I-129f June 2017 filers (merged)

[John & Rose 7,239]

1 minute ago, DandY said:

I was more optimistic than you! We thought early Sept NOA2, then 70 days after that to get here, so we would probably be together for a major event we wanted to attend the weekend before Thanksgiving. I was not AT ALL concerned with Christmas--after reviewing the data for the last 3 years, Christmas was a "no brainer"--no chance that was at risk. HA! What a fool I was!

The best laid schemes of mice and men often go awry...

[Chicagoseal 373]

2 hours ago, John & Rose said:

\rant

 

It is now official.  We are at the 4 month point in our wait.  The original estimate was a Sept 6 NOA2. Today it is Nov 6.  That is exactly a two month delay in 4 months.  If the numbers stay true we should anticipate the NOA 2 around Nov 21.  If it goes later it will be early December due to Thanksgiving.  So I anticipate that we will all be comfortably in the 180 day range within a month and who knows where it goes from there.

 

/rant

How does the lack of updating by people who stop visiting VJ affect the timelines? I know the timelines tend to be accurate for the most part, but was wondering how the results may be skewed.

[John & Rose 7,239]

Just now, Chicagoseal said:

How does the lack of updating by people who stop visiting VJ affect the timelines? I know the timelines tend to be accurate for the most part, but was wondering how the results may be skewed.

The timelines here are just as accurate as we can get.  VJ claims to be about 8% of all petitioners so it is a relatively small representation as is.  Then you have the "Hola an Amigo" problem here.  People that don't update and people who make mistakes.  Those certainly skew the results but unfortunately, this is the best we can do.  Lots of people here run the numbers and they are interesting and telling.  That still doesn't account for the fact that USCIS doesn't work in chronological order.  It is all a ####### shoot but this is the location of our best estimate.

 

PS:  Hola and Amigo are a couple who filled out their NOA2 date as 2017 instead of 2016.  They have been at the top of Igor's list for a year.  They are no longer active and the moderators never corrected the date.  October 14 is "hola and amigo" day.  The last day they will spend as #1 in Igor's list!!!

[DandY 134]

2 minutes ago, Chicagoseal said:

 

How does the lack of updating by people who stop visiting VJ affect the timelines? I know the timelines tend to be accurate for the most part, but was wondering how the results may be skewed.

I don't think anyone understands the algorithm VJ uses, but from my analysis I believe it to be a VERY simple averaging of timelines rolling across a rolling multiple month averaging of reported adjudication periods. If I am correct, there is no negative impact from people not updating, there is just less data to go by and less data = less accurate.

 

For those interested in my opinions (precious few I'm sure :P) on the math and have too much time on their hands, read on.

 

It seems like the VJ algorithm is a rolling average og somewhere between 3 and 5 months from what I can tell in seat of the pants analysis. This explains why it did not react to a dramatic shift in timelines and it has been VERY slow to update our timelines constantly pushing them out every week as we were still being "polluted" by pre-April event timelines which resulted in overly optimistic predictions. I believe VJ predictions would have had the same problem when the unusual happened in the DACA slowdown. 

 

I created an algorithm that understands a dramatic shift and historical trends. So, the way mine works is like this:

1) The base is similar to what I think VJ's is (simple rolling average)--I use a 3 month period.

 

2) A rolling 1 year timeline to determine typical trends (i.e. "historically, how much longer or shorter as a percentage is a given month compared to the previous month" ). It then factors this historical trend information into the prediction based upon the predicted average from step 1.

 

3) It then looks at the rolling data for a dramatic shift (did a sample month shift 300% greater than was predicted by the calculations from step 1 and 2 above--e.g. if June is typically 10% longer than May, but all of a sudden June is 30% longer--the algorithm considers this a dramatic shift). 

 

4) If a dramatic shift occurs it attempt to determine "T0" (the date the shift occurs)--it then throws out all data it uses for the averaging before the shift date. And only averages with post T0 data but still applies the trend information from step 2.

 

My algorithm has the following deficiencies:

1) It does not really "understand" different types of dramatic events. It assumes they all behave the same way and are largely able to be correlated to historical trends.

2) Cannot predict a date AT ALL once a shift is detected until there is data available (for instance, if the algorithm predicts March filers should wait 90 days, but we get to 118 days, it pukes and says "oh #######, all bets are off, the world changed and there is no data to base a prediction on". It needs to wait for those March filers to get adjudicated before it can start predicting again.

3) After a dramatic shift, it has a very small data set when it starts predicting again, so it will fluctuate too much for a bit once it starts predicting again. 

 

For over a month, my algorithm has been predicting early June filers to be at an average of 152 days. I have been pretty confident in this calculation +/- a few days for awhile now because I thought the logic was mostly sound and unscientifically it "felt" right. However, I consider it now in question because it seems that the historical trends do not apply. If they did, we we be in the period of adjudication dates starting to get a little quicker. They are not. The trend line is still going up. I likely need to adjust the algorithm to additionally recognize when the historical trend lines are no longer valid. Problem is, if I do it on a simple prediction based upon the slope of the current timeline, it has just as much chance of being right, or being too pessimistic. For now, I'm thinking of possibly recognizing the event that the historical timeline is incorrect, then applying a weighting between the slope of the actual timeline and the historical timeline--but it is unlikely that will be any more accurate.

