Newer milestone thread

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by chalsall

But... Those who are credited with DC work get the same GDs credit as LL work, although in a different column.

Where is the loss?

(Except, perhaps, for those who

... place more importance on the type of work done and the integrity with which it is done than on GHz-days credit. (Note the bit about possible Mersenne prime discovery, also.)

If GHz-days credit is your highest standard, so be it -- for you. But don't ruin it for the others.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

@cheesehead: I interpreted his post to mean that PrimeNet/Prime95 conspired to unreserve them while he was in the middle of doing them. This happened to me a few months ago; I was about 45% through when suddenly my AID was invalid (my computer talks to PrimeNet more than once a day, and the AID was less than two weeks old). This was in no way my fault, and waiting with finishing the LL until whoever else got it is a waste of my time, if I even remember to check three months later if it's done. (If akeitlander voluntarily unreserved his expos, then ignore this post.)

My contention is still that unilaterally poaching someone else's assignment is never the best way to handle the situation.

At the very least, communicate with the current assignee and negotiate a cooperative resumption.

If that's not possible, contact George or other admin, explain the situation, and see what can be done without ambushing the current assignee with a poach.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

If GHz-days credit is your highest standard, so be it -- for you. But don't ruin it for the others.

But I ask again...

If both a LL and DC has to be done to prove a candiate is not prime, and both work types have the same credit, what is the loss if someone gets a DC credit rather than an LL credit?

Hmmmm???

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Would you at least agree that an Anonymous account should be considered less trust-worthy than someone who has actually registered?

No.

Someone who has registered might have some assignments credited to "Anonymous" under certain circumstances. We've seen many examples of that.

The system isn't perfect, but treating a possible system imperfection as a definite indicator of assignee inferiority is not the way to go.

Or, put another way, if an Anonymous worker was "poached" that it probably wouldn't have an overall negative impact on the project?

No, I don't agree with that, either.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by chalsall

But I ask again...

If both a LL and DC has to be done to prove a candiate is not prime, and both work types have the same credit, what is the loss if someone gets a DC credit rather than an LL credit?

Hmmmm???

Will you please go back and read (or re-read) the part I wrote about discovering Mersenne primes?

Poaching a first-time LL, and thus turning it into a DC, takes away something that can never be restored -- the possibility of being the discoverer of a Mersenne prime. If this doesn't mean anything to you, then at least keep in mind that this is a meaningful and significant thing for some of the rest of us.

Furthermore, to some of us, it matters what we signed up for. When I request first-time LLs, I don't want any substitution even if it occurs later as a side-effect of poaching. Again, if this doesn't mean anything to you, then at least keep in mind that this is a meaningful and significant thing for some of the rest of us.

Motivation is a real thing. When you step on the motivations of other GIMPS participants, GIMPS can suffer real losses through dropouts. Don't do it -- for the sake of optimizing GIMPS progress!

- - -

Perhaps you will never understand the type of excitement and anticipation I had when watching my LL runs end. I was looking at a real possibility of achieving a bit of immortality by having my name forever added to the list of Mersenne prime discovers.

Perhaps that doesn't mean anything to you, but that anticipation and excitement of possibly personally experiencing one of the rarest moments in mathematics meant and still means a great deal to me and to some other participants here. Keep that in mind.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

The system isn't perfect, but treating a possible system imperfection as a definite indicator of assignee inferiority is not the way to go.

But what about the empirical?

If an anonymous worker has held an assignment for several hundred days, and is only doing a little bit of work on it each day, thus slipping under the PrimeNet heuristics for automated expiry...

What is the probability that this particular assignee would even notice if the assignment was "poached" or reassigned, and be so outraged as to not participate further?

Let's be honest: would we even notice; or care?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Furthermore, to some of us, it matters what we signed up for. When I request first-time LLs, I don't want any substitution even if it occurs later as a side-effect of poaching. Again, if this doesn't mean anything to you, then at least keep in mind that this is a meaningful and significant thing for some of the rest of us.

I would argue that if you were serious about finding an unknown MP (your chances are better playing the Lottery), then you would complete your assignments in a timely manner and not sit on them for years.

What we are really talking about here is DCs -- some of which have been assigned to Anonymous workers years ago and which are getting only minimal attention.

[aketilander]

Well for me its not a problem to wait and send in the double-checks after the first time checks, but a disadvantage with this is that a large number of assignments never finish so the normal situation is that sending in a result prevents this exponent from reassigning.

Yes of course I have registerd the dobule-checks when that has been possible. That is when someone else has already finished that exponent.

No it was not voluntarily.

Something which I have noticed is that several of the exponents have been reassaigned several times even though my ongoing "double-check" that is something that could be improved in the future I think.

And no I don't really consider this poaching since I had a valid assignment from the beginning which accidentally was lost, and I have for instance P1ed the expos.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by chalsall

But what about the empirical?

If an anonymous worker has held an assignment for several hundred days, and is only doing a little bit of work on it each day, thus slipping under the PrimeNet heuristics for automated expiry...

What is the probability that this particular assignee would even notice if the assignment was "poached" or reassigned, and be so outraged as to not participate further?

Let's be honest: would we even notice; or care?

Let's be even more honest and empirical: Is there any ethical thing you could accomplish by unilateral poaching that you couldn't accomplish through communication and cooperation with one of the GIMPS administrators?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Let's be even more honest and empirical: Is there any ethical thing you could accomplish by unilateral poaching that you couldn't accomplish through communication and cooperation with one of the GIMPS administrators?

cheesehead... Step back a bit...

What is being talked about here is "poaching" DCs. Those which have been reserved by those who do not appear to be serious, and are holding up milestones.

Yes, there is a VERY small possibility that a DC will find a MP which was missed by the first LL.

I would argue that if the assignee isn't even willing to register with PrimeNet (thus making it impossible to contact them (even through the "authorities")) that they don't have a great claim on the candidates they're working on.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by chalsall

I would argue that if you were serious about finding an unknown MP (your chances are better playing the Lottery),

Do you really not get it -- about the anticipation and excitement of watching an LL test end?

My former wife was one of those people who got real pleasure out of scratch-off lottery tickets. She genuinely thanked me for putting some under the Christmas tree for her each year.

I, myself, found only a small enjoyment in scratch-offs for a short time. But just because _I_ consider them mainly a bad investment doesn't keep me from understanding that they mean more to her as entertainment than they do to me.

Please consider that other folks genuinely have the motivations I describe, even if you don't. And their/our motivations keep them/us contributing to GIMPS.

then you would complete your assignments in a timely manner and not sit on them for years.

... and if you're serious about acting ethically, you can handle the situation through communication and cooperation with GIMPS administrators rather than through unilateral poaching.

What we are really talking about here is DCs -- some of which have been assigned to Anonymous workers years ago and which are getting only minimal attention.

So, communicate with GIMPS administrators. Wake up the old discussion threads about devising a more automated response to such situations.