Upcoming month's visa bulletin: December 2013 (Coming Soon)

[Britsimon]

Why Africa has received 14,000 visas DV12 at 50,000 winners? Do not tell me only that they forgot, do not know. This is complete nonsense, invented Raevskii.

OK. So you believe that AF region is going to get around 16/17k visas rather than the ~24k visas they normally get. It will take a few months to reach that level on CEAC data but we will, I believe, be able to kill your theory stone dead by around March/April or so.

 

[Sloner]

OK. So you believe that AF region is going to get around 16/17k visas rather than the ~24k visas they normally get. It will take a few months to reach that level on CEAC data but we will, I believe, be able to kill your theory stone dead by around March/April or so.

Yes, at this time, everything will fall into place. Do not forget, when I predicted you an interview. + - 1 month.

 

[SusieQQQ]

OK. So you believe that AF region is going to get around 16/17k visas rather than the ~24k visas they normally get. It will take a few months to reach that level on CEAC data but we will, I believe, be able to kill your theory stone dead by around March/April or so.

Enjoying banging your head against this particular brick wall?
Don't worry simon, you'll have the best laugh last

 

[Britsimon]

enjoying banging your head against this particular brick wall? :d
don't worry simon, you'll have the best laugh last

lol

 

[Britsimon]

Yes, at this time, everything will fall into place. Do not forget, when I predicted you an interview. + - 1 month.

I don't remember when you predicted I would have an interview. I do remember you giving me an unsolicited prediction, but I seem to have immediately forgotten your prediction...

 

[Sloner]

I don't remember when you predicted I would have an interview. I do remember you giving me an unsolicited prediction, but I seem to have immediately forgotten your prediction...

I gave Europe 19,000 visas. How could I give you a bad prediction. Let me remind you. You will be interviewed in April or May.You remember only the bad, this is a very bad habit.

 

[SusieQQQ]

I gave Europe 19,000 visas. How could I give you a bad prediction. Let me remind you. You will be interviewed in April and May.You remember only the bad, this is a very bad habit.

I feel hard done by, I only got one interview, and you're saying britsimon will get two! Not fair!

 

[Sloner]

I feel hard done by, I only got one interview, and you're saying britsimon will get two! Not fair!

Thanks for the tip.

 

[rigateika]

Excellent - thanks for that. I think it is a reasonable assumption that contractors at KCC might have been furloughed during the shutdown.

It took a while, and I knew there was something useful in what he has been trying to say, but I do believe we have seen a plausible theory from Sloner!!!

Pity he is clinging to the 2012 thing...

Britsimon,

After reading Russian speaking forum I think I may try to explain Sloner’s DV2012 theory.

DV2012 was the first time a new software (MorphoTrust USA per Sloner) was run.
http://www.morphotrust.com/pages/204-history

New program is using facial recognition technology allowing to detect frauds and multiple entries.
In the process of random selection it assigns Case number, checks the case against the fraud and assigns it status “Selected” if no fraud detected. If fraud is detected – then the entry is disqualified and the case number becomes a hole. This process continues until the number of cases in status “Selected” reach a certain figure.

As we all know DV2012 was a mess. After finding out a problem with not so random selection – they ran second draw using old pre-2012 program.

Sloner’s theory on new/old software in DV2012 is based on case EU45XXX seen in Warsaw interview schedule before second draw was run.

To him a high case number means that there were many entries disqualified – another word many holes. There were no high case numbers in the second draw which means that the second draw was run on old software.

Sloner says that they used old program for DV2013 because the new program was not reliable yet and they didn’t want to take a chance of DV2012 repeat. We don’t see high number cases in DV2013.

By the time for DV2014 selection – the new program was tested and ready.
They ran new program in DV2014. Many cases were disqualified and many holes were created.
We see high case numbers in DV2014.

Now about the certain figure (number of selected)…
In DV2013 initial selection was 105,625 plus additional selection 4,009 in oct 2012.
So total number of selected in DV2013 was 109,634.

