• 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.

Sloner axiom or Britsimon theory.... which due you think will be right at last.....

I don't mean to upset you Sloner. It is clear that you have taken time to analyze what is going on and you have put a lot of effort into that and I respect your effort. However, I believe you are badly mistaken about the likely success rate in AF region (based on 2012) and for that reason alone I have to relegate you to the 2nd division (along with myself since I haven't put the effort in that you and Raevsky have).
Click to expand...
Think what you want. Just do not deny the facts.
 
britsimon said:
actually it is based on the selectee ratio and increase. If you check the 2013 selectees versus the 2014 selectees af got a 19% increase in selectees and other regions all had much larger percentage increases. Eu got 40% more, as 45% more, sa and oc around 100% increases. Globally there was around 30% increase so i am basing my assumption on the relative decrease that af region have had in the overall split of selectees between the regions.
Click to expand...

ok
 
britsimon said:
Do you think my assumption about the selectee split is valid Rafikbo?
Click to expand...

I didn't study very well this point, but it seems right. another point I just notice is about 2012 issued visa, AF and EU received 13,582 and 13,093 resp. Knowing the succes rate for both region, AF shold have more selectees.
 
rafikbo76 said:
I didn't study very well this point, but it seems right. another point I just notice is about 2012 issued visa, AF and EU received 13,582 and 13,093 resp. Knowing the succes rate for both region, AF shold have more selectees.
Click to expand...

Yes 2012 was a strange year. Every region received less visas than expected but AF region was particularly badly affected. It is that that is the crux of why Sloner believes what he does - and that is the mistake I think he has made.
 
Have I ever done that?
Click to expand...
Yes. You continue to justify Raevsky.
Africa currently received fewer visas than Europe.
Do you deny that KCC is able to sift applications at the stage of the first selection.
You ignore the history of the lottery.

You have not presented any reason to increase winnings. Therefore, your words are just words.
 
Yes 2012 was a strange year. Every region received less visas than expected but AF region was particularly badly affected. It is that that is the crux of why Sloner believes what he does - and that is the mistake I think he has made.
Click to expand...
What Africa differs from other countries in 2012?
 
Sloner said:
Yes. You continue to justify Raevsky.
Africa currently received fewer visas than Europe.
Do you deny that KCC is able to sift applications at the stage of the first selection.
You ignore the history of the lottery.

You have not presented any reason to increase winnings. Therefore, your words are just words.
Click to expand...

No Sloner - you said I deny facts - again - tell me where I have done that?
 
i have questions to both theories

if they increase numb.of winners for 2014 at 40% because they couldn't fill global visa quota for 2012 at about same 40% , why they didn't increase number of winners according to results of regions?
Africa got less 70% visa in 2012 , but was increased at just 20%, while EU and ASIA having less shortage of visa in 2012 were increased twice more in percentage.
Simon , do you have normal logic explanation of that issue?

Sloner said , that number of winners was increased because due to new software they need to have 140K winners to be able to give them 50K visas .
Ok where is its evidences in passed months of visa issuance?
4 months passed , what did that new software ? please compare for example january of 2103 and 2014 and point me out , how that so-called new software, reduced number of issued visas at 40%?
 
rocky72 said:
i have questions to both theories

if they increase numb.of winners for 2014 at 40% because they couldn't fill global visa quota for 2012 at about same 40% , why they didn't increase number of winners according to results of regions?
Africa got less 70% visa in 2012 , but was increased at just 20%, while EU and ASIA having less shortage of visa in 2012 were increased twice more in percentage.
Simon , do you have normal logic explanation of that issue?
Click to expand...

I think there are a couple of different formulas and procedures at work here.

The first step is to decide the number of selectees. I think that is a simple calculation looking at how things went in the most recent completed year. I think they take the selectee count for the year and look at how many visas that yielded. The first announced selectee count was 100k but since there was a shortfall there would have been a 2nd draw (reveal). With the second reveal (additional winners) I think the 2012 selectee count was between 105 and 110 (roughly similar to every other year for the last few years).

Then I think they look at the results of the most recent completed year for visas issued. Their target is nominally 50k and in 2012 they only gave away 35k visas - a 15k or 30% shortfall. They then increased the 105/110k figure (or the 2013 number of 105k) by that 30% and hey presto we have 140k selectees.

We know the second step is to decide the regional quotas. This is calculated based on a formula that some have published and tried to replicate (does anyone have a link for that handy?). I believe they apply that formula to the selectee number that was decided in step 1. We know from 2012 announcd selectees that a simple formula is being applied to a large number because they divided the original 100k selectees into round number allocations per region - very deliberate.

