In the past I have always seen “Timed out - no response” for work not completed before the deadline but that has not stopped the work unit from being processed and credit given if the third person in doesn’t return his or her result before the delinquent person does. In most cases this means the third person ends up with “Completed, waiting for validation” and it remains in the “Pending” area until the cows come home or the fellows in the lab clean house, which ever happens first.

Today however I have saw something new, at least to me, where it said “Not started by deadline - canceled“ and the unit is listed in the “Invalid” section of the delinquent person.

Is this really something new and we will no longer see the third person left hanging because the delinquent person turned in their work first? Or have the two types of responses always existed, and if this is the case what is the difference and what triggers one over the other?

I did a search of the forums for “Not started by deadline – canceled” and came up empty but if this has been discussed before, my apologies.

It is nothing new at all. Someone asks about once a year.
Here are a few more posts with nearly your exact same title.
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=71519&postid=1362002#1362002
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=68759&postid=1260705#1260705

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[

Well at least I learned two things. The first is the obvious one that "Not started by deadline - canceled" is nothing new and that is a real disappointment. I really thought there might have been an end in sight to results being reported after the deadline and messing things up.

The second might have saved some embarrassment if I had realized it sooner. I did a search again for "Not started by deadline - canceled" and only found my post. I then noted the "Advanced Search" link and upon investigation I found that the default search period is only 30 days. That seems like a rather short period but hopefully I won't make that mistake again. I guess it could have been worse. I could have been the person that posted one of those questions in the past but had forgotten about it.

Thanks for taking the time to post the references.

Dont feel bad. I find the search function as is, To be very lacking also.

---

[/quote]

Old James