In DV2014 Number of selected is 140,660 selectees.

Why they selected so many winners in DV2014?

Obviously they want to issue all 50,000 visas plus visas left from Nicaragua program.
They also have to consider several factors:
- new procedures and programs targeting further fraud detection. For example Fraud Prevention Units in overseas posts. This will increase number of visa rejections.
- Better statistical analysis to predict how many people will submit forms for further processing.
- To have some extra crowd just in case if selectee response will be not high enough.


Sloner, I tried my best. Feel free to correct.

 

[Britsimon]

I gave Europe 19,000 visas. How could I give you a bad prediction. Let me remind you. You will be interviewed in April or May.You remember only the bad, this is a very bad habit.

No I don't only remember the bad. It's just that I never asked you for a prediction for me and I am comfortable enough with the process to give myself a prediction, so your prediction (whether accurate or not) is not something that was worth remembering.

 

[SusieQQQ]

To him a high case number means that there were many entries disqualified – another word many holes. There were no high case numbers in the second draw which means that the second draw was run on old software.

.....We don’t see high number cases in DV2013.

Right, thank you for taking the time to explain that. I now see where sloner's theory comes from, BUT it also helps me see why we disagree with him. Sloner says high case numbers is because so many disqualifications, whereas I and a number of others think that the high case number - especially taken in conjunction with the record high number of selectees far outpacing any previous year - is because they are absolutely hellbent on meeting the quota this year. And the only way you can be absolutely certain of meeting the quota is to ensure demand will exceed supply; but if demand exceeds supply then not everyone who has been selected will ultimately get a visa.

Also, there were some very high case numbers in DV2013 - not as high as this year admittedly.

 

[Sloner]

Sloner, I tried my best. Feel free to correct.

it is good that you explained. With my English and an interpreter is difficult to explain complicated things. July 15, 2011, they used the new software. In DV13 old.

 

[Britsimon]

Britsimon,

After reading Russian speaking forum I think I may try to explain Sloner’s DV2012 theory.

DV2012 was the first time a new software (MorphoTrust USA per Sloner) was run.
http://www.morphotrust.com/pages/204-history

New program is using facial recognition technology allowing to detect frauds and multiple entries.
In the process of random selection it assigns Case number, checks the case against the fraud and assigns it status “Selected” if no fraud detected. If fraud is detected – then the entry is disqualified and the case number becomes a hole. This process continues until the number of cases in status “Selected” reach a certain figure.

As we all know DV2012 was a mess. After finding out a problem with not so random selection – they ran second draw using old pre-2012 program.

Sloner’s theory on new/old software in DV2012 is based on case EU45XXX seen in Warsaw interview schedule before second draw was run.

To him a high case number means that there were many entries disqualified – another word many holes. There were no high case numbers in the second draw which means that the second draw was run on old software.

Sloner says that they used old program for DV2013 because the new program was not reliable yet and they didn’t want to take a chance of DV2012 repeat. We don’t see high number cases in DV2013.

By the time for DV2014 selection – the new program was tested and ready.
They ran new program in DV2014. Many cases were disqualified and many holes were created.
We see high case numbers in DV2014.

Now about the certain figure (number of selected)…
In DV2013 initial selection was 105,625 plus additional selection 4,009 in oct 2012.
So total number of selected in DV2013 was 109,634.

In DV2014 Number of selected is 140,660 selectees.

Why they selected so many winners in DV2014?

Obviously they want to issue all 50,000 visas plus visas left from Nicaragua program.
They also have to consider several factors:
- new procedures and programs targeting further fraud detection. For example Fraud Prevention Units in overseas posts. This will increase number of visa rejections.
- Better statistical analysis to predict how many people will submit forms for further processing.
- To have some extra crowd just in case if selectee response will be not high enough.


Sloner, I tried my best. Feel free to correct.

