• 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 :)

TonyJP said:
Thanks for your thoughts, guys. To me, it seems strange that they'd base the 2014 selectee numbers on the 2012 lottery, given that they must have known that year's lottery was flawed. I guess, though, that because when the 2014 selectees were drawn, 2013 was still in progress so 2012 was the most recent completed lottery they had to base their projections on. Regardless, you'd think they'd still take into account the fact that there were problems with the 2012 lottery and keep that in mind when calculating how many selectees they'd need for 2014. Why unnecessarily disappoint thousands of superfluous selectees? Also, as in previous years, they could've always done a second-chance October draw if they needed to. I find this year's numbers confusing, and their slow progress frustrating, and it's hard to plan your life when KCC keeps its cards so close to its chest.
Click to expand...

My hypothesis assumes that the decision wasn't a human/intelligent one, but rather a rule or procedure was laid down that said to calculate the selectee count based on the success rate of the most recent completed lottery - which would have been 2012. With these things everything they do is based on a law/rule or procedure - it makes perfect sense that they would follow that procedure because bureaucrats would rather do what the procedure says than make a "smart" decision that they might later be blamed for.
 
I agree with Tony. Assuming that they based this year's selection on known failure which was 2012 anyone with half a brain would know that there's too many selectees and they could simply announce re-draw later this year if needed (instead they went for whole 140k announcement). I think there has to be an aditional factor there.
 
franko said:
I agree with Tony. Assuming that they based this year's selection on known failure which was 2012 anyone with half a brain would know that there's too many selectees and they could simply announce re-draw later this year if needed (instead they went for whole 140k announcement). I think there has to be an aditional factor there.
Click to expand...

Any ideas what the additional factor could be? I can't think of anything that I can't shoot down.

When we first heard the 125k and then the 140k numbers we kept relying on the statement in the letter/press releases that they wanted to be sure they hit the global quota. Well others years such as 2010, 2011 and 2013 came very close to hitting the limits anyway - so do we really think someone said "we have been short by 5% to 7% each year, so let's hit it with a 30% increase in selectees". I think that is more brainless than what I am suggesting.

Then there is the new software reasoning. Again, anyone with half a brain (sorry Sloner) could figure out that the software will not affect the return rates or the success rates of the selectees once informed. So that doesn't fly.

Expectation of a massive increase in rejections. Well no it can't be that, because we know that one or two countries have varied their policy on education minimum standard (potentially the biggest disqualifying factor) and to affect the global numbers by 30% we would have had to see something like that on a lot of countries and we would already be seeing that in 2014 CEAC data (which we are not). The latter point also proves there is nothing else knocking people out.

The impending immigration law change that meant that the lottery might have bee stopped - nah. Those wheels turn slowly and a 30% increase would not "solve" the problem presented.

So what else? What other reasons could there be?

In IT Franko (as you know) if you suddenly see something unexpected from the production system the FIRST question you start asking is what changed recently - what other (seemingly unrelated) things have happened. I have lost count of the number of times that the reason for a production problem was something that no one at first thought was connected. This is that scenario.
 
britsimon said:
Any ideas what the additional factor could be? I can't think of anything that I can't shoot down.

When we first heard the 125k and then the 140k numbers we kept relying on the statement in the letter/press releases that they wanted to be sure they hit the global quota. Well others years such as 2010, 2011 and 2013 came very close to hitting the limits anyway - so do we really think someone said "we have been short by 5% to 7% each year, so let's hit it with a 30% increase in selectees". I think that is more brainless than what I am suggesting.

Then there is the new software reasoning. Again, anyone with half a brain (sorry Sloner) could figure out that the software will not affect the return rates or the success rates of the selectees once informed. So that doesn't fly.

Expectation of a massive increase in rejections. Well no it can't be that, because we know that one or two countries have varied their policy on education minimum standard (potentially the biggest disqualifying factor) and to affect the global numbers by 30% we would have had to see something like that on a lot of countries and we would already be seeing that in 2014 CEAC data (which we are not). The latter point also proves there is nothing else knocking people out.

The impending immigration law change that meant that the lottery might have bee stopped - nah. Those wheels turn slowly and a 30% increase would not "solve" the problem presented.

So what else? What other reasons could there be?

