Remove baptisms and confirmations from the 300 limit.
I have about nine groups of friends who are doing B/C's for me. I organize the names, keep track of them and provide them the printed copies to go to the temple. I think that is the least I can do when they are being so kind as to do the work for me. With the new policy of 300 reservations, this is putting a severe crimp in my work. (By the time I keep ordinances for myself in the other categories, I won't be able to provide names for these groups, too ) It would not be fair for me to expect them to take their time and money to create the cards. Also, this way I can easily keep track of what was done by which group, which is not available info on Family Search, but rather is just a massive aggregate.
Instead, limit the time on B/C's so they don't stay open for such long periods of time, but do not include B/C's in the 300 limit... This time limit would have to be consistent with the current difficulty of getting baptismal appointments. I don't have an idea of what would be fair, but perhaps it should be tied to responsible use, like a credit limit? The more you use it responsibly and put names through, the more you are allowed at a time? Just a thought.
With the 300 limit I would have a problem giving names to all of the groups, including my ward. This would restrict how many youth actually are able to attend. I continually have youth and parents thank me for names and the opportunity to go. I know they could get temple names, but that takes the motivation away from me to continue to research at an accelerated pace. I like seeing my names done.
Answers
-
@Debra Elaine Rossi I understand your frustration with wanting to be able to print out all the names you want for others to do the work. That is stupendous and I'm so grateful you do so much research and find and link names! However, no one should limit their time going to the temple simply because they don't have printed cards from someone else. The temple names are printed cards by other researchers, yes? One thing you can do is share more of your own names with the temple. If they are claimed by someone else, superb! The work is getting done and it is possible for you to meet a previously unknown relative who claimed that name (this happens to me and it is MARVELOUS!) If they are not claimed and you need more of your own cards to take to the temple, simply unshare them and wa-laa! You have cards to print. Since you really don't need a ton at once for the other ordinances that take a bit longer like endowments, it should mean that you can leave your personal numbers relatively low and keep the slots open for all those baptisms to be completed. I hope you continue to be motivated to move forward in your work, regardless of what changes are made.
1 -
This does not address my concerns at all. I don't believe yoAnd w understand what I am trying to communicate. And now, with the 300 limit, I can't even share. Let me give you a simple example. I have three different appointments at the temple today. I can't pull the ordinances I need because I have names already pulled for baptism appointments on the 30th, then the 2nd of December, the 10th and the 17th, the 22nd and two for the youth in our ward on the 18th. All your reply did for me was appear to condescend and not address my issues. I usually spend about 5 hours a day working on family search. Since your new policy, I didn't research any names yesterday. I have lists of names where I have corrected the info and made a personal list to submit when I can do a submit based on the number that corresponds with my work,in my personal work, and perhaps someone else will duplicate what I have sitting here that is already done, but the programming doesn't even allow me to submit the names to the temple until I am under 300. So then I have to ask myself, why bother to do the work I was doing when it will sit in a file and maybe be duplicated, thus rendering my efforts nil and void. This is not efficient, and I am OCD about efficiency. but that information is . I had previously shared over 2300 names to the temple in the last about 5 months. Well, you have shut that down. That makes me upset and not motivated to continue. And give me some good reasons why I should try to continue to help others set appointments when it just hinders my own personal work? You are making me out to be a selfish person with this new policy. My personality is pretty much all or nothing, and I am finding it increasingly difficult to want to continue. Your response made me cry, and I am sitting here with tears running down my face because people are being held back, and I am powerless to affect a change. I also know I am not the only one feeling this way. The only thing that saved me so far is that I had just recently gone back onto my shared reservations and pulled some baptisms and confirmations, which I can no longer do. And you didn't address a single one of the ideas or thoughts I put forth. Your response was not only not helpful, but harmful.
3 -
I just read back through my message and all I saw was a virtual hug and major thanks and encouragement, which is what I intended. I'm so sorry you felt put down by it.
I am an avid researcher as well, and I was simply trying to help you find a work-around for the way it is set up now, and therefore shared what I was doing. I have thousands as well and I have decided to share enough with the temple that my personal list is kept between 250 and 280. That gives me a "cushion," if you will, to keep researching, reserving names, and sharing a lot of those with the temple. I am constantly printing out baptisms for the youth to do and printing out the other ordinances for myself as well as friends and family who want them.
Something else I discovered yesterday. I just spend 6 hours researching last night. I was able to reserve names, share several of them with the temple. But I reached my 300-limit very quickly. However, I kept going. As I worked on someone's tree/family by attaching sources and adding people, I kept seeing all those green icons rack up. So, as I finished with a family or extended tree, I copied the URL and emailed it to myself. I ended up with 14 URL addresses. That way, as the sealings and baptisms that are scheduled get done, it will open up my personal reservations for more because I share the initiatory and endowments with the temple and unreserve them as I need more to do. I will go to my email, click on one link at a time, and reserve those ordinances for the baptisms and/or sealings that may be ready. The work is already complete in FamilySearch. It would be super if I went in and saw that others claimed those green icons, but if not, I'll add them to my reserved page as slots open up.
I'm not trying to be condescending or negative at all. You had said that others don't want to go if they don't get names from you, and I didn't understand that since I've always felt the temple names are much the same. I do not consider you selfish in any way and admire you for all your amazing work, which I stated. I do completely understand why FamilySearch did this and I feel it was a brilliant move. YES, I feel frustrated because it does make things a bit more time-consuming to have to work around the 300 limit, but I'm working around it and with it and want to positively share the things I've been able to do to make it work, and hope it will help others. It is possible to make it work. I'm hoping to share ideas so others can try them out, or come up with their own way to make it work.
