July Numbers are In

[rafikbo76 2]

You have to be kidding - right???

So the theory is that the limited countries are only getting that number of selectees because the new software is detecting the fraudulent entries with such efficiency that it naturally ends up with no more than 6k last year and 5k this year. Really????

So all these big countries have a massive variation in the number of entries (which, if unlimited would affect their number of selectees), and massive cultural differences. So last year would have seen over Look - taking 2013 numbers as a guide. Nigeriahad 1.3 million entries (2 million with family) compared to 300k for Nepal (500k with family) . Nigeria (where lying is culturally acceptable) ends up with 6043 selectees in 2014 and Nepal (very low denial rates) 6082. You don't think that sounds like those entries were limited based on an artificial parameter (actually two parameters - max selectees per country, and max total family per country) as opposed to fraud detection?

OK - that is two regions. Let's look at 2015 and one region. From previous statistics we can see the Cameroon would probably have had around 160k entries this year (plus family) and Liberia would have had 80k. But both countries end up with 5000 selectees. That is EXACTLY 5000. Meanwhile Ghana which would have had over 900k entries (but has an incredibly low family ratio of 1:0.18) based on previous years only gets 3381.

This doesn't all look artificially limited to you? COME ON! It is not to do with increased fraud detection it is OBVIOUSLY an artificial limit - as further explained by the density of selectees for these countries in the early numbers (because under the Sloner theory the fraudsters would have been weeded out all over the selectee ranges.

OK Simon;

I get it, we already discussed that. Do you have any idea what possible causes of the artificial limit decrease?

The thing is they did that because they believe that 5000 is sufficient to hit the 7% country limit (they estimate), taking into account that family rate is the same. And what happened to the rest 1K, we can't just decrease such a number without a reasonable explanation.

and I am saying that may be fraud detection is ameliorated with a new or the old software, that is another story.

[Eucn 2]

I it not say

you it said !

[Britsimon 18]

OK Simon;

I get it, we already discussed that. Do you have any idea what possible causes of the artificial limit decrease?

The thing is they did that because they believe that 5000 is sufficient to hit the 7% country limit (they estimate), taking into account that family rate is the same. And what happened to the rest 1K, we can't just decrease such a number without a reasonable explanation.

and I am saying that may be fraud detection is ameliorated with a new or the old software, that is another story.

The round number for Liberia and Cameroon tells us that the fraud detection happens before the 5000 are computed as being the selectees.

The limit decrease was clearly adjusted. When I talk about the parameter I am literally talking about a parameter in the program that says:-

Have I reached family limit (5000) or selectee limit (3300ish) for the country yet? No, then select the next (fraud passed) person in line, Loop round.

This will most certainly mean that almost no countries can hit the 7% limit. The fact that they have been applying a limit is obvious. The fact that they have reduced it down this year is obvious. However, as Raevsky has said, it isn't clear how they have justified that in law, as it clearly violates the principle that everyone has an equal chance within a region AND cannot be justified as these countries being likely to hit the 7%. With poor response/success rates, these countries cannot get close to 7% - perhaps only Nepal.

[rafikbo76 2]

The round number for Liberia and Cameroon tells us that the fraud detection happens before the 5000 are computed as being the selectees.

The limit decrease was clearly adjusted. When I talk about the parameter I am literally talking about a parameter in the program that says:-

Have I reached family limit (5000) or selectee limit (3300ish) for the country yet? No, then select the next (fraud passed) person in line, Loop round.

This will most certainly mean that almost no countries can hit the 7% limit. The fact that they have been applying a limit is obvious. The fact that they have reduced it down this year is obvious. However, as Raevsky has said, it isn't clear how they have justified that in law, as it clearly violates the principle that everyone has an equal chance within a region AND cannot be justified as these countries being likely to hit the 7%. With poor response/success rates, these countries cannot get close to 7% - perhaps only Nepal.

OK Simon,

You don't have to explain the artificial limit and the parameter, as i told I get it.

I was talking about undetected fraud among the 6K selectee (reduce success rate) that may be ameliorated, and now 5K is sufficient.

Of course I could be wrong, i m just trying to give some possible explanations of the limit decrease. it could be also because in 2013, Iran with 6K selectees hit the wall (as vladdy usually says), and they decided to reduce this limit.

[SusieQQQ 11,584]

OK Simon;

I get it, we already discussed that. Do you have any idea what possible causes of the artificial limit decrease?

Well, you seem to completely ignoring the fact that we have a 15k decrease in overall numbers too, so it would seem to me to be pretty obvious that high entry countries will show an effect. And as we know from 2013 you don't need 6k entries to hit country limits, I think simon is right and it has nothing to do with the fraud software...

Also unless I misunderstand something surely if the fraud software works it will have eliminated entries before they get announced as selected... rather than adjusting the numbers afterwards...

[Britsimon 18]

Well, you seem to completely ignoring the fact that we have a 15k decrease in overall numbers too, so it would seem to me to be pretty obvious that high entry countries will show an effect. And as we know from 2013 you don't need 6k entries to hit country limits, I think simon is right and it has nothing to do with the fraud software...