 

Stay strong my brothers and sisters!

[John & Rose 7,239]

1 minute ago, DandY said:

I don't think anyone understands the algorithm VJ uses, but from my analysis I believe it to be a VERY simple averaging of timelines rolling across a rolling multiple month averaging of reported adjudication periods. If I am correct, there is no negative impact from people not updating, there is just less data to go by and less data = less accurate.

 

For those interested in my opinions (precious few I'm sure :P) on the math and have too much time on their hands, read on.

 

It seems like the VJ algorithm is a rolling average og somewhere between 3 and 5 months from what I can tell in seat of the pants analysis. This explains why it did not react to a dramatic shift in timelines and it has been VERY slow to update our timelines constantly pushing them out every week as we were still being "polluted" by pre-April event timelines which resulted in overly optimistic predictions. I believe VJ predictions would have had the same problem when the unusual happened in the DACA slowdown. 

 

I created an algorithm that understands a dramatic shift and historical trends. So, the way mine works is like this:

1) The base is similar to what I think VJ's is (simple rolling average)--I use a 3 month period.

 

2) A rolling 1 year timeline to determine typical trends (i.e. "historically, how much longer or shorter as a percentage is a given month compared to the previous month" ). It then factors this historical trend information into the prediction based upon the predicted average from step 1.

 

3) It then looks at the rolling data for a dramatic shift (did a sample month shift 300% greater than was predicted by the calculations from step 1 and 2 above--e.g. if June is typically 10% longer than May, but all of a sudden June is 30% longer--the algorithm considers this a dramatic shift). 

 

4) If a dramatic shift occurs it attempt to determine "T0" (the date the shift occurs)--it then throws out all data it uses for the averaging before the shift date. And only averages with post T0 data but still applies the trend information from step 2.

 

My algorithm has the following deficiencies:

1) It does not really "understand" different types of dramatic events. It assumes they all behave the same way and are largely able to be correlated to historical trends.

2) Cannot predict a date AT ALL once a shift is detected until there is data available (for instance, if the algorithm predicts March filers should wait 90 days, but we get to 118 days, it pukes and says "oh #######, all bets are off, the world changed and there is no data to base a prediction on". It needs to wait for those March filers to get adjudicated before it can start predicting again.

3) After a dramatic shift, it has a very small data set when it starts predicting again, so it will fluctuate too much for a bit once it starts predicting again. 

 

For over a month, my algorithm has been predicting early June filers to be at an average of 152 days. I have been pretty confident in this calculation +/- a few days for awhile now because I thought the logic was mostly sound and unscientifically it "felt" right. However, I consider it now in question because it seems that the historical trends do not apply. If they did, we we be in the period of adjudication dates starting to get a little quicker. They are not. The trend line is still going up. I likely need to adjust the algorithm to additionally recognize when the historical trend lines are no longer valid. Problem is, if I do it on a simple prediction based upon the slope of the current timeline, it has just as much chance of being right, or being too pessimistic. For now, I'm thinking of possibly recognizing the event that the historical timeline is incorrect, then applying a weighting between the slope of the actual timeline and the historical timeline--but it is unlikely that will be any more accurate.

 

Stay strong my brothers and sisters!

yeah...what he said!!!!  LOL

 

I don't care what y'all say, I am still celebrating "hola and amigo" day with some shots of tequila!!!!

 

Peace everyone.  Don't take all this too seriously.  It will all be over soon and we will be arguing with our significant others face to face!

[Chicagoseal 373]

5 minutes ago, DandY said:

I don't think anyone understands the algorithm VJ uses, but from my analysis I believe it to be a VERY simple averaging of timelines rolling across a rolling multiple month averaging of reported adjudication periods. If I am correct, there is no negative impact from people not updating, there is just less data to go by and less data = less accurate.

 

For those interested in my opinions (precious few I'm sure :P) on the math and have too much time on their hands, read on.

 

It seems like the VJ algorithm is a rolling average og somewhere between 3 and 5 months from what I can tell in seat of the pants analysis. This explains why it did not react to a dramatic shift in timelines and it has been VERY slow to update our timelines constantly pushing them out every week as we were still being "polluted" by pre-April event timelines which resulted in overly optimistic predictions. I believe VJ predictions would have had the same problem when the unusual happened in the DACA slowdown. 

 

I created an algorithm that understands a dramatic shift and historical trends. So, the way mine works is like this:

1) The base is similar to what I think VJ's is (simple rolling average)--I use a 3 month period.

 

2) A rolling 1 year timeline to determine typical trends (i.e. "historically, how much longer or shorter as a percentage is a given month compared to the previous month" ). It then factors this historical trend information into the prediction based upon the predicted average from step 1.

 

3) It then looks at the rolling data for a dramatic shift (did a sample month shift 300% greater than was predicted by the calculations from step 1 and 2 above--e.g. if June is typically 10% longer than May, but all of a sudden June is 30% longer--the algorithm considers this a dramatic shift). 

