incessant poaching drove [I]me[/I] out of signing up for first-time LLs.

- -

[Edit: Also see comments in my next post about evidence inconsistent with Kevin's simply making random mistakes, and showing that he poached others as well as me.]

[quote=Mini-Geek;214950]I'm uncomfortable with the server sometimes deciding to completely reject a result. After all, poaching may be bad for GIMPS, but ignoring accurate data just because it wasn't assigned properly would be worse IMHO. Especially for things besides exponents of high interest. Imagine if you had a load of results (say, TF in a low-priority area) to submit, but hadn't reserved it all in advance. It wouldn't be good if the server just ignored the results.[/quote]I agree with all that.

[quote]It should definitely notify people however possible that they are working on (or just completed) something that was assigned to someone else, so they can avoid that in the future[/quote]I definitely agree with and encourage that.

[quote](not all poachers are doing it maliciously/intentionally, e.g. [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=214898#post214898"]this recent event with cheesehead and GrunWalderGIMP/Graff[/URL]).[/quote]... and an automatic notification by PrimeNet might help clear up or prevent future misunderstandings.

Right now, PrimeNet comes back to the second reporter (of TF or P-1) with only "result not needed" or something like that ... which doesn't necessarily equate to poaching. (It could be a setup mistake or forgetful self-duplication.)

I'd like to see PrimeNet keep some record of results reported while the exponent was assigned to someone else, and not only alert the person sending that report, but also alert the assignee at his next communication. The details would differ between TF, P-1, and L-L. E.g., poach of a first-time L-L still leaves the assignee's contribution as fully valuable for doublecheck, but poach of a TF level doesn't.

- - -

My incomplete understanding of why my first-time LLs were turned into DCs led me to abandon several of the latter without finishing them. My leading theory, before I understood poaching, was that it was a bug in PrimeNet. Once I understood that Kevin was poaching me, I wanted to communicate with him to straighten it out ... except that I didn't have his e-address. I avoided including his name in my initial complaint posts -- now I see that if I'd done so, someone else might've recognized Kevin's name and provided some way to send a message.

Had messages given me more of an explanation then, I might well have completed the DCs!

I recall that as the instances of my being poached kept accumulating (I'd start new first-time L-L assignments, only to have them poached, in turn, [I]repeatedly and apparently also consistently[/I]), the situation became more and more irritating. It seemed clear, from the timing of events, that Kevin was going to poach every new L-L assignment I took. (I tried waiting a while before requesting new assignments, but when I eventually did resume, I found them also poached within a short time -- faster than I could complete an assignment on my system.)

Note that I realized that the evidence I had did [I]not[/I] show that he was singling me out; he could've simply been poaching [I]anyone[/I]'s first-time LL assignments whose expected completion dates failed to meet his criteria.

However, the evidence I had did seem to indicate that his poaching was not accidental or random. After I learned how to extract sufficient evidence from the available reports, I tracked down some other exponents Kevin had L-Led ... and found that most of their assignees habitually reported more-distant-than-average completion dates.

I think there still could be an innocent explanation, but I can't come up with one that doesn't involve an unbelievably extreme string of coincidences.

[quote=garo;214935]I am pissed[/quote]

Another Americanism.

You may be pissed, but I suspect you meant "pissed off".

Home rool for England.

David

I saw that before I read your post. I'd like to note here that I did not get drunk on TPR's behalf.

On topic:
Now there are 938 Mersenne numbers whose exponents are larger than or equal to 49,828,919 (aka 15,000,000 digits) that has been LL tested. :smile:

[quote=garo;215101]I saw that before I read your post. I'd like to note here that I did not get drunk on TPR's behalf.[/quote]
Then again "Taking the piss" would be well over their heads.

David

[quote=davieddy;215142]Then again "Taking the piss" would be well over their heads.

David[/quote]

LOL - American and British guys. Do you need some children toys and a sandbox? *hehe*

Greetings from the cool and grown up Germany :judge:

[quote=Merfighters;215139]On topic:
Now there are 938 Mersenne numbers whose exponents are larger than or equal to 49,828,919 (aka 15,000,000 digits) that has been LL tested. :smile:[/quote]

Now it's 1352. :smile:

[URL]http://www.mersenne.org/report_LL/?exp_lo=49828919&exp_hi=999999999&exp_date=&user_only=0&user_id=&dispdate=1&B1=Get+LL+data[/URL]

It appears to me that M(20425091) is currently not assigned to anyone... this is the last exponent needed to prove M40 is truly M40. Can someone with skills superior to mine verify this?

[url]http://www.mersenne.org/report_LL/?exp_lo=1&exp_hi=20996011&exp_date=&user_only=0&user_id=Primeinator&exdchk=1&exbad=1&exfactor=1&dispdate=1&B1=Get+LL+data[/url]

Edit: Never mind. It was assigned for triple checking October of 2009.