Also unless I misunderstand something surely if the fraud software works it will have eliminated entries before they get announced as selected... rather than adjusting the numbers afterwards...

Actually Susie I disagree with the first part of your point. The 15k decrease wouldn't by itself cause the 5000 limit because of the overall reduction. These countries have more than enough entries to still hit 6k unless limited in the software. For example, Ghana had 900k entries in 2013 and probably had the same/similar this year. At 2% winner rate (as we see in non limited AF countries), they should have 18,000 winners - so the 3300ish they actually got is clearly limited - and any country with more than 150/200k entries could easily get 6k and above (including family members).

Regarding the second part - yes - fraud entries must be eliminated prior to the 5000 being announced - otherwise we could not see two countries with exactly 5000.

[SusieQQQ 11,584]

Actually Susie I disagree with the first part of your point. The 15k decrease wouldn't by itself cause the 5000 limit because of the overall reduction. These countries have more than enough entries to still hit 6k unless limited in the software. For example, Ghana had 900k entries in 2013 and probably had the same/similar this year. At 2% winner rate (as we see in non limited AF countries), they should have 18,000 winners - so the 3300ish they actually got is clearly limited - and any country with more than 150/200k entries could easily get 6k and above (including family members).

Regarding the second part - yes - fraud entries must be eliminated prior to the 5000 being announced - otherwise we could not see two countries with exactly 5000.

No, I think you missed my point. The point was that if the overall reduction is 15000, then obviously you are going to see reductions in country limits, and you would expect the countries with bigger numbers in absolute terms to see bigger reductions too (so one country falling from 6000 to 5000 is actually no different from another falling from 600 to 500, yes?)

So I think you would rather have to come up with a good reason for a country to NOT be reduced when the overall numbers are coming down, and to have a good reason for it not to reduced proportionally to its absolute number, than think a reduction against that background signifies anything special.

On a second read I think our disagreement is that you are comparing to entries, whereas I am implicitly assuming that in reducing from last year they are looking at last year's selection numbers as the base from which they are working.

Edited May 8, 2014 by SusieQQQ

[Veronice 1]

I think we're toast Mijoro.

I feel toasted too, so we can start a club!!!

[Britsimon 18]

No, I think you missed my point. The point was that if the overall reduction is 15000, then obviously you are going to see reductions in country limits, and you would expect the countries with bigger numbers in absolute terms to see bigger reductions too (so one country falling from 6000 to 5000 is actually no different from another falling from 600 to 500, yes?)

So I think you would rather have to come up with a good reason for a country to NOT be reduced when the overall numbers are coming down, and to have a good reason for it not to reduced proportionally to its absolute number, than think a reduction against that background signifies anything special.

On a second read I think our disagreement is that you are comparing to entries, whereas I am implicitly assuming that in reducing from last year they are looking at last year's selection numbers as the base from which they are working.

So let's look at that another way. In 2013 there were only 105/110 selected and then a 30% increase in 2014. Was the max number increased from 2013 level to the 2014 level (around 6k)? The answer is no - Iran had 6029 selectees in 2013 (6027 in 2014). So - the overall number of selectees (105 vs 140 vs 125) is not the factor that increases or decreases the artificial cap. At least not at the levels we are talking about (I think there would be a change if they took only 50k selectees for example). But once we are applying a limit and the entries are being capped, then the lowering of the result means a lower cap was in place - i.e. they changed the parameter.

[MalcomX 1]

for DV2014 it will not happen, because we are already in CN 56k, so we are sure that we don't have a special countries after that CN, in fact the max CN for the special countries is 44h (Ghana), so even if they reach their limit which probably will not happen, the future CN progression will be not affected.....

You should take into account how many special countries within a region, and the usual concentration of those countries. because they can create more holes after reaching their limit. and this will certainly affect CN

[MalcomX 1]

most probably otherwise they should take same number as last year ....

Weather it's Slonerware 2.0 or not, they have noticed that special countries are screwing up visa issuance progress more and more and they wanted to fix that. I wonder how good were their estimates regarding DV2015? Since they had 2013 data and DV2014 numbers they should be not to far from what is needed.

Should we assume that DV2014 numbers up to DV2015 max numbers are safe this year ?????

[MalcomX 1]

not really like that since comparing to DV-2013, we have more selectees from the others region then AF .... so we can compare with the DV-2013 in term of CN/max.....

Dude! You seem to be super calm despite your number. Kudos to you.

Considering that last year AF went up to 97k and they issued 51080 visas I think you should be OK. In September but OK.

[MalcomX 1]

it will not affect AF specially, it will affect all the world....., same for Nepal, if they stop them, so we will have more visa in Africa, but since Nepal don't have a special number in this case it will create holes ...

I think nigeria will hit the wall soon! So gives us more hope for the rest of AF.
I must say that this dv14 is an aweful experience ... For all of us