NPLB future direction

[Flatlander]

I never checked the sieving sufficiency for the 93 ks. I just stopped when I got bored.

Now is the time to consider including 4000-5000!!! 1400-2000 was immensly popular and I suspect this drive will be too.
imho It needs to gradually pull away from top-5000 level.

[gd_barnes]

Originally Posted by Flatlander

I never checked the sieving sufficiency for the 93 ks. I just stopped when I got bored.

Now is the time to consider including 4000-5000!!! 1400-2000 was immensly popular and I suspect this drive will be too.
imho It needs to gradually pull away from top-5000 level.

Why would we also include k=4000-5000? Wouldn't k=2000-4000 be enough for the time being?

[gd_barnes]

Originally Posted by mdettweiler

Hmm...interesting idea. It would be nice to get some fresh meat for the project once again.

One thing, though, that I think we should keep in mind. I believe that as we continue to expand this project further and further up the k-range spectrum, we need to start setting some hard limits for n-values for given k-ranges, so that we're not piling up drives upon drives that are all going nowhere because they've passed the point where they're "interesting".

How about this: for the range of k=1400-2000, let's set a "stopping point" of n=1M. That is, when it reaches 1M, we won't immediately move on to >1M. Instead, we'll spend those resources on the k=2000-4000 range, and get that up to whatever target we set--possibly 1M, or maybe 600K. Once that's done, we'd move on to the next range, possibly k=4000-6000 or something like that. Et cetera.

k=400-1001 could be left has the "no limit" range--i.e., that's the one that we continue to extend the n-range for whenever we finish the current range. That will fill out the high-n end of the project's selection of work.

Thoughts, flames, rotten tomatoes?

Max

Excellent ideas. By doing this, the project should have a large selection of n-ranges to choose from at any one time. I think having the higher n-ranges available will bring in a number of larger searchers. The lower ones should make it more fun for the smaller searchers.

Of course I wouldn't suggest making them "hard limits" though. For instance, for now, the limit of k=1400-2000 could be n=1M but as we get higher k's searched closer to n=800K, then 900K, etc., then we would expand k=1400-2000 to n=1.5M or 2M while at the same time expanding k=300-1001 up to n=4M or something like that.


Gary

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

Of course I wouldn't suggest making them "hard limits" though. For instance, for now, the limit of k=1400-2000 could be n=1M but as we get higher k's searched closer to n=800K, then 900K, etc., then we would expand k=1400-2000 to n=1.5M or 2M while at the same time expanding k=300-1001 up to n=4M or something like that.

Yes, definitely. "Hard limits" was the incorrect term to use there. I was thinking of them more as just temporary "caps" to the n-range which will signify the point at which we'll stop and let that range be for a while until the shape of the k-range landscape indicates that it should once again be pushed up to the next level.

[gd_barnes]

I have been considering various options for future search ranges but after a discussion with Ian by PM, have decided to take his advice and get some private views from people on the future direction of the project.

If you are a regular or even a part-time searcher for NPLB, look for an Email within the next 2 days asking for input. I/we will use the prime notification Email addresses that people have entered in our database.


Gary

[Brucifer]

Well well, I sent you an email about this very subject just before I logged on here. I must be Claire-voy-ant or something like that.