Ok, let's check it out..
Somebody already provided a link to zazona's page. The DB has TONS of apparent duplicates.
It has been demonstrated on that thread that it is common for companies to submit multiple applications with the same job title and start date. There are NOT necessarily any duplicates, no matter what you attempt to say to the contrary.
These duplicates COULD be from the original DOL database, they COULD be from whatever procedure zazona is using to make the copy, or the COULD be from the procedure they're using to grab the data for user queries.
An exact copy is a FILE copy, not a database record copy. You DO know the difference don't you? If there were query errors, they'd be consistant across queries which use the same search criteria. Again, this is not the case. Of course, you should know that too.
If you don't know that then it's YOU that is LIEING about your supposed experience.
Do you know what the acronyms UT, IT, and ST signify? What about regression testing, what is that?
Any query of this database will show these duplicates and further investigation will show that there's no procedural reason for these (ie you'll see multiple identical applications for 30 H1Bs from 1 company and another company with a single application for 100, clearly demonstrating that 30 is not the single application cap).
Why doesn't someone ask the DOL what it means? It IS their data in case you forgot that simple fact.
You're "explanations" ran the gamut from terrorism to accusing me of being a shill.
No, I said that fraud is rampant in the immigration system, as that is what the GAO had found. It is the GAO that said that this leaves the door open to terrorism. I simply explained that "extra" work visas could be sold on the blackmarket. ONE of the possibilities is that a terrorist COULD easily purchase one of these visas. I didn't say that "terrorism" is the CAUSE of these so-called duplicate records, which is what you consistently insist that I said.
My explanation is simple: the DB sucks, I place no blame but I do say the company PRESENTING the data bears responsibility for explaining the problems to those querying it.
You CONSISTENTLY attempt to discredit the data. That is why I suspect your motives here are far removed from an innocent curiosity or sincere interest in the validity of the data. Your ONLY motive appears to be to discredit the information in ANY manner possible.
The owners of this site have requested people not drag arguments from one thread to the other, they've asked people to be respectful and not start flame wars.
I'm simply not buying your qualifications as a QA engineer. Hey, maybe you ARE a manager, as I HAVE seen a few of them that shouldn't have had the position they did. There are also administrative positions that require little or no knowledge technically, but rarely is that true in QA. I'm not trying to start a war, I'm simply stating my observations. If you simply gave your opinion, perhaps I'd give you a pass on your prior assertions. BUT, you are indicating to all of us that you are involved in QA. What IS it exactly that you test?
Or better -- get humble and try appreciating what the other guy has to say.