Thread for Outland LONDON, UK Applications!

[murphn24]

Spreadsheet is great! Good job guys.

 

[BChome]

Spreadsheet is great! Good job guys.

I agree, the spreadsheet is great! Its a fantastic resource! And thanks to all involved for creating and maintaining it!
I just see room for improvement that's all, so it is not biased?

 

[nishra]

im just curious, how comes some of CL application get process faster than marriage? this doesnt make any senes to me ??

 

[murphn24]

I agree, the spreadsheet is great! Its a fantastic resource! And thanks to all involved for creating and maintaining it!
I just see room for improvement that's all, so it is not biased?

I think it serves 99% of those on this forum. What would you achieve really by adding rejections? It's not going to change the reality of the situation and people are rejected for a variety of reasons. This spreadsheet is used to analyze trends, requests and processing times. It does this really well. Also, I'm pretty sure the guys maintaining this spreadsheet do so out of the goodness of their heart. They may not see this modification as a good use of their time but that's just my guess.

 

[BChome]

I think it serves 99% of those on this forum. What would you achieve really by adding rejections? It's not going to change the reality of the situation and people are rejected for a variety of reasons. This spreadsheet is used to analyze trends, requests and processing times. It does this really well. Also, I'm pretty sure the guys maintaining this spreadsheet do so out of the goodness of their heart. They may not see this modification as a good use of their time but that's just my guess.

I almost entirely agree, and the one point I'd query, I think you answer yourself.
What you'd achieve by adding rejections is a true representation of PR applications, so while analysing trends all data is included. That is the nature of statistical analysis. Hence me calling it biased because significant data is being omitted. This opinion only comes from working with statistics myself, and knowledge of now they can be manipulated giving an incomplete view of the system that is being analysed. What if 80% of applications were rejected at the final stages of process? This would mean the spreadsheet was only applicable to 20% of applicants? Yet there is no indication of this. It could be construed as very misleading. If the spreadsheet is to be run with just successful applicants, then its need to be specified in the title and description, so people viewing it know what they're looking at and what relevance it has to their cases.
I know I'm nit-picking points on a data set that I have no part of, and I'm speaking on behalf of the silent minority that get rejected, however, I really do appreciate the time individuals put into maintain this, which is why I suggested a simple formula that would remedy this, without increasing the work load. The primary benefit would be for those initially research PR that want to know what percentage of applications are rejected... Do you know how many are rejected? Its a question I've been asking for over 2 years without a satisfactory response; so there is need for this information to be out there somehow don't you think? However, it is only a suggestion!
On my part, this is all a theoretical anyway, I don't want to have my application rejected! But its is a possibility for every candidate and I think it would be beneficial to indicate this on the spreadsheet.
The reason I raised this point, is because I've been told my timeline can not be added to the spreadsheet, as it appears that the administrators have made (an uninformed) judgement on my case before its been completed by the embassy... and as I said before, I hope I've got the wrong end of the stick, and I hope someone will explain the rational behind it..? I am an advocate of equality, and it would be nice to viewed in a non-discriminatory way..

 

[PF]

I would say yes - better safe than sorry

Emailed off short version of marriage certificate today

 

[taffy7]

Emailed off short version of marriage certificate today

So they gave you can email address. They have always told me to post stuff. Was this Mississauga ? Lets hope this gets things rolling. I have passed the SA stage so my marriage licence was good enough for now.

 

[PF]

So they gave you can email address. They have always told me to post stuff. Was this Mississauga ? Lets hope this gets things rolling. I have passed the SA stage so my marriage licence was good enough for now.

I received SA already - yes Mississauga advised I could email in.
Hoping rest of the process is straight forward

 

[canuck_in_uk]

im just curious, how comes some of CL application get process faster than marriage? this doesnt make any senes to me ??

CIC doesn't look at common law as something less than marriage. And generally, common-law applicants submit a lot more relationship proofs with their apps than married applicants because they need to show the one year of cohabitation. The stronger the app, the faster it's usually processed.

