• 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

britsimon said:
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...
Click to expand...


Thanks simon, I know you're right, just being impatient as per usual. When it comes to life-altering things like this patience is not one of my strong points... :p
 
britsimon said:
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....
Click to expand...
Mmm my bad first post I thought about it ! Than I edited it to sloner axiom lol
 
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...


Then that is indeed bad news as rav predicted mid 1000's for the cut offs for Oceania, 1700. /1800 I think he didn't think it would get any higher which sucks.
 
vladek15425 said:
Funny enough hey simon ; sloner and raevsky two opposites working together lol
Click to expand...

That is always the best way. THat is also the way I like to see government run too. Smart people from the left and smart people from the right. What you end up with is a set of well thought out decisions...
 
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...

Rayme said:
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
Click to expand...

mijoro said:
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.
Click to expand...

Rayme is almost correct.

The first column (172) is the number of cases shown in the 2013 CEAC data up to this point. (I actually make that 176)
The last column (200) is the number of interviews. Mijoro, remember that your "interviews" number includes dervatives, whilst Raevsky is trying to identify case numbers versus holes. It is better to think of interviews the way Raevsky is saying - and then undertsand that one interview will result in an outcome for more than one person.
The "Sloner effect" number (194) was an estimate that Raevsky produced based on an adjustment to the 2013 CEAC data because of the missing data.
 
Raevsky is the rows means interviews ? Refused,ready and succes ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dear forum friends,
I checked my CN : 2014AS11***, and it told me: your search returns no data .. Although i have sent my form early in may and i checked by phone that KCC received my firms
 
Dear forum friends
I checked my CN: 2014AS11***, and it told me: your search returns no data .. Although i have sent my form early in may and i checked by phone that KCC received my firms
 
Hopenewsun said:
Dear forum friends
I checked my CN: 2014AS11***, and it told me: your search returns no data .. Although i have sent my form early in may and i checked by phone that KCC received my firms
Click to expand...

Your number will not be in CEAC until you are current.
 
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;

Simon the 3241 in dv14 is it the number of the interviews ? And if yes its out of what number ? Is it like from AF01 untill AF 21750 ?
Thanks buddy
 
vladek15425 said:
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;

Simon the 3241 in dv14 is it the number of the interviews ? And if yes its out of what number ? Is it like from AF01 untill AF 21750 ?
Thanks buddy
Click to expand...

It is individual case numbers that appear in CEAC. So, they could be interviews (with outcomes) or "ready" - one row per case number. It is up to 11381 and compares to 3695 in 2013 (but from an early capture)
 
Nerandima said:
According to CEAC data What will be situation of AS according to the current progress????
Click to expand...

I am in the middle of working on the CEAC data for Asia. Up to this point, my prediction based on CEAC data is as follows:

1. If Nepal and Iran do not have their special cut off, I would expect Asia only progress up to 4700 max.
2. If Nepal and Iran do have their special cut off, I would expect Asia to progress up to 6700 to 7300.

So far the CEAC data suggest that if special cut off do happen it will happen for both countries. (Nepal and Iran). Nepal will hit their country limit very soon. It could be as soon as Mar 14. I also know why Asia progress so slowly after looking at the CEAC data. Nepal and Iran takes 80% of the interview count for up to 1800 case #.

I will put create a new topic once I finished my analysis.
 
kayend said:
I am in the middle of working on the CEAC data for Asia. Up to this point, my prediction based on CEAC data is as follows:

1. If Nepal and Iran do not have their special cut off, I would expect Asia only progress up to 4700 max.
2. If Nepal and Iran do have their special cut off, I would expect Asia to progress up to 6700 to 7300.

So far the CEAC data suggest that if special cut off do happen it will happen for both countries. (Nepal and Iran). Nepal will hit their country limit very soon. It could be as soon as Mar 14. I also know why Asia progress so slowly after looking at the CEAC data. Nepal and Iran takes 80% of the interview count for up to 1800 case #.

I will put create a new topic once I finished my analysis.
Click to expand...

KAYEND! Are you giving those numbers (4700 to 7300) for the next VB or the whole year????

Edit: Kayend just wrote by PM "Yes, that my prediction for Mar cut off after looking at the CEAC data" - PHEW!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top