Newer milestone thread - Page 15

davar55 · 2010-12-28, 02:35

No problem. I'm sometimes in the same boat.

NBtarheel_33 · 2010-12-28, 07:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by NBtarheel_33

December 25, 2010: All exponents below M(32582657) tested at least once.

December 25, 2010: All exponents below M(37156667) tested at least once.

Looks like the single remaining test was poached by ANONYMOUS.

And, twelve-years-minus-a-day after finishing the last first-time test under a million digits, we have:

December 25, 2010: All Mersenne numbers less than ten million digits tested at least once.

davar55 · 2010-12-28, 13:23

This being 28 December 2010 A.D., re the OP: has anything changed?

Commaster · 2010-12-28, 16:15

Are you saying, it was predetermined, that it'd be poached? ^.^

cheesehead · 2010-12-28, 20:03

Depends on how we deal with the emotional addiction problem of

Quote:

countdown junkies

Do we keep enticing them with irresistible countdown announcements that fan the flames of their habit?

Do we educate them about the difference between "GIMPS progress" and a personal addiction?

lycorn · 2010-12-29, 00:33

Definitely the second alternative.
Milestones are an intrinsic part of a project like GIMPS, and they are for many people way more enticing than the prospect of winning a cash prize. I believe I´m not wrong in saying that many of the greatest GIMPS enthusiasts are counted among these.
Removing the countdowns would be comparable to totally forbid selling wine because there are people addicted to alcohol, instead of educating people to drink moderately.
And I seriously fear that could drive away several large contributors and being detrimental to the project progress.

cheesehead · 2010-12-29, 18:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by lycorn

Definitely the second alternative.

Perhaps my first alternative was misunderstood?

Quote:

Milestones are an intrinsic part of a project like GIMPS,

Fine, but less prominent

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehead

countdown announcements

would put less temptation in the way of the weak.

Quote:

Removing the countdowns

... which is not what I proposed above (I've explored the idea in the past, but am not doing so now) ...

GARYP166 · 2010-12-30, 18:27

As I see it the problem with poaching is in deciding who does it. If an individual member does it on his own initiative it is wrong, but if an administrator or moderator does it then it stops being poaching and becomes admin.

Member X is slow but he is not stopping anything except the movement of a boundary. Higher exponents continue to be tested; he is certainly not interfering with my work.

Member Y (I’m sure he exists) who has an exponent and reports no progress at all should be fair game but only after following proper procedures.

Dear member

You were assigned exponent 123456 on 1st January 2009 but we have had no progress reports from you for 180 days. If there is a problem with your testing I should be grateful if you would contact me at the address at the head of this email; otherwise we look forward to receiving reports from you.

YZ

Gimps Administrator

After two or three standard messages like this, getting more pressing and receiving no response, and with one setting a deadline, then we can take his exponent away from him – but some sort of procedure will have been followed, and will be documented.

G

lycorn · 2010-12-30, 19:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Perhaps my first alternative was misunderstood?

Yeah, I guess so. Fair enough.

ATH · 2010-12-30, 22:32

Sending emails will be way too much administrative work. I'm sure there is many joining GIMPS and then changing their minds and just deleting Prime95 without unregistering their exponent.

I hope George will implement the recycling policy he suggested:
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...&postcount=443

1.5 years is not unreasonable time limit for an LL test imo, unless its one of the "record-breaking" 100M+ but these rules is for exponents <80M.

GARYP166 · 2010-12-30, 23:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATH

Sending emails will be way too much administrative work. I'm sure there is many joining GIMPS and then changing their minds and just deleting Prime95 without unregistering their exponent.

I hope George will implement the recycling policy he suggested:
http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...&postcount=443

1.5 years is not unreasonable time limit for an LL test imo, unless its one of the "record-breaking" 100M+ but these rules is for exponents <80M.

I disagree. Automated messages are a feature of most boards - for confirming a registration for one thing. The admin will come with dealing with the replies, and I guess there won't be many of them. Either the members have deleted Prime95 so their exponents can be freed after three or four messages with no reply, or they will send an update so NFA at this end. I think the number who send an explanation will be low. I will admit that I don't know how much work is needed to take an exponent away from someone.

If we must reassign an exponent - and at least it might keep the poachers at bay - at least let's cover ourselves and play it straight by the members.

G

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Newer X64 build needed	Googulator	Msieve	75	2022-06-13 14:22
Performance of cuda-ecm on newer hardware?	fivemack	GMP-ECM	14	2015-02-12 20:10
Cause this don't belong in the milestone thread	bcp19	Data	30	2012-09-08 15:09
Newer msieves are slow on Core i7	mklasson	Msieve	9	2009-02-18 12:58
Use of large memory pages possible with newer linux kernels	Dresdenboy	Software	3	2003-12-08 14:47

2010-12-28, 02:35	#155
davar55 May 2004 New York City 5×7×11² Posts	No problem. I'm sometimes in the same boat.

2010-12-28, 13:23	#157
davar55 May 2004 New York City 1000010001011₂ Posts	This being 28 December 2010 A.D., re the OP: has anything changed?

2010-12-28, 16:15	#158
Commaster Jun 2010 Kiev, Ukraine 3×19 Posts	Are you saying, it was predetermined, that it'd be poached? ^.^

2010-12-29, 00:33	#160
lycorn "GIMFS" Sep 2002 Oeiras, Portugal 11000101110₂ Posts	Definitely the second alternative. Milestones are an intrinsic part of a project like GIMPS, and they are for many people way more enticing than the prospect of winning a cash prize. I believe I´m not wrong in saying that many of the greatest GIMPS enthusiasts are counted among these. Removing the countdowns would be comparable to totally forbid selling wine because there are people addicted to alcohol, instead of educating people to drink moderately. And I seriously fear that could drive away several large contributors and being detrimental to the project progress.

2010-12-30, 18:27	#162
GARYP166 Feb 2009 5×7 Posts	As I see it the problem with poaching is in deciding who does it. If an individual member does it on his own initiative it is wrong, but if an administrator or moderator does it then it stops being poaching and becomes admin. Member X is slow but he is not stopping anything except the movement of a boundary. Higher exponents continue to be tested; he is certainly not interfering with my work. Member Y (I’m sure he exists) who has an exponent and reports no progress at all should be fair game but only after following proper procedures. Dear member You were assigned exponent 123456 on 1st January 2009 but we have had no progress reports from you for 180 days. If there is a problem with your testing I should be grateful if you would contact me at the address at the head of this email; otherwise we look forward to receiving reports from you. YZ Gimps Administrator After two or three standard messages like this, getting more pressing and receiving no response, and with one setting a deadline, then we can take his exponent away from him – but some sort of procedure will have been followed, and will be documented. G

2010-12-30, 22:32	#164
ATH Einyen Dec 2003 Denmark 6574₈ Posts	Sending emails will be way too much administrative work. I'm sure there is many joining GIMPS and then changing their minds and just deleting Prime95 without unregistering their exponent. I hope George will implement the recycling policy he suggested: http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpos...&postcount=443 1.5 years is not unreasonable time limit for an LL test imo, unless its one of the "record-breaking" 100M+ but these rules is for exponents <80M.