• 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.

ceac updated

you mean sloner theory or say prediction about all cases will go current wont happen this year??????????
 
have you made google spread sheet can you provide link of that please..
raevsky said:
Results:
1. Sloner effect is no longer reproducible - up to number EU5157. All numbers present in Warsaw schedule are also present in CEAC, but some that are in CEAC are not in schedule - .
1460
1737
1817
2056
2708
3025
3078
3513
4055
4297
4340
I do not have data above 5157 yet, but it makes no sense to check Sloner effect again. So, that means CEAC has more data than before - because of Sloner effect. My theory that that was a pilor project looks to be confirmed.

2.
AF up to 11381 in DV-13 as of 5/27/2012 contained 3695 rows ( 4005 with Sloner effect, estimated), and 3241 in DV-14;
AS up to 3694 - 1386 (dv-13), 1558(Sloner effect) and 1812 (dv-14)
EU up to 5281 - 958(dv-13), 1083(Sloner effect) and 1376(dv-14)
OC up to 636 - 172(dv-13), 194 (Sloner effect) and 200(dv-14)
SA up to 845 - 228(dv-13), 260 (Sloner effect) and 232(dv-14)

and EU are still running - not completed. Target number for AF is 21750, for EU - 16700.

Explanation - AF for special countries is not current for some numbers lower than 11381. That is why.
For other regions DV-14 has a little bit less holes (except SA) than DV-13, or my estimate of Sloner effect is a little bit undervalued.
Anyway, if my estimates were wrong (I hope they were not) - than the error is towards lower end, not higher end. My estimates for boundary value could be higher than they should be. Or rejection rates would be higher - I have not investigated that yet.
Click to expand...
 
I would probably need more time to interpret te results. I guess my estimates for Sloner effect was based on total, not on initial 4 months
 
I will provide the link tomorrow. I hope AF and EU will be complete. Sloner theory (all numbers current) cannot be true, that is for sure.
 
raevsky said:
Results:
1. Sloner effect is no longer reproducible - up to number EU5157. All numbers present in Warsaw schedule are also present in CEAC, but some that are in CEAC are not in schedule - .
1460
1737
1817
2056
2708
3025
3078
3513
4055
4297
4340
I do not have data above 5157 yet, but it makes no sense to check Sloner effect again. So, that means CEAC has more data than before - because of Sloner effect. My theory that that was a pilor project looks to be confirmed.

2.
AF up to 11381 in DV-13 as of 5/27/2012 contained 3695 rows ( 4005 with Sloner effect, estimated), and 3241 in DV-14;
AS up to 3694 - 1386 (dv-13), 1558(Sloner effect) and 1812 (dv-14)
EU up to 5281 - 958(dv-13), 1083(Sloner effect) and 1376(dv-14)
OC up to 636 - 172(dv-13), 194 (Sloner effect) and 200(dv-14)
SA up to 845 - 228(dv-13), 260 (Sloner effect) and 232(dv-14)

and EU are still running - not completed. Target number for AF is 21750, for EU - 16700.

Explanation - AF for special countries is not current for some numbers lower than 11381. That is why.
For other regions DV-14 has a little bit less holes (except SA) than DV-13, or my estimate of Sloner effect is a little bit undervalued.
Anyway, if my estimates were wrong (I hope they were not) - than the error is towards lower end, not higher end. My estimates for boundary value could be higher than they should be. Or rejection rates would be higher - I have not investigated that yet. Another possibility - some rows with Ready status will be removed later, like at he very end of DV-13
Click to expand...

Can someone please explain to me the second part of Raevsky's caculations,please.
 
OC up to 636 - 172(dv-13), 194 (Sloner effect) and 200(dv-14)

I dont see how any of those numbers make sense? Holes over what spread? Per Thousand? In total?
 
i guess he is saying out of 636 cases 172 where shown by ceac in 12 other are holes and for dv 14 its 200 out of same
mijoro said:
OC up to 636 - 172(dv-13), 194 (Sloner effect) and 200(dv-14)

I dont see how any of those numbers make sense? Holes over what spread? Per Thousand? In total?
Click to expand...
 
Ok so out of the first 636 entries only 172 were legitimate cases or people who had returned forms?

So far with 2014 series we can see up to CN438 there have been 250 interviews. So again I dont understand the 200 comment.
 
britsimon said:
The fact that she is on the 2NL is good as it means she is expected on the day of the interview. If I were you I would print out the link that Mom gave so you can refer them to the rule if needed. In the case of CP, the CO has the power to make a decision, even a wrong decision, so it is worth being armed to plead your case.
Click to expand...

Simon,
Thank you very much for the advice. I sure will print the article.
My only hope is that, the CO doesn't make a damaging decision with her case.
Most grateful, Simon!

