Someone (I don't know their username) emailed in a suggestion to add counts to the discoveries links on each user home page.

That's done, and if you look at your user page (or anyone else's), instead of "primes, APs" you'll now see something like "primes (8/7), APs (248/91)". The numbers in parenthesis are the number of discoveries and the number of double checks.

For some people, like me, you'll notice a lot fewer AP double checks than discoveries. It's even more noticable if you look at Lennart: He's the one with 614 AP discoveries without a single double check.

No, there's no super-special strategy for being first. The original AP26 search didn't use double checking, so there were no double checkers at all. Likewise, a lot of primes were found on PRPNet, which doesn't have double checking.

When you look at the accounts of people who have been here for a while, you're going to see that their number of discoveries may be much higher than their number of double checks. It's not because they have a secret method to always be 1^st. It's because back then, there was no such thing as 2^nd on many of the projects.
____________
My lucky number is 75898⁵²⁴²⁸⁸+1

Someone (I don't know their username) emailed in a suggestion to add counts to the discoveries links on each user home page.

That's done, and if you look at your user page (or anyone else's), instead of "primes, APs" you'll now see something like "primes (8/7), APs (248/91)". The numbers in parenthesis are the number of discoveries and the number of double checks.

For some people, like me, you'll notice a lot fewer AP double checks than discoveries. It's even more noticable if you look at Lennart: He's the one with 614 AP discoveries without a single double check.

No, there's no super-special strategy for being first. The original AP26 search didn't use double checking, so there were no double checkers at all. Likewise, a lot of primes were found on PRPNet, which doesn't have double checking.

When you look at the accounts of people who have been here for a while, you're going to see that their number of discoveries may be much higher than their number of double checks. It's not because they have a secret method to always be 1^st. It's because back then, there was no such thing as 2^nd on many of the projects.

The original AP26 search didn't use double checking, so there were no double checkers at all. Likewise, a lot of primes were found on PRPNet, which doesn't have double checking.

The original AP26 search didn't use double checking, so there were no double checkers at all. Likewise, a lot of primes were found on PRPNet, which doesn't have double checking.

Hm, did those ranges ever get double-checked? What are the chances we missed an AP27 or AP28?