So - in short, I think the 140k is a mistake - an unprecedented screw up that is related to the other unprecedented screw up - 2012. When two things go wrong like that, often the second is based on the first because no one ever thought the first thing could go wrong so badly...
 
britsimon said:
So - in short, I think the 140k is a mistake
Click to expand...
it is not necessary that KKC considers it as mistake ,
as we know ,that year KKC chief officer was replaced , and new boss might have ignored everything and just followed to instructions which says , that to determine number of future selecties one should emanate from results of last finished DV program. (which was 2012)
Well , it is clear and sounds very logical that wrong estimations was reason of selecting too many people in 2014. ,

But every year they estimate number of selecties for proper visa issuance , right ?(for past years the ratio was 2 selecties = 1 visa ) i think they must did same procedure also seperate with regions , because 2selecties =1 visa is thrue as total global ratio but not for regions .
for year 2007-2011 (6 years) ratio selectie/visa was
AS-1,72
EU-1,80
AF- 2,25
please check , there is no year among past 6 years when EU or Asia ratio winner/visa is 2 or more then 2.
And there are no year where african ratio of winner/visa 2 or less then 2 .
That all means that KKC did the same estimation with regions to predict correct number of winners to cover the quota given to the region.

Lets calculate now
In 2012 AF had 50K winners who got 13582 visas.
in all near years AF had around 24K visas , so .. 13582/24000(for example) = 56,6% . 50K winners was able to get just 56,6% of visas for Africa.
then , very simple calculations
50000(winners) /56,6% who got visa * 100%(must fill reg. quota)= 88300. for DV2014 they would select 88300 african winners , if they blindly followed to instructions

so the picture is
for africa - 88K but we have 62K
for eu - they need - 38,7K we have 46,6K
for asia - 21K but we have 23,3
 
rocky72 said:
it is not necessary that KKC considers it as mistake ,
as we know ,that year KKC chief officer was replaced , and new boss might have ignored everything and just followed to instructions which says , that to determine number of future selecties one should emanate from results of last finished DV program. (which was 2012)
Well , it is clear and sounds very logical that wrong estimations was reason of selecting too many people in 2014. ,

But every year they estimate number of selecties for proper visa issuance , right ?(for past years the ratio was 2 selecties = 1 visa ) i think they must did same procedure also seperate with regions , because 2selecties =1 visa is thrue as total global ratio but not for regions .
for year 2007-2011 (6 years) ratio selectie/visa was
AS-1,72
EU-1,80
AF- 2,25
please check , there is no year among past 6 years when EU or Asia ratio winner/visa is 2 or more then 2.
And there are no year where african ratio of winner/visa 2 or less then 2 .
That all means that KKC did the same estimation with regions to predict correct number of winners to cover the quota given to the region.

Lets calculate now
In 2012 AF had 50K winners who got 13582 visas.
in all near years AF had around 24K visas , so .. 13582/24000(for example) = 56,6% . 50K winners was able to get just 56,6% of visas for Africa.
then , very simple calculations
50000(winners) /56,6% who got visa * 100%(must fill reg. quota)= 88300. for DV2014 they would select 88300 african winners , if they blindly followed to instructions

so the picture is
for africa - 88K but we have 62K
for eu - they need - 38,7K we have 46,6K
for asia - 21K but we have 23,3
Click to expand...

So you are proving that it is NOT calculated by region - correct? If so - I agree.
 
In another way may be they have calculated for whole world and than for the regions...
rocky72 said:
it is not necessary that KKC considers it as mistake ,
as we know ,that year KKC chief officer was replaced , and new boss might have ignored everything and just followed to instructions which says , that to determine number of future selecties one should emanate from results of last finished DV program. (which was 2012)
Well , it is clear and sounds very logical that wrong estimations was reason of selecting too many people in 2014. ,

But every year they estimate number of selecties for proper visa issuance , right ?(for past years the ratio was 2 selecties = 1 visa ) i think they must did same procedure also seperate with regions , because 2selecties =1 visa is thrue as total global ratio but not for regions .
for year 2007-2011 (6 years) ratio selectie/visa was
AS-1,72
EU-1,80
AF- 2,25
please check , there is no year among past 6 years when EU or Asia ratio winner/visa is 2 or more then 2.
And there are no year where african ratio of winner/visa 2 or less then 2 .
That all means that KKC did the same estimation with regions to predict correct number of winners to cover the quota given to the region.

Lets calculate now
In 2012 AF had 50K winners who got 13582 visas.
in all near years AF had around 24K visas , so .. 13582/24000(for example) = 56,6% . 50K winners was able to get just 56,6% of visas for Africa.
then , very simple calculations
50000(winners) /56,6% who got visa * 100%(must fill reg. quota)= 88300. for DV2014 they would select 88300 african winners , if they blindly followed to instructions

so the picture is
for africa - 88K but we have 62K
for eu - they need - 38,7K we have 46,6K
for asia - 21K but we have 23,3
Click to expand...
 
rocky72 said:
it is not necessary that KKC considers it as mistake ,
as we know ,that year KKC chief officer was replaced , and new boss might have ignored everything and just followed to instructions which says , that to determine number of future selecties one should emanate from results of last finished DV program. (which was 2012)
Well , it is clear and sounds very logical that wrong estimations was reason of selecting too many people in 2014. ,

But every year they estimate number of selecties for proper visa issuance , right ?(for past years the ratio was 2 selecties = 1 visa ) i think they must did same procedure also seperate with regions , because 2selecties =1 visa is thrue as total global ratio but not for regions .
for year 2007-2011 (6 years) ratio selectie/visa was
AS-1,72
EU-1,80
AF- 2,25
please check , there is no year among past 6 years when EU or Asia ratio winner/visa is 2 or more then 2.
And there are no year where african ratio of winner/visa 2 or less then 2 .
That all means that KKC did the same estimation with regions to predict correct number of winners to cover the quota given to the region.

