Newer milestone thread

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Madpoo

If I read the comments right, it sounds like people generally like the milestones, and once the grandfathered assignments start to die off, the poaching issue should become less relevant? You won't have an assignment from 2013 chunking along super slow and "holding stuff up", in other words.

I will suggest again, that after the number of outstanding exponents falls below some number (somewhere between 10 and 25 works for me) and/or the projected time to clear falls below 2 months that the display is changed as below:

• Countdown to first time checking all exponents below 56M: <25 (Estimated completion: <2 months)

Maybe it could be incremented from 25 to 10 and from 2 months to 1. This would satisfy most people without putting too much temptation out there when it gets down this low. A determined poacher could find out what is left, but if there are 3 left and the see <25 they are less likely to jump on them.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

A determined poacher could find out what is left, but if there are 3 left and the [sic] see <25 they are less likely to jump on them.

Why try to artifically limit knowledge? In less than a month this issue should go away.

[TheMawn]

I also believe we should just not touch it until the new rules come out. 10 months ago this might have been a valid discussion but for now I think we're better off seeing how much of this fuss about poachers is justified. For all we know the problem will go away entirely. If it doesn't we can wake this discussion up.

Maybe we can add a milestone: "Number of days without talking about the milestones"

[flagrantflowers]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Why try to artifically limit knowledge? In less than a month this issue should go away.

Unless the code for extended time changes there are a number of exponents that will be around for another 3-4 months if you do the math. M55861261 is a good example that could sit around for a long time if it is not finished.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Why try to artifically limit knowledge? In less than a month this issue should go away.

Before Madpoo put the countdowns up, the knowledge was even more limited. I was thinking that there might be a balance that feeds the progress freaks (me), but does not feed the poachers.

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by TheMawn

Maybe we can add a milestone: "Number of days without talking about the milestones"

haha good one!

[NBtarheel_33]

Originally Posted by flagrantflowers

Unless the code for extended time changes there are a number of exponents that will be around for another 3-4 months if you do the math. M55861261 is a good example that could sit around for a long time if it is not finished.

Not sure why that would happen. That is a Cat1 exponent, so yes, I suppose someone (a trusted user, to boot!) could sit on it for 90 days and then it could be recycled, but I doubt that would happen much more than once before someone would get the test done.

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Before Madpoo put the countdowns up, the knowledge was even more limited. ...

Oh sure, blame me. LOL

I guess I did do that though, add a little countdown with a link directly to the report page that shows the exponents in question.

The point could be made that I made it *too* easy for someone to find the slowpokes and "do something". On the other hand, anyone could do an exponent search within a range, looking for the same thing, and find it. It's just not as obvious and easy unless you knew what to look for.

There's probably a dozen different things I could think to try and make it harder on would-be poachers...the trick is doing enough to keep honest people honest, but also not discourage people who just like to know how it's doing and aren't the poaching type.

Some ideas are to mask some of the dates like "Last update" so there's less clues if someone's fallen behind. Or if an assignment goes past it's expected completion by a certain time, "hide" it somehow from the list of exponents.

All of the ideas I can think of though are kind of a bummer and fudge the reports a bit, just in an attempt to stop a few people, but maybe it's better to just suffer the occasional bad poaching job so we still have accurate reports?

After all, poaching happens, but it's not *that* big a deal in the grand scheme of things, and nothing would stop it entirely unless we just started rejecting results that don't have a valid assignment ID. And that runs a little counter to the openness of the project too. And that's above my pay grade anyway. I just tinker with the website and look at a few stats in the data at George's discretion. :)

[retina]

I think that "first time checks" are a non-issue with regards to "poaching" because there is no loss in productivity. But "double time checks" are a different matter. However trying to prevent bad behaviour by hiding details is the wrong approach IMO. A better approach (IMO) is to either just ignore it, or publicly name and shame. You'll never stop it no matter what you do but at least a little bit of public pressure may have a more desirous outcome.

[Madpoo]

Originally Posted by retina

I think that "first time checks" are a non-issue with regards to "poaching" because there is no loss in productivity. But "double time checks" are a different matter. However trying to prevent bad behaviour by hiding details is the wrong approach IMO. A better approach (IMO) is to either just ignore it, or publicly name and shame. You'll never stop it no matter what you do but at least a little bit of public pressure may have a more desirous outcome.

Well, whatever the case, I did some exploring and mocked up a couple more things for the milestone page.

Sure enough, everything up to 57M has been assigned as a first-time check so that's in there.

I also added 57-58M and up to 34M double-checks, but not all exponents are assigned. I added a little note on those to indicate no ETA is available since there are some unassigned numbers, along with a count of just how many need some lovin'.

Maybe that would encourage people to find the unassigned ones and try to get assigned to them, or at least poach those instead of something already assigned, right? :) There's just no good way to find out which numbers in a range haven't been factored, having already been tested, and aren't assigned to anyone. There's no report on the site for that kind of thing.

Anyway, if you want to see how those look, I didn't make them live on the normal page, but you can check 'em out here:
http://www.mersenne.org/report_miles...fault.mock.php

I kind of feel like those milestones in progress should be a table, not an unordered list. I think it'd help with the formatting... I might try that out later but I'll leave it be for now.

[flagrantflowers]

Originally Posted by NBtarheel_33

That is a Cat1 exponent, so yes, I suppose someone (a trusted user, to boot!) …

This is not a trusted user as this was assigned long ago. I'm not saying the person could sit on it for 90 days (this is a grandfathered exponent so 90 days does not apply) so much as progress can be slow so that it does not expire until the extension code expires.

85.3*3.33+365=649 days or 220 days from today.