Thank you Rigateika for taking the time to explain Sloners theory. I tease Sloner and get frustrated with his stubbornness but I don't think he is a fool. However, what you are explaining is all very nice and sounds reasonable but everything there relates to the selection process and the case numbers. That has NOTHING to do with the processing of visas, the global quotas (which are not published) and so on. If we look at the historical allocations between 2003 and 2012 for AF and EU we see this pattern.

AF - 19,227 17,146 19,118 19,548 18,046 22,960 24,648 24,745 24,015 13,582
EU - 22,321 21,721 19,330 15,626 12,633 14,788 14,241 16,083 16,378 13,093

So in 2003 EU received more visas than AF - in fact if you go back to the early days of the lottery you will see this was a much more dramatic split. However that trend has been slowly reversing and since 2006 AF has been getting more visas than EU - around 50% more from 2007 onwards (or a ration of about 3:2). The last column above is 2012 - where the numbers dropped dramatically and AF and EU got about the same number of visas (1:1 ratio). That was the chaos year and it is perfectly logical and reasonable to imagine that AF region (with lower technology access) was much more affected by the cancellation/redraw since more people would not have known about the redraw.

I can't imagine anyone basing a statistical analysis on 2012 results, but Sloner did just that. He looked at the number of selectees for each region, the number of visas and came up with a select/visa approved ratio that he then applied to 2014 selectees. However, that ratio is horribly flawed because of the ratio, so when you apply his ratio to 2013 numbers, it doesn't work - the numbers don't fit. Then if you consider the results he is predicting he is saying the AF/EU split will be 16/19 - when for years now (and in 2013 also) the split has been 3:2. I can imagine a slight change happening each year, but not such a dramatic change. Again, that is ONLY possible if you start with a bad set of data - which is exactly what he has done.

Furthermore, there is no logical reason to think the selection software has any bearing on the process that gets from selectee to visa approval (because the software is only influencing the process UP TO the point of getting the selectee list), but he ignored that also. So, whilst the points you describe above are probably accurate, you need to make a giant leap of confusion to get to the numbers he has achieved.

Based on that, Sloner believes that ALL the 140k selectees will get visas - and that is leading him to spread the news of happiness and light to all around - which I think is not a fair thing to do.

 

[Sloner]

That was the chaos year and it is perfectly logical and reasonable to imagine that AF region (with lower technology access) was much more affected by the cancellation/redraw since more people would not have known about the redraw.

this is stupid. I do not believe in this nonsense. 20,000 people did not know about the second draw? There is no logic at all. This is another fiction Raevsky.

However, that ratio is horribly flawed because of the ratio, so when you apply his ratio to 2013 numbers, it doesn't work - the numbers don't fit.

I'm tired of saying the same thing. This model can not be applied to the DV13, DV13 because it was used in the old software.

Furthermore, there is no logical reason to think the selection software has any bearing on the process that gets from selectee to visa approval (because the software is only influencing the process UP TO the point of getting the selectee list), but he ignored that also. So, whilst the points you describe above are probably accurate, you need to make a giant leap of confusion to get to the numbers he has achieved.

Software affects numbering. So it was in the years 2007,2008 and 2003,2004. By the number of wins a direct impact and indirect quota but the new software.

Based on that, Sloner believes that ALL the 140k selectees will get visas - and that is leading him to spread the news of happiness and light to all around - which I think is not a fair thing to do.

I'm not talking about everyone, not invent. The risk is in Africa and Asia. In the remaining regions of the good chance.
I just imagine how it will be, even the State Department does not know.

 

[Britsimon]

this is stupid. I do not believe in this nonsense. 20,000 people did not know about the second draw? There is no logic at all. This is another fiction Raevsky.

OK Sloner - so here are the global totals for the years 2003 to 2012

50,810 48,044 48,151 46,145 40,076 46,633 48,036 51,312 51,118 34,463

How do YOU explain the massive unprecedented dip down to 34k in 2012. I've asked you that before and you have ignored it. Answer it this time please.