Lets calculate now
In 2012 AF had 50K winners who got 13582 visas.
in all near years AF had around 24K visas , so .. 13582/24000(for example) = 56,6% . 50K winners was able to get just 56,6% of visas for Africa.
then , very simple calculations
50000(winners) /56,6% who got visa * 100%(must fill reg. quota)= 88300. for DV2014 they would select 88300 african winners , if they blindly followed to instructions

so the picture is
for africa - 88K but we have 62K
for eu - they need - 38,7K we have 46,6K
for asia - 21K but we have 23,3
Click to expand...
I believe much lower percentage of African winners compared to other winners in DV-12 who knew about the redraw was caused by lower technology levels. The ease with what other winners were able to geta latest events was not available in Africa. However, the technology is currently catching up in Afrika. Every year situation changes. So, if the same happened today, Africa would get more visas than in 2012. So I would think they estimate that type of recent technological advances and that is why increase for Africa is lower than for other regions

At the se time what really puzzles me a lot is OC and SA regions. They have the largest overweight. But they also have high refusal rates in Fiji and in Cuba. So, probably they were afraid of the same refusal rates in other countries of those regions because of new security procedures or so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
raevsky what is your view about asia????????? we many here are waiting about your view about asia...
raevsky said:
I believe much lower percentage of African winners compared to other winners in DV-12 who knew about the redraw was caused by lower technology levels. The ease with what other winners were able to geta latest events was not available in Africa. However, the technology is currently catching up in Afrika. Every year situation changes. So, if the same happened today, Africa would get more visas than in 2012. So I would think they estimate that type of recent technological advances and that is why increase for Africa is lower than for other regions

At the se time what really puzzles me a lot is OC and SA regions. They have the largest overweight. But they also have high refusal rates in Fiji and in Cuba. So, probably they were afraid of the same refusal rates in other countries of those regions because of new security procedures or so.
Click to expand...
 
britsimon said:
I think there are a couple of different formulas and procedures at work here.

The first step is to decide the number of selectees. I think that is a simple calculation looking at how things went in the most recent completed year. I think they take the selectee count for the year and look at how many visas that yielded. The first announced selectee count was 100k but since there was a shortfall there would have been a 2nd draw (reveal). With the second reveal (additional winners) I think the 2012 selectee count was between 105 and 110 (roughly similar to every other year for the last few years).

Then I think they look at the results of the most recent completed year for visas issued. Their target is nominally 50k and in 2012 they only gave away 35k visas - a 15k or 30% shortfall. They then increased the 105/110k figure (or the 2013 number of 105k) by that 30% and hey presto we have 140k selectees.

We know the second step is to decide the regional quotas. This is calculated based on a formula that some have published and tried to replicate (does anyone have a link for that handy?). I believe they apply that formula to the selectee number that was decided in step 1. We know from 2012 announcd selectees that a simple formula is being applied to a large number because they divided the original 100k selectees into round number allocations per region - very deliberate.

So - in short, I think the 140k is a mistake - an unprecedented screw up that is related to the other unprecedented screw up - 2012. When two things go wrong like that, often the second is based on the first because no one ever thought the first thing could go wrong so badly...
Click to expand...

Dear Simon,

Please allow me not to agree with you. You state that for 2012, the scenario was: In May 2012, after they found the mistake, they picked appr. 105 000 selectees. Then in October 2012 (???), they picked only 5 000 selectees more, because they saw that the return rate for sending the documents to KCC is very low. And with that additional selectees they gave at the end of fiscal year September 2012 only 34 463 vizas, instead of normal 50 000 - 55 000. In October 2011, they already knew that the return rate is so low, because of as you said a lot of people did not check twice, after the first false results. Then, why did they pick only 5 000 more? If they'd already known that most of the people did not check more. Why didn't they pick, lets say 20 000, as an insuranse? I can not accept that they can not make these calculations.
 
denitsa_zz said:
Dear Simon,

Please allow me not to agree with you. You state that for 2012, the scenario was: In May 2012, after they found the mistake, they picked appr. 105 000 selectees. Then in October 2012 (???), they picked only 5 000 selectees more, because they saw that the return rate for sending the documents to KCC is very low. And with that additional selectees they gave at the end of fiscal year September 2012 only 34 463 vizas, instead of normal 50 000 - 55 000. In October 2011, they already knew that the return rate is so low, because of as you said a lot of people did not check twice, after the first false results. Then, why did they pick only 5 000 more? If they'd already known that most of the people did not check more. Why didn't they pick, lets say 20 000, as an insuranse? I can not accept that they can not make these calculations.
Click to expand...


You are making points about why they couldn't have invited more selectees in 2012. Perhaps they could have done that, but they didn't - but my post was not making that case one way or another. My point is that the numbers from 2012 (which was obviously not a normal year) were used to calculate the 2014 selectee numbers globally - the 140k. I think THAT is a mistake - although only time will tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top