 

4) If a dramatic shift occurs it attempt to determine "T0" (the date the shift occurs)--it then throws out all data it uses for the averaging before the shift date. And only averages with post T0 data but still applies the trend information from step 2.

 

My algorithm has the following deficiencies:

1) It does not really "understand" different types of dramatic events. It assumes they all behave the same way and are largely able to be correlated to historical trends.

2) Cannot predict a date AT ALL once a shift is detected until there is data available (for instance, if the algorithm predicts March filers should wait 90 days, but we get to 118 days, it pukes and says "oh #######, all bets are off, the world changed and there is no data to base a prediction on". It needs to wait for those March filers to get adjudicated before it can start predicting again.

3) After a dramatic shift, it has a very small data set when it starts predicting again, so it will fluctuate too much for a bit once it starts predicting again. 

 

For over a month, my algorithm has been predicting early June filers to be at an average of 152 days. I have been pretty confident in this calculation +/- a few days for awhile now because I thought the logic was mostly sound and unscientifically it "felt" right. However, I consider it now in question because it seems that the historical trends do not apply. If they did, we we be in the period of adjudication dates starting to get a little quicker. They are not. The trend line is still going up. I likely need to adjust the algorithm to additionally recognize when the historical trend lines are no longer valid. Problem is, if I do it on a simple prediction based upon the slope of the current timeline, it has just as much chance of being right, or being too pessimistic. For now, I'm thinking of possibly recognizing the event that the historical timeline is incorrect, then applying a weighting between the slope of the actual timeline and the historical timeline--but it is unlikely that will be any more accurate.

 

Stay strong my brothers and sisters!

Exactly what I thought, LOL.

[Catseal 268]

7 hours ago, Swissmiss82 said:

And we were one of them - as I have 2 Swiss friends who got married in Wyoming and Atlanta in the past 16 months, and both of the had 3 months for the entire package from day 1 till moving date.... and yes - I'm talking K1....

 

So I also believed in handling everything until Xmas... little did I know that this is so out of control - although the fee got higher and you would think it's invested in more employees to have this process speed up a little  just simply frustrating

Oh, a fellow Swiss beneficiary, awesome!

We still hope for it to magically be done by the end of the year, but yes, it's been a frustrating journey so far. 

[Allthephils 536]

6 hours ago, John & Rose said:

yeah...what he said!!!!  LOL

 

I don't care what y'all say, I am still celebrating "hola and amigo" day with some shots of tequila!!!!

 

Peace everyone.  Don't take all this too seriously.  It will all be over soon and we will be arguing with our significant others face to face!

I just realized we are at 121 days as of today! If the 150 day average is right, we have about a month to go. We got this!! 

[Chicagoseal 373]

8 hours ago, John & Rose said:

yeah...what he said!!!!  LOL

 

I don't care what y'all say, I am still celebrating "hola and amigo" day with some shots of tequila!!!!

 

Peace everyone.  Don't take all this too seriously.  It will all be over soon and we will be arguing with our significant others face to face!

Right! A year from now, we’ll be concerned  about something else.

[DandY 134]

8 hours ago, John & Rose said:

 It will all be over soon and we will be arguing with our significant others face to face!

In person Tampo--Yay (NOT).

[Birveonrty 110]

On 9/6/2017 at 10:28 PM, Paul & Mallory said:

1 hour ago, DandY said:

In person Tampo--Yay (NOT).

 

I had dreams that we receive NOA2 last week of October.... hahaha... that's the result of overthinking and depression... hehehe.. but i am still optimistic to have it this month or early November. May my dreams come true. 😚

[KBA 542]

7 hours ago, Birveonrty said:

I had dreams that we receive NOA2 last week of October.... hahaha... that's the result of overthinking and depression... hehehe.. but i am still optimistic to have it this month or early November. May my dreams come true. 😚

Fingers crossed for all of us! Have you filled out a timeline?

[Birveonrty 110]

1 hour ago, KBA said:

Fingers crossed for all of us! Have you filled out a timeline?

I didn't... 😜 

John, Dandy and I have the same NOA1 dates...so I'm just following them. 

[Salty2305 504]

9 minutes ago, Birveonrty said:

I didn't... 😜 

John, Dandy and I have the same NOA1 dates...so I'm just following them. 

It helps everyone on VJ to complete your timeline. The more data that's fed in and kept up to date the better,  it's impossible to make an educated guess without having as much information as possible.

 

Long story short, it would be really helpful to future applicants if you completed your timeline. 

[Birveonrty 110]

6 minutes ago, Salty2305 said:

It helps everyone on VJ to complete your timeline. The more data that's fed in and kept up to date the better,  it's impossible to make an educated guess without having as much information as possible.

 

Long story short, it would be really helpful to future applicants if you completed your timeline. 

Got your point. My fiance (American) is not aware I joined VJ. I need to ask his permission first before I could put all the details. Before, I asked him if I could join such group but he said it's ok but not necessarily to put all details. My only intention here is to get more ideas especially about requirements and preparations needed for interview. I just shared to him what I read. In the end, he would just tell me "Let God work for this and uscis and let's just wait."