Wazzup with all the I-129F's filed on "Future" dates?

[brightskte 18]

I just wasn`t sure if this would be a terribly difficult task to complete, allowing past dates. But then, my fiance is the engineer, not me.

Past dates are already allowed, as I said.

The only change I propose is to limit the date upon which

the timeline could be updated for a given action to

the current date + 1 day to allow for time-zone differences.

Past dates would still be allowed, but if someone wanted

to enter a date that was the current server date +2 or greater,

that would be rejected.

The current date +1 would be reasonable because there could

be no time zone difference greater than one day.

And I acknowledged that, which was what that whole post was about. Not sure if you understood it correctly.

[christeen 966]

What about for interview dates? Like most, interview dates are scheduled a month out? I put mine into the system as soon as it was assigned...

[kizza 1]

What about for interview dates? Like most, interview dates are scheduled a month out? I put mine into the system as soon as it was assigned...

hmmm... good point. I bet you could allow future dates in some fields and not in others.

[thongd4me 69]

What about for interview dates? Like most, interview dates are scheduled a month out? I put mine into the system as soon as it was assigned...

hmmm... good point. I bet you could allow future dates in some fields and not in others.

The interview date would be, appropriately, an exception because it's assigned.

There was someone today who said dates in the past aren't allowed and I explained that they were.

We also have to understand that there are 3 kinds of dates in the past.

1) a date to initialize the timeline - can be ANY date in the past because the timeline is blank.

2) a date before the current day but naturally occurring AFTER the date entered previously in the timeline.

Example: Today is Nov. 10, 2009 and I am entering my NOA2 date for Oct. 14, 2009. My NOA1 date was Aug. 27, 2009 so there is no conflict.

3) a date before the current day but unnaturally occurring BEFORE the date entered previously in the timeline.

Example: Today is Nov. 10, 2009 and I am entering my NOA2 date as May 31, 2009; because my NOA1 date was Aug. 27 there IS a conflict.

To test the database, I just entered my "packet3 sent" date as January 1, 2009, while my "packet3 received" date in the database was Oct. 31, 2009.

The database allowed me to do that - even though January 1, 2009 is a date that exists, it makes no sense

because I would be pre-dating my sending of packet3 relative to the previous step (receipt of packet3).

Naturally I reversed that error because it was intentional.

I'm not saying everybody is out to misinform or not play honestly because many errors can simply be typos.

The kinds of controls I am proposing are to eliminate the possibility of illogical entries while at the same time

giving enough room where that is required (in the case of interview dates).

Also, if you are planning to do a medical exam on a certain date, you should be able to put that date in the future, within reason.

I propose to have a valid date for a notice of action or something that is NOT in your control,

to have a limit being any date in the past (as long as it is not prior to the previous step),

also including the current day and the current day +1 (tomorrow's date).

It may also be conceivable that you send packet3 out before the packet3 letter arrives

(I'm not sure if that's possible but it may be). The database should allow for that if necessary.

Nevertheless, the above test that I made (having packet3 sent out many months before I even sent my I-129F petition)

makes no sense at all and should not be allowed. Since I was able to do that there should be some rules/controls to prevent that kind of thing.

[thongd4me 69]

Look at this timeline:

What drugs are these guys taking?

Talk about being able to see the future, Man-Oh-Man-Oh-Shevitz!

I-129F Sent : 2009-11-30

I-129F NOA1 : 2009-12-11

Caramba, what were they thinking?

[thongd4me 69]

Note to Mods:

Spock's vulcan side says "illogical!"

Spock's human side says "get the firing squad!"

I say, "let's just talk about this."

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showuser=2316

This member has a long, impressive Visa Journey in the timeline.

Only one thing is missing, the I-129F sent date.

That throws many of the built-in statistical fields into disarray

where no value for his record appears there when it should.

A good upgrade would NOT allow someone to post a timeline date

unless all previous dates (with the exception of RFE dates) are filled in.

I know when some people's cases go so fast they skip a few.

I could have skipped the NFE and Consulate received dates

but I got them via DHL tracking. Not everybody does DHL tracking,

but if they don't they should still be required to put a date in those

fields before putting in the dates for packet3, 4, and visa related dates.

I feel it's OK to put approximate date values that are not known exactly,

because the integrity of the database is more important than getting an exact date.

Dates in the future that aren't known should not be allowed, but dates that

have had to be achieved before a current entry should not be left out.

Otherwise there are holes in the database that make for a poorer statistical model.

Just my two cents.

[thongd4me 69]

Back to the FUTURE?

Chrystal ball, chrystal ball, who is the fastest one of all?

Either it's mailed or not mailed.

ALL NEW on the WAZZUP thread -

VJ Members Who Predict Visas Far Into Next Year

- the answer to the Jeopardy question: "What do China, Chile and Singapore have in common?"

Your friends want to know, wazzup with that?