VJ Timeline Estimated Approval Calculation Method Updated

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

There are certainly some small calculation differences in some areas of the site (we use NOA1 to NOA2 and sometimes Sent to NOA2). This is simply a matter of the limited people working development of the timeline software and some variation may arise.

You are correct that the received date is the best (as I said above too) but the issue is in part also as you suspected. That being that old timelines and new ones would not be the same. While we would likely get many people to update or add the data field it would statistically be only a small portion of the population. I ran some comparisons and using the "Sent date" versus using the "received" date and the improved accuracy is nearly in the noise. There is a natural variation in time (standard deviation for example) for the data set and statistically using the sent date versus received date did not matter. We can all agree that there will be variations in the time it takes to mail and for the USCIS to receive people's packages but that variation is on the order of a day or two difference. The fact that there is not statistical benefit to going to the new date (in my opinion so far) makes it hard to justify adding a new date for people having to fill in and creating legacy issues. Also it becomes tough for us to micromanage all the dates and experience has shown me that if we ask for every tiny date to be filled in often times people will not do so (info overload).

I hope my ramblings make some sense and explain why going to the received date versus the sent date is almost a wash.

[Bill y Bella 0]

Please see responses below in blue.

There are certainly some small calculation differences in some areas of the site (we use NOA1 to NOA2 and sometimes Sent to NOA2). This is simply a matter of the limited people working development of the timeline software and some variation may arise. It is understood that you do not have unlimited resources. However, as I pointed out in the original post the difference in the example I gave cannot be explained by using sent date for one report and NOA1 date for another. If NOA2 date minus sent date = 142 days on the timeline, what algorithm produces the 145 days on the other report? NOA2 date minus sent date plus 3?

You are correct that the received date is the best (as I said above too) but the issue is in part also as you suspected. That being that old timelines and new ones would not be the same. While we would likely get many people to update or add the data field it would statistically be only a small portion of the population. I ran some comparisons and using the "Sent date" versus using the "received" date and the improved accuracy is nearly in the noise. There is a natural variation in time (standard deviation for example) for the data set and statistically using the sent date versus received date did not matter. We can all agree that there will be variations in the time it takes to mail and for the USCIS to receive people's packages but that variation is on the order of a day or two difference. The fact that there is not statistical benefit to going to the new date (in my opinion so far) makes it hard to justify adding a new date for people having to fill in and creating legacy issues. Also it becomes tough for us to micromanage all the dates and experience has shown me that if we ask for every tiny date to be filled in often times people will not do so (info overload).

I am not suggesting adding more date fields. I am suggesting changing the instructions for entering the current NOA1 date in a timeline.

I think there are two issues involved. One is the algorithm for the projected adjudication date which is probably one of the more popular features of the site. If by changing the algorithm basis from send date to NOA1 received date changes the results only slightly than I have no problem leaving the algorithm as is. However, a lot of members compare their progress to other members based on their NOA1 date. And LOTS of VJ reports feature NOA1 dates also. So isn't it important that the NOA1 date be entered consistently? Why if you agree that the USCIS utilizes the received date do the timeline edit instructions tell members to enter the notice date, which is probably the least relevant of all the 3 possible dates found on a NOA1?

In regards to historical consistency, I doubt if you know what dates were entered in timelines as the NOA1 date in the past because unless I am mistaken there were no instructions as to which date to use until recently. So historically members have been left to guess which of the 3 or more dates they should enter. A casual observation of the posts on the topic will demonstrate that members are confused about what date to use.

I can tell you from my observation of the forums that even with the timeline edit instructions that are now in place, the NOA1 dates are being entered on an inconsistent basis. bszoom42 for instance entered the received date because he feels that is the most accurate date to use. I on the other hand entered the notice date because that is what the instructions say. For example's sake only, if zoomer and I mailed our petitions on the same day and they were received by the same center on the same day and my NOA1 notice was delayed for 30 days (which is not unheard of), and zoomer used the receipt date and I used the notice date we would have no idea our two petitions were the same age since they would appear to be 30+ days apart when they are in fact exactly the same age. There is something wrong with a system that would make the two hypothetical petitions appear to be of significantly different age when they could be made to appear the same age if the NOA1 instructions simply said to enter the received date. (I need to point out I don't know what to say about priority dates. The box was blank on my NOA1 but apparently some people have priority dates and no received dates.)