Mom, Thank you very much for the advice!
 
mijoro said:
OC up to 636 - 172(dv-13), 194 (Sloner effect) and 200(dv-14)

I dont see how any of those numbers make sense? Holes over what spread? Per Thousand? In total?
Click to expand...

Basically is making a comparison between sloner year dv12 and the previous dv year and the actual one ! But don't worry he will provide us very soon with the total number for 2014 dv :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
britsimon said:
Ahh I see what you are saying, and it makes good sense. Yes I think Mijoro should be able to relax - but there are alot of people above her number that want the same thing. Fingers crossed for them all.
Click to expand...

So am I right in assuming vladek's hypothetical of 1300 visa quota + 50% success rate = roughly 2600 2NLs?

In which case I should be able to relax too? :eek: (with 23XX)
 
I hope so Emma, the thing is we need the intake rate to increase as its going now we wont make interview time... so there needs to be some big big jumps in terms of monthly cut off numbers.
 
mijoro said:
I hope so Emma, the thing is we need the intake rate to increase as its going now we wont make interview time... so there needs to be some big big jumps in terms of monthly cut off numbers.
Click to expand...
Big big big jumps always happened at the last 3 4 months so it still gonna happen this year as well
I'm 99% CONFIDENT .
 
mijoro said:
I hope so Vladdy for all of our sakes.
Click to expand...

Like simon said they didn't double the selectees for OC just for the fun, they must of
Increased the visa quota for oc, from where I don't know maybe they will cut some
From AF who knows or from nacara ! because quotas change every year...
 
OK lots to respond to.

The Sloner effect is what Raevsky terms the "finding" that the CEAC data was always missing data in the first three months. Raevsky and Sloner were able to find cases on the Warsaw appointment lists that did not show up in the CEAC data (ever) and there were also some that Raevsky found that showed up in the CEAC data that were not on the appointment lists as expected. Raevsky determined that was most likely due to some kind of pilot program regarding whether they used the CEAC system or not for some embassies. He called this the Sloner effect in honour of the great statistician (and because Sloner was the first to spot it). Raevsky provided adjusted guesstimates for the CEAC data to account for the missing data and was keen to see if the issue reoccured. It has not.

The next thing that Raevsky is trying to provide is a look at success rates and holes etc. I imagine he will publish more data and his analysis later today. The scraper program takes a long time to run. So the initial results seem to suggest to Raevsky that his original ranges were almost too optimitic, and that results seem to suggest the lower end of his ranges were correct. That would be bad news. However, we should wait to hear his analysis and see the data before we freak out. There may be some changes to that.
 
emma_ said:
So am I right in assuming vladek's hypothetical of 1300 visa quota + 50% success rate = roughly 2600 2NLs?

In which case I should be able to relax too? :eek: (with 23XX)
Click to expand...

Well be careful Emma, it isn't quite that simple. 2600 case numbers is a bit simplistic because within the case numbers there are holes, and also there are derivatives. Those two factors kind of cancel each other out so Vladdys quick guesstimate isn't a million miles out at all, and his esitimate for quota is a good number also BUT it is a quick guesstimate... and there are other factors to consider too. I think it is too early to say with confidence that you will be OK for sure, but also too early to say that your number is too high. More "wait and see" I am afraid...
 
vladek15425 said:
Basically is making a comparison between sloner year dv12 and the previous dv year and the actual one ! But don't worry he will provide us very soon with the total number for 2014 dv :)
Click to expand...

No the 2012 Sloner thing Raevsky describes as the "Sloner axiom". Another tip of the hat to a great man. So Raevsky hasn't addressed the 2012 thing yet - but we will see better when we see the complete data as you say....
 
britsimon said:
OK lots to respond to.

The Sloner effect is what Raevsky terms the "finding" that the CEAC data was always missing data in the first three months. Raevsky and Sloner were able to find cases on the Warsaw appointment lists that did not show up in the CEAC data (ever) and there were also some that Raevsky found that showed up in the CEAC data that were not on the appointment lists as expected. Raevsky determined that was most likely due to some kind of pilot program regarding whether they used the CEAC system or not for some embassies. He called this the Sloner effect in honour of the great statistician (and because Sloner was the first to spot it). Raevsky provided adjusted guesstimates for the CEAC data to account for the missing data and was keen to see if the issue reoccured. It has not.

The next thing that Raevsky is trying to provide is a look at success rates and holes etc. I imagine he will publish more data and his analysis later today. The scraper program takes a long time to run. So the initial results seem to suggest to Raevsky that his original ranges were almost too optimitic, and that results seem to suggest the lower end of his ranges were correct. That would be bad news. However, we should wait to hear his analysis and see the data before we freak out. There may be some changes to that.
Click to expand...

Funny enough hey simon ; sloner and raevsky two opposites working together lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top