• Hello Members, This forums is for DV lottery visas only. For other immigration related questions, please go to our forums home page, find the related forum and post it there.

DV Lottery 2012 results CANCEL

I do not think that the DOS is a thief.
The DOS has the right to select.
In other words, the DOS declared the winners because they had the right to do so.
The DOS is not giving away something that was Stolen.
I do not think your example fits.

Also, why do you call other's views "nonsense"?
I don't think this is correct.
I do not agree with your views, but I do not call them nonsense.


On the other hand think of this:
Assume that the software was supposed to choose selectees uniformly (in respect to Application Date & Time) from among all applicants.

There are 100,000 selectees. All applications happened in 30 days = 720 hours.
So this means that every hour (to ensure uniform distribution in respect to Applicaton date & time) -> 100,000 / 720 = 140 selectees must be chosen.
Would this mean that if I apply at 3am in the morning when there are less people applying, I have a greater chance of winning?

Or should the uniformity be by the "minute".
It means that 2.3 people should be selected every minute.
Would this mean that if I apply for myself, my wife and my children within the same minute from paralel computers, I can increase my chance of winning?

Or should the uniformity be by the "day".
It means that 3333 people should be selected every day.
So which day would the least number of people apply. I would guess ti would be on the 15th day.


Any kind of KNOWLEDGE can give you an unfair adantage. If there is NO KNOWLEDGE, than the selectees could not have manipulated the system. Hence, the outcome is a random group.

If someone were to check the current selectees, they would find that, all education levels, ages, etc are uniformly distributed which is the desired result.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everybody got the official email?

Hi everyone!
I have a Q. Both me and my husband applied for DV 2012 lottery, but only he received the official e-mail with the cancellation and everything. Also a friend of ours who applied as well received it. But not me! Why? Someone suggested that this could mean my application was not valid. How is that possible? If my husband is ok, why should my application be invalid, with the same data and same pictures.
 
dv2012x said:
I do not think that the DOS is a thief.
The DOS has the right to select.
In other words, the DOS declared the winners because they had the right to do so.
The DOS is not giving away something that was Stolen.
I do not think your example fits.

Also, why do you call other's views "nonsense"?
I don't think this is correct.
I do not agree with your views, but I do not call them nonsense.


On the other hand think of this:
Assume that the software was supposed to choose selectees uniformly (in respect to Application Date & Time) from among all applicants.

There are 100,000 selectees. All applications happened in 30 days = 720 hours.
So this means that every hour (to ensure uniform distribution in respect to Applicaton date & time) -> 100,000 / 720 = 140 selectees must be chosen.
Would this mean that if I apply at 3am in the morning when there are less people applying, I have a greater chance of winning?

Or should the uniformity be by the "minute".
It means that 2.3 people should be selected every minute.
Would this mean that if I apply for myself, my wife and my children within the same minute from paralel computers, I can increase my chance of winning?

Or should the uniformity be by the "day".
It means that 3333 people should be selected every day.
So which day would the least number of people apply. I would guess ti would be on the 15th day.


Any kind of KNOWLEDGE can give you an unfair adantage. If there is NO KNOWLEDGE, than the selectees could not have manipulated the system. Hence, the outcome is a random group.

If someone were to check the current selectees, they would find that, all education levels, ages, etc are uniformly distributed which is the desired result.
Click to expand...

This is becoming pointless. Let me ask you this to be brief: do you believe that in fact there was no error in the software?
 
There was an error, but it did not affect the randomness of the chosen applicants and the selection was still fair. Only not uniformly distributed (which does not have to be to be random).
 
On the other hand think of this:
Assume that the software was supposed to choose selectees uniformly (in respect to Application Date & Time) from among all applicants.

There are 100,000 selectees. All applications happened in 30 days = 720 hours.
So this means that every hour (to ensure uniform distribution in respect to Applicaton date & time) -> 100,000 / 720 = 140 selectees must be chosen.
Would this mean that if I apply at 3am in the morning when there are less people applying, I have a greater chance of winning?

Or should the uniformity be by the "minute".
It means that 2.3 people should be selected every minute.
Would this mean that if I apply for myself, my wife and my children within the same minute from paralel computers, I can increase my chance of winning?

Or should the uniformity be by the "day".
It means that 3333 people should be selected every day.
So which day would the least number of people apply. I would guess ti would be on the 15th day.


Any kind of KNOWLEDGE can give you an unfair adantage. If there is NO KNOWLEDGE, than the selectees could not have manipulated the system. Hence, the outcome is a random group.