Since many of the VJ reports feature NOA1 date and since many members compare their progress with other members with similar NOA1 dates, don't you want the NOA1 dates on the timelines to be entered on a basis that is as consistent and relevant as possible? Why utilize notice date when it can be 60 days or more after the receipt date which is what USCIS uses for prioritizing?

It seems to me that very few people study the historical data. When I first found this site I studied them a lot but eventually realized that this year was not going to be like last year because of the price increase and last year was probably not much like the year before due to the IMBRA issues.

In my opinion, people use the site for social interaction, education, and trying to figure out when they might see a decision. They do the latter by looking at the timeline projections provided by VJ and comparison with their peers. I think looking at historical data is way down on the list of activities on this site. If my observation is accurate, I think the current users would be happier if the timeline NOA1 dates were all added as the receipt date.

I hope my ramblings make some sense and explain why going to the received date versus the sent date is almost a wash.

They make sense in regards to the projected adjudication date algorithm, but do not deal with the NOA1 timeline date questions.

Thanks for your time. I really appreciate it.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

And while I am on the subject, why does VJ show different total processing times in different places? For instance, look at the total days information for Danielle & Charles here and then compare it to their timeline. The first report shows 145 days in total and their timeline shows they were approved in 142 days from when their petition was sent.

Long story short the columns were labeled poor. I have redone them and your ideas have spurred me to make some other changes. I think we think alike .

update: you can see that this timeline in the advanced view shows 5 days for 'sent to noa1' and 137 days from noa1 to noa2 = 142 days . It all matches up.

[Bill y Bella 0]

And while I am on the subject, why does VJ show different total processing times in different places? For instance, look at the total days information for Danielle & Charles here and then compare it to their timeline. The first report shows 145 days in total and their timeline shows they were approved in 142 days from when their petition was sent.

Long story short the columns were labeled poor. I have redone them and your ideas have spurred me to make some other changes. I think we think alike .

update: you can see that this timeline in the advanced view shows 5 days for 'sent to noa1' and 137 days from noa1 to noa2 = 142 days . It all matches up.

Great. Keep us posted of any other changes. We'll help spread the word.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

In regards to historical consistency, I doubt if you know what dates were entered in timelines as the NOA1 date in the past because unless I am mistaken there were no instructions as to which date to use until recently. So historically members have been left to guess which of the 3 or more dates they should enter. A casual observation of the posts on the topic will demonstrate that members are confused about what date to use.

Historically the NOA1 date was about one day after the received day (if not the same date). Because of this the NOA1 date and received date were always nearly the same thing (which is why people sometimes just say NOA1 date for either one). That changed this year with the data input delays. As you said it is good thjat we properly educate people as to what the NOA date is on the mailer. Hopefully the help tip I added is enough and if not maybe we can add more. If you can think of something additionally I can do please let me know and I will add it asap .

[StillThePrettiest 3]

great changes; thank you to both of you

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

I can tell you from my observation of the forums that even with the timeline edit instructions that are now in place, the NOA1 dates are being entered on an inconsistent basis. bszoom42 for instance entered the received date because he feels that is the most accurate date to use. I on the other hand entered the notice date because that is what the instructions say. For example's sake only, if zoomer and I mailed our petitions on the same day and they were received by the same center on the same day and my NOA1 notice was delayed for 30 days (which is not unheard of), and zoomer used the receipt date and I used the notice date we would have no idea our two petitions were the same age since they would appear to be 30+ days apart when they are in fact exactly the same age. There is something wrong with a system that would make the two hypothetical petitions appear to be of significantly different age when they could be made to appear the same age if the NOA1 instructions simply said to enter the received date. (I need to point out I don't know what to say about priority dates. The box was blank on my NOA1 but apparently some people have priority dates and no received dates.)

