• 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.

For those that like to argue about statistics...

Eucn said:
Guys I'm not sure what we can deduce out of these numbers. If the visas issued include derivatives then comparing with sample of selected winners make less sense as the two populations ie. selectees and visa holders will be different. Also we don't know the maturation rate of the selectee population and we'd should assume that follow through of selectees decreases over time.
Click to expand...


The selectees numbers announced (i.e. the 140k) included derivatives - so the two sets of numbers are comparable.
 
Sloner said:
This is nonsense. Conversely. Auditors should be more. How could they forget? Second chance to win.
Click to expand...

Sloner I appreciate you don't believe the speculation about why the process was so badly affected in 2012, but it is clear that "something" happened and what is absolutely clear is that a normal selectee population resulted in an abnormal visa issued count. I have asked you before how you would explain that - and you have ignored that question. However, it doesn't really matter WHAT the reason was, the numbers themselves don't lie. PLEASE stop going on about this. If you think 2012 was "normal" and you think it is a safe data set for analysis then fine - carry on. However, I won't be using that year, and I can't imagine anyone else will either.
 
We have a couple of years data to analyze and based on the data any statistician will ignore DV12 because those numbers are consider outlier. I think the reason behind why DV12 is abnormal is not important to our analysis. Just look at the numbers alone we will not use it for any analysis. If any analysis using DV12 data which is outlier in statistic world is consider invalid.
 
kayend said:
We have a couple of years data to analyze and based on the data any statistician will ignore DV12 because those numbers are consider outlier. I think the reason behind why DV12 is abnormal is not important to our analysis. Just look at the numbers alone we will not use it for any analysis. If any analysis using DV12 data which is outlier in statistic world is consider invalid.
Click to expand...

Quite.
 
I have asked you before how you would explain that - and you have ignored that question
Click to expand...
I said the effectiveness of the new software. Why Oceania, South America, Europe, do not forget to check? Uzbekistan, which ended with a visa. Have you asked yourself these questions?
Africa gleaning 10,000 visas. Forgot to check the 10 thousand winners.
Why do not want to understand?
 
Sloner said:
I said the effectiveness of the new software. Why Oceania, South America, Europe, do not forget to check? Uzbekistan, which ended with a visa. Have you asked yourself these questions?
Africa gleaning 10,000 visas. Forgot to check the 10 thousand winners.
Why do not want to understand?
Click to expand...

34,463 visas issued after 2 years over 51k visas issued. That is all you need to know Sloner.
 
Sloner said:
This is nonsense. Conversely. Auditors should be more. How could they forget? Second chance to win.
Click to expand...

I think yours is the nonsensical one. You have no good alternative explanation why in fiscal year 2012 they only issued 34,463 DV visas, a little over 2/3 of the quota. The most obvious explanation is people missing the redraw.

Around 2007-2008 the number of visas issued was low also (in the 40 thousands), but it coincided with the beginning of the recession in USA. In 2011-2012 US economy had recovered enough while the rest of the world was still in trouble, so people began to flock to USA again. The low DV visa number issued in 2012 can't be explained simply by less people wanting to immigrate.

I can't wait until they issue the official numbers for 2013, so we can put your silly calculation away for good.
 
Okay. You useless to explain the obvious. facts 0. So I think it is not true - Remember, not checked, fell asleep. They spit on the lottery. Then fine, they did not go to the United States.:)
In 2007, too, forgot?:D
I will go. Good luck to everyone!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't wait until they issue the official numbers for 2013, so we can put your silly calculation away for good.
Click to expand...
You do not have any calculation. Just a fairy tale.
 
So Sloner can you give your projections for which countries will turn Current and in what time frames. I would be interested to know seeing as how you believe all will get a chance for interview.
 
On a separate topic, I have another Question, Why do KCC wants us to send self Adhesive return address label while sending all other forms?
 
c1984 said:
Simon, I can see that you have done your analysis at the region level. This overlooks the "shifting mix" within the region from one year to another.

Let's assume the success rate of each country remains constant from 2011 to 2014. However, you may now have more selectees from a country with a high success rate. In this case the overall success rate will increase, because the weights of those countries change; even if each individual country's success rate remains as before.

What you should be doing is to apply the 2011_country_success_ratio to 2014_country_selectee_count, and then aggregate. This will automatically take care of the "shifting mix".

I hope it makes sense.
Click to expand...

OK I have added a new sheet to show the by country figures. I've only done it for AF at the moment and I considered doing it for 2012, but then I realised that would be VERY SILLY, so I used 2011 instead. ;-)

The result is more difference than I would have expected, so you were right to suggest that. The demand has gone up by ~1000 - so that is not great news. It also reveals some other interesting things - for example the likelihood of country 7% limit being hit. The numbers suggest that Egypt is the only country (in AF region) that could possibly hit the 7% limit - the other countries will not hit that limit before the global cutoff kicks in.
 
Hi Simon..
I need your suggestion over one issue...While sending the forms to KCC, i misunderstood and send my return address as self adhesive label too i.e the answer to Question 3 in DSP 122 form..What shall i do now?
 
britsimon said:
OK I have added a new sheet to show the by country figures. I've only done it for AF at the moment and I considered doing it for 2012, but then I realised that would be VERY SILLY, so I used 2011 instead. ;-)

The result is more difference than I would have expected, so you were right to suggest that. The demand has gone up by ~1000 - so that is not great news. It also reveals some other interesting things - for example the likelihood of country 7% limit being hit. The numbers suggest that Egypt is the only country (in AF region) that could possibly hit the 7% limit - the other countries will not hit that limit before the global cutoff kicks in.
Click to expand...
How bad did the OC region look Simon?
 
britsimon said:
I'm doing the by country breakdown right now. Stand by...
Click to expand...

Hi Simon..
I need your suggestion over one issue...While sending the forms to KCC, i misunderstood and send my address i.e i.e the answer to Question 3 in DSP 122 form as self adhesive label too .. How much serious issue is this? What shall i do now?
 
pollyannaguy said:
Hi Simon..
I need your suggestion over one issue...While sending the forms to KCC, i misunderstood and send my address i.e i.e the answer to Question 3 in DSP 122 form as self adhesive label too .. How much serious issue is this? What shall i do now?
Click to expand...

Pollyannaguy - please start a new thread for your questions.
 
mijoro said:
How bad did the OC region look Simon?
Click to expand...

OK - have a look at the shared spreadsheet - the OC by country numbers are there now. Demand is around 1525 to 1562 visas based on the 2011 success rate. If you look at an earlier post of mine in this thread you will see I took a crack at the possible regional quota based on 55,000 available visas (i.e. assuming NONE went to NACARA). I am back and forth about NACARA - I read something today that made me think all 5k visas will go to NACARA - leaving only 50k - in that case my splits would be around 10% overestimated. However, that estimate came out at 1600 so losing 5k to NACARA would still leave around 1440 - about 100 less than demand. It is important to note though that the 1600 is calculated assuming the selectee split is a deliberate split that indicates what the regional splits should be. That may not be a correct assumption.

However, that makes me feel a lot more positive about OC than I have been feeling because I could not understand the 100% increase in selectees. I now see why that was necessary and a higher quota for OC region only "costs" a couple of hundred visas so that could easily be justified. That leads me to think that if any region stands a chance of going current it would be OC.

Now OC folks just need the VBs to play along with the plan....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top