Just to give a broader answer and the background -
When they were moving everything online in late 2020/early 2021 they were working on online tests, oath via zoom as well as the online application.
Initially they tested a pilot in Dec 2020 (if I remember correctly) and about 5,000 applications were rapidly processed because it was the first production run and they were testing the system functionality as well as the capacity.
Around May 2021 or so, they started onboarding a small number of website visitors by random selection. Folks here on the forum saw the HTML source and the comment that said 10% will be randomly chosen and will be eligible to apply online and remaining will need to do paper.
Because of the novelty factor and the rapid processing in the December test run (without realizing it was a one time testing), and the exclusivity factor (that only 10% are eligible to apply), there was a sudden craze, the links were shared and everyone who's eligible (single applicants) all started using the link. So IRCC's gradual transition plan is thwarted and the volume quickly got out of hand.
After some months, IRCC decided they're going to remove that 10% criteria - but that limit never had any effect because everyone was sharing the link and using it anyways
If it was implemented as intended, the number of online applications would be much less than it is now and more proportionate to IRCC's capabilites.
I'm not saying IRCC could not have done a better job but when there are forums like this links are shared and people run with it without realizing the background work that's going on.
Could IRCC have taken a different approach? Yes but it's extremely difficult. The only way to beat link sharing in forums like this it to build a registration system with some form of unique id like the UCI and send a registration code by email etc.
Until early 2022 the belief was that online was processing faster because AOR was always faster it took 1 to 2 months for paper but much quicker for online.
The realization dawned after the ATIP reports even though it should've been clear for anyone looking at the spreadsheets. But people couldn't believe what their eyes were telling because online is supposed to be faster than paper, right?
And today when calculating the difference in processing time people always take the best case sceanrio and compare it with the worst case scenario to prove their point.
For example if there's one July 2022 paper applicant that's gotten oath, they'll take that and compare it with a January 2021 online applicant and say online is running years behind paper.
There are paper applicants from every office from every year from the past 5 years that's still waiting to this day.
And someone from Edmonton was comparing their online application progress with a Toronto paper application, it doesn't make any sense. Edmonton is slow for both paper and online - at every stage - compared to any other office out there. But if people are trying to make a point, I guess anything goes.
I'm not saying online is not slower in general, it certainly is, but over the past 3 to 4 weeks backlogged online applications until March are being processed at a rapid pace with BG, test, and oath all done in a 3 month span. It might still be slower than paper on average but by not much.
For instance, 2022 paper applicants from Winnipeg got DM status really quickly but they cannot take oath because Winnipeg appears be doing oath exclusively for backlogged applicants from 2021/early 2022, most online from a lot of offices across the country. In many of those cases Winnipeg paper got DM within 3 months in some cases but their total processing time mostly evens out with online and in some cases lags behind.
I understand it messes up test prep etc when they do all these things in a rapid fashion but it's still manageable for a reasonable person.
If you look at the trackers, eligible people still overwhelmingly go for online, some don't know it's relatively slow, but most seem to do it for convenience like avoiding copying all passport pages, mailing it etc.
I can understand the reasonable criticism from some folks that are genuinely surprised but of the people that have made online vs paper such a divisive issue on this forum, I can always tell they chose online because they were going to outsmart all the paper dumbdumbs and their gamble backfired. They can't accept the fact they made a play and it didn't work. It's a small number among online applicants but a very vocal minority. On the forum, they went around confronting paper applicants posting status or inquiring about their next dates as if paper applicants were secretly colluding with IRCC to sabotage online applications.
They just want their applications processed faster and they'll do anything and blame anyone until it's done without any place for logic or reasoning or who's responsible.
Still most of the online applicants are just normal folks, they were not trying to outsmart anyone, they don;t go around telling people they should wait for the thousands of online applicants behind them to process before they can ask any questions about their applications.
I understand how it feels to be waiting, refreshing the tracker everyday and seeing no updates, and I want every application to be processed in a fair, FIFO manner as much as possible and I try to provide any info I have in regards to that but it's not paper applicants' fault their application is processing faster. Are they going to tell IRCC 'hey, process my applications a little slower'?
Everyone's here for their own benefit but if we selfishly blame others who have nothing to do with our problems it's not good.
Long term, things like these are going discourage people from sharing their timelines and ideas on the forum.