This is the reason that we use the 'sent date' since everyone knows what that is and with all the other variability it is pretty constant. The only variance is the time between sending and receiving at the service center. That variability is only a day or two (meaning some people get their packages there faster in the mail) and is in the noise so to speak. You are right that using the NOA1 date to predict things would be bad.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Since many of the VJ reports feature NOA1 date and since many members compare their progress with other members with similar NOA1 dates, don't you want the NOA1 dates on the timelines to be entered on a basis that is as consistent and relevant as possible? Why utilize notice date when it can be 60 days or more after the receipt date which is what USCIS uses for prioritizing?

Again historically the NOA and recieved date were the same in most cases. I guess people just got used to it. Only recently this year did that change and the USCIS is also trying to get back to a one or two day data entry period. I would encourage people to use the "sent date" if they want to find people at or around their timeline for filing. This will be the most accurate method as things stand now.

I hope I answered all your comments.

[Bill y Bella 0]

I hope I answered all your comments.

Thanks for taking time to reply. I appreciate it.

[bakofoil 27]

Hope no one minds me chipping in to this conversation late.

In regards to historical consistency, I doubt if you know what dates were entered in timelines as the NOA1 date in the past because unless I am mistaken there were no instructions as to which date to use until recently. So historically members have been left to guess which of the 3 or more dates they should enter. A casual observation of the posts on the topic will demonstrate that members are confused about what date to use.

Historically the NOA1 date was about one day after the received day (if not the same date). Because of this the NOA1 date and received date were always nearly the same thing (which is why people sometimes just say NOA1 date for either one). That changed this year with the data input delays. As you said it is good thjat we properly educate people as to what the NOA date is on the mailer. Hopefully the help tip I added is enough and if not maybe we can add more. If you can think of something additionally I can do please let me know and I will add it asap .

Just by observation of a few threads here, people are massively confused about the relative importance the dates on their NOA1 have in terms of processing. I agree therefore, that the 'sent date' is the simplest one to use for the algorithm as there is little confusion over which date to input. Even if it takes two weeks for the petition to be delivered, and I doubt that this happens that frequently, the data will not be skewed as massively as would be the case if the NOA1 'notice date' were used.

I can tell you from my observation of the forums that even with the timeline edit instructions that are now in place, the NOA1 dates are being entered on an inconsistent basis. bszoom42 for instance entered the received date because he feels that is the most accurate date to use. I on the other hand entered the notice date because that is what the instructions say. For example's sake only, if zoomer and I mailed our petitions on the same day and they were received by the same center on the same day and my NOA1 notice was delayed for 30 days (which is not unheard of), and zoomer used the receipt date and I used the notice date we would have no idea our two petitions were the same age since they would appear to be 30+ days apart when they are in fact exactly the same age. There is something wrong with a system that would make the two hypothetical petitions appear to be of significantly different age when they could be made to appear the same age if the NOA1 instructions simply said to enter the received date. (I need to point out I don't know what to say about priority dates. The box was blank on my NOA1 but apparently some people have priority dates and no received dates.)

This is the reason that we use the 'sent date' since everyone knows what that is and with all the other variability it is pretty constant. The only variance is the time between sending and receiving at the service center. That variability is only a day or two (meaning some people get their packages there faster in the mail) and is in the noise so to speak. You are right that using the NOA1 date to predict things would be bad.

Agreed.

There is an issue, I feel, with the NOA1 to NOA2 estimate. It took 60 days for me to receive an NOA1 and I am amongst many who were in the same position. If our petitions are ordered for processing by 'received date' then the NOA1-NOA2 estimate may be skewed massively. Personally. I'm probably more likely to look at the 'average total number of days' from filing to visa issue to form a basis for any plans. I wonder though, how the receipting delays will affect estimates in the coming months. With the volume of us who had delayed data entry on our petitions this past 2 months the NOA1-NOA2 estimate may look more favourable than it actually is. I don't know how much importance is put on the NOA1-NOA2 estimate, but since it is calculated at all it may be better to add a field for 'received date' in this instance, then if the 'notice date' and 'received date' have a separation of more than 10 days (off the top of my head) the algorithm can default to 'received date' for the calculation. This would mean that everyone who has ever filled out a timeline on VJ would NOT need to amend their data.

Just a suggestion!