If someone were to check the current selectees, they would find that, all education levels, ages, etc are uniformly distributed which is the desired result.
Click to expand...
Previously they did not use time as a factor at all. That is why for any decent (means large enough for which is there were at least a hundred entries submitted in it) time interval they had about the same percentage of wins versus losses.
It is also OK to have a time dependent selection where time intervals are selected randomly. What is incorrect, however, that different regions (at least 3) point to the same interval, because regions are supposed to be independent.
 
dv2012x said:
There was an error, but it did not affect the randomness of the chosen applicants and the selection was still fair. Only not uniformly distributed (which does not have to be to be random).
Click to expand...

So what you are basically saying is that they are lying about non-randomness and unfairness.
 
LOL, man I sincerely think that it's a waste of time trying to convince you that you're not objective. You're simply redefining randomness on terms that perhaps suits you better.

Short story: They found out (better late than never) that their process of selection went wrong and violated predetermined requirements.

It's clear that this cancellation comes with an amount of embarrassment exposing a lack of QA, not to mention the surplus costs it induces, but despite all of this they were compelled to do so to be in compliance with US laws.

It's sad to see that many cling to faulty results against all odds. Let me remind you something: a notification letter makes it clear that "Selection does not guarantee that you'll receive a visa" and immigrating to USA is a long way journey full of struggles. For some it pans out for others it turns to be a nightmare. Even the successful ones might answer no to the question: Would you do it all again, knowing what you know now? The first thing learned is that all comes at a price and for some that's a hell of a steep price compared to what they've earned.

My advice: wait for mid-July results like everyone else who took part of the 2012 DV lottery and in case you're selected, get ready for a long bumpy road. We like to say here: "Attache ta tuque" something close to this quote from Matrix (The) movie: Buckle your seat belt, Dorothy, 'cause Kansas is going bye-bye


dv2012x said:
There was an error, but it did not affect the randomness of the chosen applicants and the selection was still fair. Only not uniformly distributed (which does not have to be to be random).
Click to expand...
 
Say, you've applied for consecutive years from 1994-2011 while the possibility of selected is 1%,
your probability would be
>>> (1-0.01)**(2011-1994)
0.8429431933839268

That's 84%.

So actually it's quite common.

Living_Legend said:
So sad that we never won this since late 90s & not even got a fake winning from DV 2012.. how unlucky... :( :(
Click to expand...
 
Montreal2011DV said:
LOL, man I sincerely think that it's a waste of time trying to convince you that you're not objective. You're simply redefining randomness on terms that perhaps suits you better.

Short story: They found out (better late than never) that their process of selection went wrong and violated predetermined requirements.

It's clear that this cancellation comes with an amount of embarrassment exposing a lack of QA, not to mention the surplus costs it induces, but despite all of this they were compelled to do so to be in compliance with US laws.

It's sad to see that many cling to faulty results against all odds. Let me remind you something: a notification letter makes it clear that "Selection does not guarantee that you'll receive a visa" and immigrating to USA is a long way journey full of struggles. For some it pans out for others it turns to be a nightmare. Even the successful ones might answer no to the question: Would you do it all again, knowing what you know now? The first thing learned is that all comes at a price and for some that's a hell of a steep price compared to what they've earned.

My advice: wait for mid-July results like everyone else who took part of the 2012 DV lottery and in case you're selected, get ready for a long bumpy road. We like to say here: "Attache ta tuque" something close to this quote from Matrix (The) movie: Buckle your seat belt, Dorothy, 'cause Kansas is going bye-bye
Click to expand...

I am glad that someone on this thread finally understands how things really are. The mistake was made, embarrassing and unfair (from a moral standpoint) to the fake winners. Still a mistake and the results were correctly voided. There are howver a number of issues I don't understand.

1. the lack of transparency - there is very little information offered in their official announcement,
2. the press conference brought a number of issues: why do they need 2 months to come up with another list of winners. It is the 21st century a computer program could do that very quickly, unless of course the department of homeland security in fact spends a few months verifying the integrity of the winners...

