I participate in other distributed_computing projects as well. Though I personally could care less about the statistics of any project, I notice that there is an entire subculture focused on tracking one's own work vs. that of the other participants.
My proposal is simple -- If someone "poaches" (by that I mean: turns in work that was __not__ assigned by Primenet nor an *authorized* 'team leader' [e.g., George]), then IGNORE that submitted work (except that the submitted value could be used as a NOT_FOR_CREDIT "triple-check" value). By DENYING credit for "poaching", the individual involved will __not__ get the satisfaction of others seeing *his* "accomplishment" -- not even the satisfaction of seeing *his* work fulfill any 'milestone'. [I have a sneaking suspicion that the world would not end if a GIMPS 'milestone' had to be slipped (not even if it had to be slipped by MONTHS !!) ] On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 07:51:10 +0000 "Brian J. Beesley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 25 January 2003 00:39, Mikus Grinbergs wrote: > > [... snip ...] > > My suggestion is that in order to receive "credit" for their work, > > everybody MUST "register" what they are doing. > > Sure. But does this address the problem? If the poacher's "unregistered" work NEVER shows up in any report, that makes "poaching" a selfless activity -- no one except the poacher himself will ever see that he did the work. > > > And the registration > > process must refuse to give out duplicate assignments. > > I wasn't aware that it did. But what is the objection to having both LL test > and double check for a particular exponent assigned simultaneously? If we're > done looking for factors, we need the results of both runs eventually. In my mind an 'LL test' and a 'double check' are two separate assignments. The intent of what I wrote was to __not__ allow a poacher to claim "I was told to run this exponent". If the registration process does a good job of for the same exponent not handing out two 'LL tests' simultaneously, or two 'double checks', or two 'whatevers', then such a statement by a poacher would be a lie. > > BTW what about another problem I have come across on several occasions, > namely "reverse poaching"? This is when I have properly got an assignment > which someone else has let expire, but the original assignee reports a result > whilst I'm working on it? Tough for the original assignee who let that assignment expire. Since the assignment is no longer registered to him, he would be treated as a "poacher", and would not receive any credit for his result. I would prefer that before _any_ assignment is "properly" taken away from the previous registrant, that an e-mail be sent to that registrant offering him the opportunity to log in somewhere and affirm that he is still working on it. If he fails to do so in say 15 days, *then* de-register that assignment. [I think the worst part about "poaching" is that the person who was "officially" given the assignment DOES NOT KNOW that somebody else is duplicating (and will complete earlier) that SAME work. To my mind, a "poacher" is being intentionally disrespectful of the person who __did__ use the proper registration procedure.] mikus (not looking at the GIMPS forums) _________________________________________________________________________ Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.ndatech.com/mersenne/signup.htm Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