I would just like to say also that the VJ timeline facility is fantastic and I think we all here appreciate the efforts you have made to create an approval estimate at all. It may well be that some people feel that the numbers created are meaningless and have no bearing on approval. In some respects, they are right, one cannot guarantee an approval or that my petition and someone else's petition filed on the same day will be approved the same day. However, it does give us a minimum focus date to make short-term plans and for me that is really important, particularly where my career and finances are involved. So, thank you for doing all of this. It is very much appreciated in the VJ community.

edited to say 'NOT'

Edited October 6, 2007 by babblesgirl

[Bill y Bella 0]

In regards to historical consistency, I doubt if you know what dates were entered in timelines as the NOA1 date in the past because unless I am mistaken there were no instructions as to which date to use until recently. So historically members have been left to guess which of the 3 or more dates they should enter. A casual observation of the posts on the topic will demonstrate that members are confused about what date to use.

Historically the NOA1 date was about one day after the received day (if not the same date). Because of this the NOA1 date and received date were always nearly the same thing (which is why people sometimes just say NOA1 date for either one). That changed this year with the data input delays. As you said it is good thjat we properly educate people as to what the NOA date is on the mailer. Hopefully the help tip I added is enough and if not maybe we can add more. If you can think of something additionally I can do please let me know and I will add it asap .

If you really want members to enter the notice date for the NOA1 date (and I still don't see why), remove the reference to "receipt" which is the first thing they see. I think a reference to receipt will lead a lot of members to enter their received date.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Hope no one minds me chipping in to this conversation late.

In regards to historical consistency, I doubt if you know what dates were entered in timelines as the NOA1 date in the past because unless I am mistaken there were no instructions as to which date to use until recently. So historically members have been left to guess which of the 3 or more dates they should enter. A casual observation of the posts on the topic will demonstrate that members are confused about what date to use.

Historically the NOA1 date was about one day after the received day (if not the same date). Because of this the NOA1 date and received date were always nearly the same thing (which is why people sometimes just say NOA1 date for either one). That changed this year with the data input delays. As you said it is good thjat we properly educate people as to what the NOA date is on the mailer. Hopefully the help tip I added is enough and if not maybe we can add more. If you can think of something additionally I can do please let me know and I will add it asap .

Just by observation of a few threads here, people are massively confused about the relative importance the dates on their NOA1 have in terms of processing. I agree therefore, that the 'sent date' is the simplest one to use for the algorithm as there is little confusion over which date to input. Even if it takes two weeks for the petition to be delivered, and I doubt that this happens that frequently, the data will not be skewed as massively as would be the case if the NOA1 'notice date' were used.

I can tell you from my observation of the forums that even with the timeline edit instructions that are now in place, the NOA1 dates are being entered on an inconsistent basis. bszoom42 for instance entered the received date because he feels that is the most accurate date to use. I on the other hand entered the notice date because that is what the instructions say. For example's sake only, if zoomer and I mailed our petitions on the same day and they were received by the same center on the same day and my NOA1 notice was delayed for 30 days (which is not unheard of), and zoomer used the receipt date and I used the notice date we would have no idea our two petitions were the same age since they would appear to be 30+ days apart when they are in fact exactly the same age. There is something wrong with a system that would make the two hypothetical petitions appear to be of significantly different age when they could be made to appear the same age if the NOA1 instructions simply said to enter the received date. (I need to point out I don't know what to say about priority dates. The box was blank on my NOA1 but apparently some people have priority dates and no received dates.)

This is the reason that we use the 'sent date' since everyone knows what that is and with all the other variability it is pretty constant. The only variance is the time between sending and receiving at the service center. That variability is only a day or two (meaning some people get their packages there faster in the mail) and is in the noise so to speak. You are right that using the NOA1 date to predict things would be bad.

Agreed.

