July Numbers are In

[Sloner 0]

-best comment for today and even this week-

regular speculation Simon. I do not understand what he is pleased. The new software works. Many special countries decreased to 5,000 won.

If you can not reach all the numbers, then in England and the United States bad schools. If all go to the interview, I must confess that these schools are good.

[rafikbo76 2]

regular speculation Simon. I do not understand what he is pleased. The new software works. Many special countries decreased to 5,000 won.

If you can not reach all the numbers, then in England and the United States bad schools. If all go to the interview, I must confess that these schools are good.

Here we go again, I am convinced with Sloner theory

I must agree with the first point. Decreasing special country limit can't be a result of anything but fraud detection amelioration (and success rate consequently).

And that must be connected to the Software.

Edited May 8, 2014 by rafikbo76

[franko 2]

Here we go again, I am convinced with Sloner theory

I must agree with the first point. Decreasing special country limit can't be a result of anything but fraud detection amelioration (and success rate consequently).

And that must be connected to the Software.

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 ?????

[rafikbo76 2]

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 ?????

I hope no;

If DV-2014 CN evolution patterns will be the same as 2013, I need around 400 more CN to be current.

2015 MAX numbers will not be enough for me

[franko 2]

What's your CN rafik ??

[vladek15425 7]

AF 105xxx

[rafikbo76 2]

AF 105xxx

Actually 104xxx,

but it's the same, at this CN range very small density by 1000, in 2013 it was around 50 cases/1000

[franko 2]

Actually 104xxx,

but it's the same, at this CN range very small density by 1000, in 2013 it was around 50 cases/1000

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.

[vladek15425 7]

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.

My best wish genuine

Not that AF only dropped with 4k selected entries compare to dv15 so fingers crossed for you...

[vladek15425 7]

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

[Britsimon 18]

Here we go again, I am convinced with Sloner theory

I must agree with the first point. Decreasing special country limit can't be a result of anything but fraud detection amelioration (and success rate consequently).

And that must be connected to the Software.

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.

[vladek15425 7]

Simon :

What do say about uzbakistan? What impact will it have on EU next vb?

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.

[Britsimon 18]

Simon :

What do say about uzbakistan? What impact will it have on EU next vb?

I have no idea Vladdy. I haven't studied the recent CEAC data well enough to speculate on that.

[vladek15425 7]

I have no idea Vladdy. I haven't studied the recent CEAC data well enough to speculate on that.

Ok cool

[SusieQQQ 11,586]

Lol @ Simon, such pure logic

Yet we know some people here continue to defy logic!