I'm tired of saying the same thing. This model can not be applied to the DV13, DV13 because it was used in the old software.

Please feel free to stop saying the same thing. PLEASE!

Software affects numbering. So it was in the years 2007,2008 and 2003,2004. By the number of wins a direct impact and indirect quota but the new software.

Yeah, I need an interpreter for that one.

I'm not talking about everyone, not invent. The risk is in Africa and Asia. In the remaining regions of the good chance.
I just imagine how it will be, even the State Department does not know.

But the problem is your calculations assume that Africa for instance will only take 16/17k of the 50k - that is wrong - AF will take around 23/24k - and those 8k difference have to come from somewhere.

 

[Sloner]

How do YOU explain the massive unprecedented dip down to 34k in 2012. I've asked you that before and you have ignored it. Answer it this time please.

experimental error. The new equipment is tested first. Or they leave room for 22,000 won, which was a mistake to May 1, 2011.

But the problem is your calculations assume that Africa for instance will only take 16/17k of the 50k - that is wrong - AF will take around 23/24k - and those 8k difference have to come from somewhere.

Do you know how many visas Africa score? Where from? In DV13 Africa has received 21,000 visas. If she gets in DV14 17,000 visas, there is nothing to worry about. Because 9 years Africa dominates Europe. It's time to move.

 

[Britsimon]

experimental error. The new equipment is tested first. Or they leave room for 22,000 won, which was a mistake to May 1, 2011.

Do you know how many visas Africa score? Where from? In DV13 Africa has received 21,000 visas. If she gets in DV14 17,000 visas, there is nothing to worry about. Because 9 years Africa dominates Europe. It's time to move.

Experimental error??? Again - you are wittering on about the software. The software ONLY controls the selection process - NOTHING beyond that. So if they have a normal size selection (as they did in 2012) then there should have been a normal size allocation. But there wasn't. Really Sloner - I am amazed you can't understand that.

The CEAC data published by Raevsky shows 21k visas for AF but it also appears to cutoff early and only has a global total of 45k - so I think there is strong evidence to suggest the CEAC data is missing some entries - which will take up another 5000 visas. Given the regional allocation it seems likely that AF will therefore have ended up with 23k or so - pretty much in the normal range...

 

[Sloner]

Experimental error??? Again - you are wittering on about the software. The software ONLY controls the selection process - NOTHING beyond that. So if they have a normal size selection (as they did in 2012) then there should have been a normal size allocation. But there wasn't. Really Sloner - I am amazed you can't understand that.

they have not received a DV12 normal distribution. They have a shortage.

The CEAC data published by Raevsky shows 21k visas for AF but it also appears to cutoff early and only has a global total of 45k - so I think there is strong evidence to suggest the CEAC data is missing some entries - which will take up another 5000 visas. Given the regional allocation it seems likely that AF will therefore have ended up with 23k or so - pretty much in the normal range...

quotas every year is different. There is no normal quota. Today, 23000, 17000 tomorrow. Maybe Europe's quota was 20,000. How do you know.
Why do you care for Africa? You mediator?

 

[Britsimon]

they have not received a DV12 normal distribution. They have a shortage.

quotas every year is different. There is no normal quota. Today, 23000, 17000 tomorrow. Maybe Europe's quota was 20,000. How do you know.
Why do you care for Africa? You mediator?

In DV2012 there were just over 100k winners - 50k of those from Africa. The 100k and the 50k and all the other quotas for selectees were normal. The only abnormal thing was the result.

I care about AF region because it will take nearly half the available visas. It has nearly half of the selectees too.

 

[Sloner]

I care about AF region because it will take nearly half the available visas. It has nearly half of the selectees too.

let us agree on Europe 20000, 20000 Africa, Asia 7000. Why offend grandma Europe.