In IT Franko (as you know) if you suddenly see something unexpected from the production system the FIRST question you start asking is what changed recently - what other (seemingly unrelated) things have happened. I have lost count of the number of times that the reason for a production problem was something that no one at first thought was connected. This is that scenario.
Click to expand...



I know what you mean Simon :) Few years back we spent 1.5 million dollars on a issue which was caused by two supposedly unrelated factors and only after going back to first principles and stripping the whole process down to the last thread we found the root cause.

I guess I'm just trying to justify the high number of selected and still believe that government agencies can make sound decisions based on true data :)

Anyways. I'm going to see The Book of Mormon in few hours, have great steak after and see some friends. DV2014 off for the day :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Simon
You said there is an abnormality in commun between dv12 and 14.
We all agree
But now let me say what about the hidden numbers in the other years except 12
May be they always drew about 140k in the previous year but since there were lot of hidden #
Than since they don't publish the hidden (not included officialy) so the stats released are kind of corrupted
Which will make 2014dv actualy normal!!!
Hope you inderstand my question.
What do you think?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
franko said:
I know what you mean Simon :) Few years back we spent 1.5 million dollars on a issue which was caused by two supposedly unrelated factors and only after going back to first principles and stripping the whole process down to the last thread we found the root cause.

I guess I'm just trying to justify the high number of selected and still believe that government agencies can make sound decisions based on true data :)

Anyways. I'm going to see The Book of Mormon in few hours, have great steak after and see some friends. DV2014 off for the day :)
Click to expand...

In a sense it was "true data". At the time they made the decision they would have only just have got the 2012 results a couple of months earlier. 2013 was in progress but to soon to tell how it was doing. The only thing they would have known is that DV2012 was short by about 30%. And guess what percentage they increased the selectees for 2014 by - yep - around 30%. In the absence of anything else that might explain it - I'm going with the one possible we have (that also happens to tie up mathematically).
 
vladek15425 said:
Simon
You said there is an abnormality in commun between dv12 and 14.
We all agree
But now let me say what about the hidden numbers in the other years except 12
May be they always drew about 140k in the previous year but since there were lot of hidden #
Than since they don't publish the hidden (not included officialy) so the stats released are kind of corrupted
Which will make 2014dv actualy normal!!!
Hope you inderstand my question.
What do you think?
Click to expand...

The hidden numbers are way smaller than that. I 2013 the initial number was about 105k and the second selection was about 5k more.

I don't think DV2014 is normal at all and with the calculations we have done that are being supported by the results in CEAC we know that 2014 has way too many selectees. That will be the first time in years that they have had that happen - possibly ever if all regions get cutoff. That cannot be considered normal.
 
I know what I about to said is crazy and I did mentioned it before in this forum and I think most of the folks read it do not even want to bother to shoot me down with such as crazy thinking. I think DV14 is going to have at least 65k visa available, yes 65k and not 55k or 50k. Why? Based on the law it should be only 50k - 55k annual limit. So where this additional 10k-15k visa come from? What I suspect is that, they will take 15k unused visa in DV12 and put it into DV14. The law stated that we cannot use more than 50k-55k annual limit per year but it didn't mentioned that you cannot carriage forward the unused visa. Moreover, in DV12 is their faults in the first place. Is a win-win approach if they can fulfilled the 65k in DV14, they get additional 15k visa fees and more selectees will get their visas. But until now, the progress is suggesting the opposite. I hope this crazy crazy ideas come true then we will see all regions going current in DV14.
 
Then there is the new software reasoning. Again, anyone with half a brain (sorry Sloner) could figure out that the software will not affect the return rates or the success rates of the selectees once informed. So that doesn't fly.
Click to expand...
nonsense. Ukraina- winners 6400, visa 1600. The remaining 2000 fraudulent entries.
Simon, you fill out an application DV to customers?:)
In a sense it was "true data". At the time they made the decision they would have only just have got the 2012 results a couple of months earlier. 2013 was in progress but to soon to tell how it was doing. The only thing they would have known is that DV2012 was short by about 30%. And guess what percentage they increased the selectees for 2014 by - yep - around 30%. In the absence of anything else that might explain it - I'm going with the one possible we have (that also happens to tie up mathematically).
Click to expand...
where 30% were lost in 2012? Needless to say, they have suddenly lost its memory. It looks silly.
 
