Joke of a manual report

[bloodIce]

From my manual report:
"Factors found: 1
Processing result: M2000153 has a factor: 941867337385320490849 [TF:69:70*:mfaktc 0.19 barrett76_mul32]
Insufficient information for accurate CPU credit.
For stats purposes, assuming factor was found using ECM with B1 = 50000.
CPU credit is 0.0846 GHz-days."

This is just a joke, isn't it?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by bloodIce

This is just a joke, isn't it?

Sort of...

[bloodIce]

How many GHzYears will need to pass, until GIMPS server is able to catch a mfaktc report. The same, all over again... What more information is needed? You see mfaktc in a string, then you subtract the factor bit length from the current bit level and multiply by a coefficient.

The only explanation I see in this forum is that the programmers are busy with other things? Probably true, but come on, for "a one liner"? Are those programmers in North Korea?

[kladner]

Originally Posted by bloodIce

How many GHzYears will need to pass, until GIMPS server is able to catch a mfaktc report. The same, all over again... What more information is needed? You see mfaktc in a string, then you subtract the factor bit length from the current bit level and multiply by a coefficient.

The only explanation I see in this forum is that the programmers are busy with other things? Probably true, but come on, for "a one liner"? Are those programmers in North Korea?

The submission system gets confused if an mfaktc report begins with a Factor Found line. Make sure to always lead with a No Factor line, even if it has been previously submitted. Alternatively, use MISFIT, which will not submit a factor first.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by kladner

The submission system gets confused if an mfaktc report begins with a Factor Found line. Make sure to always lead with a No Factor line, even if it has been previously submitted. Alternatively, use MISFIT, which will not submit a factor first.

But... bloodice raises an important point.

All the information needed for the correct interpretation is presented to the submission script.

It should take no more than one hour to fix this issue. And it's been an issue for quite some time.

Why should one know (or use scripts which know) how to submit the results so they'll be interpreted properly? ("Oh, didn't you know? You need to submit a NF before a F, silly!")

PrimeNet should know already....

[Prime95]

Maybe James, the PHP pattern matching guru, can cobble together a fix.

[swl551]

Originally Posted by chalsall

But... bloodice raises an important point.

All the information needed for the correct interpretation is presented to the submission script.

It should take no more than one hour to fix this issue. And it's been an issue for quite some time.

Why should one know (or use scripts which know) how to submit the results so they'll be interpreted properly? ("Oh, didn't you know? You need to submit a NF before a F, silly!")

PrimeNet should know already....

Well said. Solve the root problem and all the workarounds and frustration goes away.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by chalsall

But... bloodice raises an important point.

All the information needed for the correct interpretation is presented to the submission script.

It should take no more than one hour to fix this issue. And it's been an issue for quite some time.

Why should one know (or use scripts which know) how to submit the results so they'll be interpreted properly? ("Oh, didn't you know? You need to submit a NF before a F, silly!")

PrimeNet should know already....

Probably so. Is not my department. Stating the known work around is more my speed, though without taunts.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Sort of...

Drat.
You stole my line.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by davieddy

Drat. You stole my line.

Get used to it.

[bloodIce]

Originally Posted by kladner

The submission system gets confused if an mfaktc report begins with a Factor Found line. Make sure to always lead with a No Factor line, even if it has been previously submitted.

However, I did not have "No Factor lines". The reason is that I submitted them a day before (well, to submit them again you say , logical). The next day (which is reasonable for such assignment) I decided to report a factor. As pointed above, a user should not keep such details (first that, then that, if not then that) in mind all the time. We already have all information we need in my report to assign a proper method, and credit it.

P.S. Sorry, it seems that I repeated things, which are already said by chalsall.