 

[brucem]

I almost entirely agree, and the one point I'd query, I think you answer yourself.
What you'd achieve by adding rejections is a true representation of PR applications, so while analysing trends all data is included. That is the nature of statistical analysis. Hence me calling it biased because significant data is being omitted. This opinion only comes from working with statistics myself, and knowledge of now they can be manipulated giving an incomplete view of the system that is being analysed. What if 80% of applications were rejected at the final stages of process? This would mean the spreadsheet was only applicable to 20% of applicants? Yet there is no indication of this. It could be construed as very misleading. If the spreadsheet is to be run with just successful applicants, then its need to be specified in the title and description, so people viewing it know what they're looking at and what relevance it has to their cases.
I know I'm nit-picking points on a data set that I have no part of, and I'm speaking on behalf of the silent minority that get rejected, however, I really do appreciate the time individuals put into maintain this, which is why I suggested a simple formula that would remedy this, without increasing the work load. The primary benefit would be for those initially research PR that want to know what percentage of applications are rejected... Do you know how many are rejected? Its a question I've been asking for over 2 years without a satisfactory response; so there is need for this information to be out there somehow don't you think? However, it is only a suggestion!
On my part, this is all a theoretical anyway, I don't want to have my application rejected! But its is a possibility for every candidate and I think it would be beneficial to indicate this on the spreadsheet.
The reason I raised this point, is because I've been told my timeline can not be added to the spreadsheet, as it appears that the administrators have made (an uninformed) judgement on my case before its been completed by the embassy... and as I said before, I hope I've got the wrong end of the stick, and I hope someone will explain the rational behind it..? I am an advocate of equality, and it would be nice to viewed in a non-discriminatory way..

I was guessing that you were a bit miffed for not being added because you actually haven't been rejected...there is just a suggestion that its a possibility. Without wanting to get slapped by SchnookoLoly I can see your point. I mean we're all at risk of being rejected I suppose your circumstances are just a little different.

 

[Petitepoutine]

I was guessing that you were a bit miffed for not being added because you actually haven't been rejected...there is just a suggestion that its a possibility. Without wanting to get slapped by SchnookoLoly I can see your point. I mean we're all at risk of being rejected I suppose your circumstances are just a little different.

I completely agree. And it is true that we've all wondered what the chances are of being rejected (even with a straightforward application). I do think IF he is rejected, then it makes sense to take him off (or separately) to avoid skewing the "trend", but in the meantime, I'm not sure I understand the argument for "non-straightforward" cases to not be added.

 

[SchnookoLoly]

OK sorry I'm late to the party, I've been sick the past two days and didn't get on the computer once yesterday. Usually I'm pretty quick.

BChome - I didn't mean to cause any offense. Sorry if that happened. I'll point out in my post I didn't say "no, not going to add you, sorry" I just said I was hesitant because I didn't think you'd get approved in the end, but from reading the debate about it, I agree it makes sense to add you.

If you do get rejected, then I'll just remove the line from the main chart and move it down to the bottom. You can see in the 2013 list there's one user, disneyloo, who was found ineligible to sponsor, so she was removed. I didn't remove the line completely, just dropped it out because it makes the stats too difficult to work out if I leave it in the main section.

As for history of the spreadsheet... it was originally started by I believe PinkLady on here, then Sweden took over processing for awhile, then it was handed over to me earlier this year, after I made a bunch of improvements, including adding in additional formulas, and creating the cover sheet with extra stats. I've also changed a bunch with formatting to make managing the spreadsheet easier for me and the other editors. I am also a numbers geek. Becki567 and ghunter help keep the spreadsheet updated. It was made public for editing awhile back, but two problems happened: First, people didn't follow standards for entering data, which meant formulas were constantly breaking. Second, trolls started deleting all the data and replacing it with "B00bs" and "pen1s" and such. So classy. So we locked it back up and the three of us take care of entering people and maintaining the spreadsheet.