kayend said:
I know what I about to said is crazy and I did mentioned it before in this forum and I think most of the folks read it do not even want to bother to shoot me down with such as crazy thinking. I think DV14 is going to have at least 65k visa available, yes 65k and not 55k or 50k. Why? Based on the law it should be only 50k - 55k annual limit. So where this additional 10k-15k visa come from? What I suspect is that, they will take 15k unused visa in DV12 and put it into DV14. The law stated that we cannot use more than 50k-55k annual limit per year but it didn't mentioned that you cannot carriage forward the unused visa. Moreover, in DV12 is their faults in the first place. Is a win-win approach if they can fulfilled the 65k in DV14, they get additional 15k visa fees and more selectees will get their visas. But until now, the progress is suggesting the opposite. I hope this crazy crazy ideas come true then we will see all regions going current in DV14.
Click to expand...

U did say it before and this theory is beating far away sloner's one haha
I really don't think that there any chance for it to happen sory kayend:(
But sounds awesome though :)
 
I know what I about to said is crazy and I did mentioned it before in this forum and I think most of the folks read it do not even want to bother to shoot me down with such as crazy thinking. I think DV14 is going to have at least 65k visa available, yes 65k and not 55k or 50k. Why? Based on the law it should be only 50k - 55k annual limit. So where this additional 10k-15k visa come from? What I suspect is that, they will take 15k unused visa in DV12 and put it into DV14. The law stated that we cannot use more than 50k-55k annual limit per year but it didn't mentioned that you cannot carriage forward the unused visa. Moreover, in DV12 is their faults in the first place. Is a win-win approach if they can fulfilled the 65k in DV14, they get additional 15k visa fees and more selectees will get their visas. But until now, the progress is suggesting the opposite. I hope this crazy crazy ideas come true then we will see all regions going current in DV14.
Click to expand...

can be. Fantastic version, as a gift from Santa Claus.:)
 
kayend said:
I know what I about to said is crazy and I did mentioned it before in this forum and I think most of the folks read it do not even want to bother to shoot me down with such as crazy thinking. I think DV14 is going to have at least 65k visa available, yes 65k and not 55k or 50k. Why? Based on the law it should be only 50k - 55k annual limit. So where this additional 10k-15k visa come from? What I suspect is that, they will take 15k unused visa in DV12 and put it into DV14. The law stated that we cannot use more than 50k-55k annual limit per year but it didn't mentioned that you cannot carriage forward the unused visa. Moreover, in DV12 is their faults in the first place. Is a win-win approach if they can fulfilled the 65k in DV14, they get additional 15k visa fees and more selectees will get their visas. But until now, the progress is suggesting the opposite. I hope this crazy crazy ideas come true then we will see all regions going current in DV14.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm - I don't think so - because there are laws that describe how the visas are made available and the available visas have already been published.
 
britsimon said:
Hmmmm - I don't think so - because there are laws that describe how the visas are made available and the available visas have already been published.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know it really sound crazy but the question is why when we get our 1st NL, it mentioned 125k selectees? When they issued the 1st NL the selection should have done. Usually 110k selectees is good enough to almost hit the global quota. Why additional 15k (125k - 110k) and then it increased to 30k (140k - 110k)? And in DV12, it has 15k visa unused. So mathematically it does tally. Of course we do not rule out the software issue that picked DV12 as the benchmark for DV14. But I rather hope my crazy theory is right. :)
 
kayend said:
Yes, I know it really sound crazy but the question is why when we get our 1st NL, it mentioned 125k selectees? When they issued the 1st NL the selection should have done. Usually 110k selectees is good enough to almost hit the global quota. Why additional 15k (125k - 110k) and then it increased to 30k (140k - 110k)? And in DV12, it has 15k visa unused. So mathematically it does tally. Of course we do not rule out the software issue that picked DV12 as the benchmark for DV14. But I rather hope my crazy theory is right. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree the math tallies, but you are suggesting the unused visas are rolled over year to year and in this case for at least 2 years - and in that case Iran would not have bee cutoff in the last month of DV2013.
 
britsimon said:
Yeah I agree the math tallies, but you are suggesting the unused visas are rolled over year to year and in this case for at least 2 years - and in that case Iran would not have bee cutoff in the last month of DV2013.
Click to expand...

Well, you get a valid point to kill that theory.
 
Simon, You have not answered my question?:confused: Your registration was in February 2013, and suddenly you won the DV14. It's a strange coincidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top