Anyway on my opinion this whole DV business is ill-though, thousands of PhDs former international students cannot find a job after US has invested hundreds of thousands of $ in their education but they persist in bringing to the US 55,000 people, many of whom barely speak the language, have professions of all kinds (or none at all), bring large families hard to sustain, etc. USA lacks the immigration system of Canada or New Zealand where people are pre-scanned to make sure they will find a job. We're no longer at the tur of the century when people were people were coming to Ellis Island with an "American dream". Because of the superficial nature of the DV program for many selectees the "dream" ends in the dishwasher of McDonalds or other similar jobs. The few who really succeed are used by the propaganda to keep the "dream" alive. That is why I am so amazed when I see people so desperate about the current situation with the voiding of the results as if their life is over.

huangjs said:
Say, you've applied for consecutive years from 1994-2011 while the possibility of selected is 1%,
your probability would be
>>> (1-0.01)**(2011-1994)
0.8429431933839268

That's 84%.

So actually it's quite common.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that's completely wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a redonkulous estimation. Not only GIGO but your formula as well sucks.

You ain't a statistician, Are you?

Edit: I didn't pay enough attention to the fact that your were calculating odds of not winning. So my bad since the used formula is correct, though still GIGO as explained in my later post.

huangjs said:
Say, you've applied for consecutive years from 1994-2011 while the possibility of selected is 1%,
your probability would be
>>> (1-0.01)**(2011-1994)
0.8429431933839268

That's 84%.

So actually it's quite common.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From the DV official web site here's a FAQ excerpt (À toutes fins utiles i.e For future reference):

Q: Why was it necessary to invalidate the names that were selected?

U.S. law requires that Diversity Immigrant visas be made available through a strictly random process. A computer programming error resulted in a selection that was not truly random.
Since the computer programming error caused an outcome that was not random, the outcome did not meet the requirements of the law, and would have been unfair to many DV entrants.

Q: Is the 2012 Diversity Visa Program cancelled?

No. The 2012 program will continue. The computer programming error has been identified and corrected. The Department of State will run a new selection using all the qualified entries (ones received between October 5, 2010 and November 3, 2010) it received for the 2012 program.

Q: Do I have to submit a new application?

No. You may not submit a new application. We will use all qualified entries received during the October 5 to November 3, 2010 registration period.

Q: Will you open a new entry period?

New entries will not be accepted.

Q: I checked the Entry Status Check website after May 1 and it said I had been selected. Can I apply for a DV visa?

Unfortunately results previously posted on this website were not valid because the selection process was not fair or random. We will take the entries of all individuals who sent in their registration during the original October 5 to November 3, 2010 time period and run a new lottery. We regret any inconvenience or disappointment this has caused. We expect new results to be available on this website on or about July 15, 2011.

Q: How can I check the results of the new selection?

The new results should be available on this website on or about July 15, 2011. The confirmation code you received when you registered is still valid for use on the website.

Q: Was the Department of State hacked? Was my personal information at risk?

We have no evidence that this problem was caused by any intentional act. No unauthorized party accessed data related to the DV program.

This appears to be solely the result of a computer programming error.
 
huangjs said:
Say, you've applied for consecutive years from 1994-2011 while the possibility of selected is 1%,
your probability would be
>>> (1-0.01)**(2011-1994)
0.8429431933839268

That's 84%.

So actually it's quite common.
Click to expand...

He is right. That's the probability you do not win for 17 years. So 1-0.8429..=0.157 is the chance you win at least once in 17 years if the winning chance has been constant (1%) since 1994. People who are saying it's wrong, what is your calculation? By the way, just in case I'd like to point out that ** is the same as ^ in some programming languages, so if you are confused** as a simple multiplication *, you are wrong. He means (1-0.01)**(2011-1994) as (1-0.01)^(2011-1994).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought he calculated the odds of winning the lottery and I didn't pay attention to the fact that it was the opposite one he was hinting to. My bad.

The formula indeed as you posted is correct if and only if the winning chance has been constant (1%) since 1994. Which makes it far from reality, so still GIGO.

No country is allowed to have more than 6000 winning notifications (6%). This year more than 15 millions registrations were valid and Bangladesh contributed up to 7.65 millions. 5999 to 6001 participants from Bangladesh will be selected for further processing this year like last year. Which translates into 6,000/7,650,000 = 0.000784% chance to be selected if from Bangladesh (1 against 1275)


RicoA said:
He is right. That's the probability you do not win for 17 years. So 1-0.8429..=0.157 is the chance you win at least once in 17 years if the winning chance has been constant (1%) since 1994. People who are saying it's wrong, what is your calculation? By the way, just in case I'd like to point out that ** is the same as ^ in some programming languages, so if you are confused** as a simple multiplication *, you are wrong. He means (1-0.01)**(2011-1994) as (1-0.01)^(2011-1994).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top