There is an issue, I feel, with the NOA1 to NOA2 estimate. It took 60 days for me to receive an NOA1 and I am amongst many who were in the same position. If our petitions are ordered for processing by 'received date' then the NOA1-NOA2 estimate may be skewed massively. Personally. I'm probably more likely to look at the 'average total number of days' from filing to visa issue to form a basis for any plans. I wonder though, how the receipting delays will affect estimates in the coming months. With the volume of us who had delayed data entry on our petitions this past 2 months the NOA1-NOA2 estimate may look more favourable than it actually is. I don't know how much importance is put on the NOA1-NOA2 estimate, but since it is calculated at all it may be better to add a field for 'received date' in this instance, then if the 'notice date' and 'received date' have a separation of more than 10 days (off the top of my head) the algorithm can default to 'received date' for the calculation. This would mean that everyone who has ever filled out a timeline on VJ would NOT need to amend their data.

Just a suggestion!

I would just like to say also that the VJ timeline facility is fantastic and I think we all here appreciate the efforts you have made to create an approval estimate at all. It may well be that some people feel that the numbers created are meaningless and have no bearing on approval. In some respects, they are right, one cannot guarantee an approval or that my petition and someone else's petition filed on the same day will be approved the same day. However, it does give us a minimum focus date to make short-term plans and for me that is really important, particularly where my career and finances are involved. So, thank you for doing all of this. It is very much appreciated in the VJ community.

edited to say 'NOT'

Like you said, the sent date is pretty easy for people to get right and thus we use that for estimates. There is only a variablility of a few days for mailing time and that is far better than using other dates such as NOA1's etc... Again we use processing time estimates based on the sent date which seems to work the best statistically at least.

[Bill y Bella 0]

Captian Ewok,

I am going to make one more try to convince you to change the instructions for entering the NOA1 date on timelines. In my opinion members should be entering the received date as their NOA1 date.

To begin, I do not think anyone is questioning utilizing the sent date for the projecting adjudication dates. I think that point has been settled. The question we are discussing is what date to enter as the NOA1 date. When this question has been raised in the past your response frequently mentions using the sent date for the adjudication projection. That is not the question at hand.

I am very concerned that VJ is actively encouraging members to enter the least reliable of all the possible NOA1 dates on their timelines. That data is then used to calculate NOA1 to NOA2 processing times and published in numerous VJ reports, graphs and timeline searches. Grant it that in the long run the disparities caused by utilizing the notice date may disappear, but in the short run they are causing a lot of confusion. My concern is shared by others and there are several VJ member "leaders" who are activiely encouraging members to ignore the VJ instructions and enter the received date on their timelines. I believe this is unfortunate because the consistency of the data is key and I believe that everyone should be following the same instructions.

In addition to studying historical data, active members utilize their NOA1 dates to guage their progress and compare to other members. Multiple posts in this and other threads telling them they should not use NOA1 dates for that purpose will not stop them from doing so. And candidly, the numerous VJ reports that feature NOA1 to NOA2 processing time encourages them to pay a lot of attention to their NOA1 dates. The members active at this moment are your most important members and they are very confused about NOA1's. Every time a May filer with a June NOA1 date gets approved people begin jumping up and down with glee thinking that June filers are being approved and it is just not the case. Your present system of entering the notice date as the NOA1 date exacerbates this problem.

I understand that you are reluctant to change the data entry rules in mid stream for fear of undermining the validity of the historical data, but here is why I believe that should not be a concern. You have stated yourself that historically there was little difference between received date and notice date. Therefore if today's active members began entering the received date it would for all intents and purposes be consistent with members who entered the notice date in the past, even though the data entry instructions have changed. In fact, by entering notice date today when we all know that there can be huge delays in NOA1 notices encourages members to enter data that is inconsistent with historical data.

In conclusion, I believe that entering the received date as the NOA1 date will eliminate confusion, make today's data more accurate and relevant and have zero impact on the validity of historical data.

As always, thank you for your time.

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Well I see what you are trying to say. I think keeping the NOA date "as printed on the NOA's from the USCIS" is the proper thing. This allows people to see that "sent to NOA1" dates are increasing. NOA1 to NOA2 graphs and stats are valueble if taken along with the "sent to NOA1" stats. We used to puiblish "sent to NOA2" dates and I can easily add them back. Thoughts?

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

What if I put graphs like before from "sent to NOA2" but had the "sent to noa1" amount of time listed on the graph as well (in text somewhere).