What does all this mean?
Good question.
The earlier positive reports were an r3 - I had reason to believe they weren’t just completely off the wall crazy, but I also could not make any kind of determination where I felt comfortable saying they were correct.
The rumors today are still an r3 but they are leaning towards an r4. That does not mean they are correct. If I thought they were correct they’d be rated an r5, and they are not.
Everything is still an r3 at this point - multiple conflicting rumors. But todays rumors have a little more weight than the previous rumors.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I was hoping to make it to the mid case scenario, 11/9. The beat goes on!!!
May 29th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Lets hope
May 29th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Holding onto hope for everyone waiting!!
May 29th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Was this posted in the private area on the CCAA website ? Are these sources reliable ones (for the bad rumors I mean …). What does Europe have to say about this ? Are there sources that initially said the good rumor that are now changing for the bad rumor ?
Ray.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Ray,
I have heard nothing about the pay-for-information system this month.
Yes, they are usually pretty reliable, but that does not make anything true or not true. I wish it did.
Europe is repeating what we are saying and wondering what’s going on an complaining that they aren’t hearing anything.
To my knowledge none who were originally giving the good scenarios have switched to a bad one.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
I say let’s all take our vacation time up at work and then the referrals will definitely pick up!!
May 29th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Don’t take your vacation time up at work until you’ve checked out your options. My workplace is allowing me to tac on A/Leave to Mat leave…..mmmmmm now this will be worth the wait. So the longer I wait the more time off I will have with DD when she arrives. This does keep me going a bit more than believing, patience and hope.
Hang in there everyone waiting these allocations ( close to the dates) and then all of the rest of November. I so want for Dec to be allocated before Dec, otherwise were into 2yrs and more.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
I was just teasing about the vacation thing. We held off all of last year thinking we would go to China and needed all of the vacation time we could get. Well, nope, had PLENTY of vacation time to use up at the end of the year. Now, let’s see if we get to China THIS year!! I sure hope so. I am more than ready to gooooooooooooooo!!!!!
May 29th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
When are the June referrals likely to surface? Anyone hazard a guess?
We are LID 11/9 but it looks like I should make other plans for July and think about traveling closer to September…at least it might be cooler….
May 29th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
My agency expects them on the 4th or 5th. They said that has been the pattern of late. I dont know if that is news to anyone, but I thought I would throw it out there since you asked.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:44 am
RQ - are any of the sources who gave dates further into November (double digits) STILL holding to that double-digits sceanrio? you said that the good-rumour sources have not switched to the 7th scenario–but does that mean they are still saying double digits–or are they just not saying anything?
what i mean: is anyone, at this point, still saying double digits?
May 30th, 2007 at 7:16 am
I’m in again! I’m not sure what happened but somehow my password got changed and I couldn’t log in for a while.
Anyway. Does anyone know if the number of families to be matched in Dec of 05 is smaller than Nov?
Also, is there any chance that 2006 will pick up because those numbers are smaller? Just looking for some spark of hope. I was so disappointed to hear the bad news yesterday.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:09 am
RQ - Can you expound on something you said yesterday. Something about people being inside the CCAA, more baby dossiers, etc. The thing that caught my eye was something along the lines of “morale being up” inside the CCAA. Just curious about that. Is/was morale down because of the slow up?
May 30th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Does anyone else feel like there is a conspiracy going on in terms of the rumors?
That someone is deliberately creating a situation in which *glowing* rumors of big batches are being released to several different sources with the intent to simply mess with the heads of waiting families?
I just don’t get it. I’ve been coming to this site for a long time now and I have learned to not get my hopes up about the good rumors as they have yet to be realized. I simply don’t understand why we keep seeing them.
Like everyone else I am sick to death of this wait! To date, I have to say that this is one of the most miserable experiences I have had.
Does this post sound as hopeless as I feel?
Lid 12/20/05 with a likely 6 month wait still to go.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Calamity –
I agree. As i said on a previous thread, these good rumors, which end up being so off-base it’s almost funny, feel like cruel hoaxes to me.
What i don’t know is — are they coming from other adopters who are messing with our heads? ( but why?) or, like someone suggested on the forum, are they coming from agencies? — in which case they wouldn’t exactly be hoaxes, just rumors that serve their own agenda ( keeping us ‘in line’ so to speak)
May 30th, 2007 at 9:14 am
I guess I’m confussed. As much as I want the good rumors to be true, if what the CCAA is reporting is to be taken as fact, and if my math is right (a big if), then:
3,000 dossiers a month divided by 22 work days a month (I know they average more, but thats the number I used) = 136 dossiers a day logged in.
Now if this batch of referrals is 8 days of LIDs, then thats 816 referrals.
Didn’t the CCAA say not too long back that they were referring between 400 - 700 a month?
I know I’m totally guessing at the numbers here, but to look at only the LID days covered might be the wrong perpective too.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:23 am
LID’s are not evenly spaced throughout the month. That logic is flawed.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:58 am
I guess my little (very little) string I am holding onto is that RQ in an earlier blog entry did hear something about the CCAA wanting to get through 2005 “as quickly as possible” and is doing everything thay can to do that.
Not sure if that is true….but that is my string and I am holding onto that.
~Linda
May 30th, 2007 at 9:59 am
“they”…I hate not having spell check! HA HA
May 30th, 2007 at 10:15 am
RQ, Do you have any sort of ranking system for the people you get your rumors? For example, May 2007 - received rumor from X person who told me it was very likely (R3) that referrals would get to the 12th-16th. However, referrals got to the 7th. That way if you receive a rumor from this person in June 2007 you might not give it much weight. I realize that this is a rumor site, but I would rather not hear about these “good” rumors if they are coming from unreliable sources. I realize that some sources do have their off moments and that’s alright. However if a source continues to have incorrect data/rumors, why continue to have them as a source until they can prove to you that they are still reliable? I’m sure that you filter out some of the stuff you post, but I wasn’t sure if you had a ranking system for your sources.
Just curious. Thanks for all you do RQ.
Matt
May 30th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Matt - Sources that were right all of the time this time last year now rarely have information. Other sources have information now, and often they are sources I don’t get much information from, so it’s hard to say.
I know it sounds like a good theory, but there is really no way to make it work.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Sorry RQ - I know that LIDs are evenly spaced of course - my mistake.
I’m looking for any line of thought that gives me neither too many highs nor too many lows. And to that end I had thought that with this upcoming batch of referrals, be it 8 or 9 days worth of LIDs, that it would fall in line with your expectations AND what CCAA had been saying as well. Perhaps I am wrong.
But I am years away from a referral and so am looking for any hook to hang my hopes on. There is little to no logic in that.
May 30th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
2yrs2long-
Unfortunately, even if the LID’s were evenly spaced there are only 4 business days between the 2nd and 7th so your total would be 544 using your 136/ business day approach. On the low side no matter how you look at it and the polls seem to indicate that the later half of the month is more heavily weighted on top of it. Sorry to burst the bubble even more. There doesn’t seem to be much of a silver lining to a cutoff of the 7th :-(