I do this as a hobby, as do Becki and ghunter. We don't get paid for it, it's just something we do to 'pay it forward', so to speak, plus - nerd alert - I love spreadsheets.

However, I'm not a dictator. I'm happy to have people say I'm wrong, I'm happy to take suggestions on how to improve the spreadsheet, and as necessary I'm happy to add more editors to help out with the maintenance.

So, apologies for any offense I may have caused, hopefully everyone's all happy now.

Schnooks

 

[alicia13]

OK sorry I'm late to the party, I've been sick the past two days and didn't get on the computer once yesterday. Usually I'm pretty quick.

BChome - I didn't mean to cause any offense. Sorry if that happened. I'll point out in my post I didn't say "no, not going to add you, sorry" I just said I was hesitant because I didn't think you'd get approved in the end, but from reading the debate about it, I agree it makes sense to add you.

If you do get rejected, then I'll just remove the line from the main chart and move it down to the bottom. You can see in the 2013 list there's one user, disneyloo, who was found ineligible to sponsor, so she was removed. I didn't remove the line completely, just dropped it out because it makes the stats too difficult to work out if I leave it in the main section.

As for history of the spreadsheet... it was originally started by I believe PinkLady on here, then Sweden took over processing for awhile, then it was handed over to me earlier this year, after I made a bunch of improvements, including adding in additional formulas, and creating the cover sheet with extra stats. I've also changed a bunch with formatting to make managing the spreadsheet easier for me and the other editors. I am also a numbers geek. Becki567 and ghunter help keep the spreadsheet updated. It was made public for editing awhile back, but two problems happened: First, people didn't follow standards for entering data, which meant formulas were constantly breaking. Second, trolls started deleting all the data and replacing it with "B00bs" and "pen1s" and such. So classy. So we locked it back up and the three of us take care of entering people and maintaining the spreadsheet.

I do this as a hobby, as do Becki and ghunter. We don't get paid for it, it's just something we do to 'pay it forward', so to speak, plus - nerd alert - I love spreadsheets.

However, I'm not a dictator. I'm happy to have people say I'm wrong, I'm happy to take suggestions on how to improve the spreadsheet, and as necessary I'm happy to add more editors to help out with the maintenance.

So, apologies for any offense I may have caused, hopefully everyone's all happy now.

Schnooks

Just wanted to say thank you for all the diligent work you do for the greater good ;D

 

[mec14]

Just to add... for those of you interested in rejection rates CIC publishes this alongside the processing times quarterly. This is the detail behind the '11 months for 80%' number that gets quoted.

http://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/427337d0-7c36-4fed-8428-c6a63f8c19b3

Of course, this forums spreadsheet is a little more real-time so much more useful. I for one keep tabs to see when people around me get processed and hope that I am next up!

 

[SchnookoLoly]

^ That is precisely the point of the spreadsheet. It gives more real-time data, and it also filters out the vast majority of very complex cases. About 95% of cases that come through the spreadsheet are 'straight-forward' cases ... canadian sponsor meets non-canadian partner, usually British or similar, they live together for awhile, or get married, it's all very poetic, then they decide to come to Canada together, and thus do sponsorship. Sometimes there's kids, sometimes they've lived in a few other places, but generally speaking the file is pretty straight-forward. When more people come on here trying to get an idea of timelines, they usually fall in the same bucket, which is why being able to quote average timelines for "straight-forward" cases is a better metric for us than the 80% metric that CIC quotes.

This is part of the reason that we have started tracking processing via different offices (which, worth mentioning, was a pain in the backside to get those stats cooperating in the spreadsheet, but I digress)... tracking applications from "standard" applicants who would normally apply via London, how those application processing timelines vary depending on whether they're processed in Mississauga vs Ottawa vs London, then also helping profile Pakistani applications that have been sent directly from Mississauga to London and how those timelines compare.

I've kind of lost track of where I was going with this, so I'll just shut up now.