Unless someone has 300 or more printed cards waiting for currently reserved time slots in the temple (which would be incredibly amazing!), then enough can be temple shared in order to keep the personal list under 300 and allow the space to reserve more. I do hope you sense my positive responses, my virtual hugs, and my encouragement to keep moving forward. You are awesome for doing so much!!!
3 -
Thanks for your response. As you can tell, I have been major stressed with this. I didn't detail all the appointments I have helped facilitate, and it isn't people not wanting to go, but rather, going, they like knowing who they are helping, me, through helping with my family tree. Just as we prefer to do our own names, the second tier is to be helping your friends or family. I currently have either set up, or helped people find, 11 baptism sessions between now and the end of January. Plus the 80 baptisms I organized this early this week. Multiply that by 40 and I am still out of space. Today I have appointments for Initiatory, Endowment and Sealings. I have another appointment the first part of next week. I can't even print off an adequate number of names with the 300 limit. I appreciate your response and you have some good ideas that are work-arounds, so-to-speak, but until they make it so that the limit either changes, or if you are at the limit, you can still submit to the shared temple folder, I don't think I am going to be happy. I cheerfully admit I am OCD, and efficiency is one of my biggest areas of OCDness (if there is such a word). I hate wasting time and energy. I am so lazy that I am very efficient. LOL. Maybe it is all my business classes in production line management, where we learned how to shave parts of seconds off of tasks in production lines....I suspect that when these are through, I will no longer be as interested in teaching my friends how to use Family Search and submit names, because it just makes me sad. I just got off the phone helping a friend navigate how to access names for the first time, after giving her a class last week on finding her own names. Ironic that I am less interested after I have helped get people started. I have always been a high producer, and if I can't produce at a high volume, I quickly lose interest.
Thanks for your kind words. I guess I'll wait and see. I almost cancelled my appointments today I am so sad.
1 -
@Debra Elaine Rossi Thank you SO much for all of the work, organizing, and coordinating that you do! That is so awesome!!!
I hear you! FamilySearch needs to see that some people with over 300 names are actually being INCREDIBLY responsible with those names. For each and every name on my list, I can explain how I am doing everything possible to further the work for that particular name. It sounds like you could do the same!
A better way is needed to differentiate between those who are responsible and those who are not. The wise steward should be given more than the unwise steward.
FamilySearch needs to look at WHY people are over 300 names, not just that they ARE over 300 names. Has FamilySearch asked the WHY question? Have they talked with people who are over 300 names, to seek for understanding? I'm sure some don't have valid reasons, but OTHERS DO. Then, FamilySearch can address how to accommodate the valid reasons.
I will continue to work hard within the current system and to make the best of it, but hopefully in time it can be refined into something better.
BTW, people who comment on posts are almost always patrons rather than FamilySearch employees.
4 -
gggggggggggggggggo lavenirse como hacer mi comentario ? si no diez
0 -
I am also incredibly frustrated with this limit. Glad to know I’m not alone.
2 -
Wow! I don't think, in all my years of researching that I have added even 2000 individuals to my family tree to do temple ordinances! How do you manage it? I, too, spend many hours researching and cannot duplicate that volume!
I have some thoughts on the 300 limit as well. While my reservation list has never been that high, I recently found that FamilySearch has created Family Groups. My experimentation finds that when I send an individual's ordinances from my Temple Reservation List to my Family Group, it goes off of my Temple Reservation List. Could you have the leaders of the groups that you supply join your Family Group and pull the names from there? Or even pull them yourself when you are preparing for one of these trips.
I've never had the surplus to share with the Temple, so I don't know, but it sounded from @ifyerhappyanduknowit 's description that sharing to the temple also removes them from your Temple Reservation List count.
Another thought: Are you helping research for some of the people that you are supplying ordinances for? If so, why not add their family names to their own Temple Reservation Lists? If you use the Helper Resources, you can save Helper access to their accounts and print (or help them print) ordinances from their own Temple Reservation Lists. That way the numbers would be against their own accounts, and not yours. It is even possible that they would be interested in learning to print their own cards.
1 -
I am frustrated too, I had over 700 names reserved that I reduced to about 500. However, these were all grandparents whose work I was reserving for family members who cannot use the system. I have paired them down to 300 reluctantly but am unhappy about it
3 -
You do know that you can use Helper Access to work as if from their accounts, right? You don't have to keep everyone's ancestors' Temple Ordinances in your own list.
2 -
PS I noticed on another thread a mention by @CJTobler that suggests using the Following List to keep track of additional individuals you want to work on ordinances for in the future, when you've filled the 300. See that comment here: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/comment/408469/#Comment_408469
2 -
Just share the excess ordinances to the shared temple list. This will allow others who are related to these same people to help do the temple work. It will allow temples to work on the ordinances and at any time that you may need an ordinance you can pull back what you need for your immediate appointment. You can continue to do research and reserve more ordinances.
Other people can run Ordinances Ready and can get ordinances they need from the shared temple list for their appointments.
You can also share ordinances directly to another family member or friend's own temple reservation list where they can manage the ordinances themselves.
This is from 2012: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/making-your-temple-experience-more-sacred?lang=eng
Some Church members have large numbers of family names reserved so they can personally attend to the temple work. We encourage them to release these names in a timely manner so the necessary ordinances can be performed.
“Many faithful Saints have done the work of researching their family lines and are using the reserve feature of FamilySearch to hold the ordinances for their own family members to serve as proxy. The intent of reserving names is to allow a reasonable period of time for individuals to perform ordinances for ancestors and collateral lines. There are currently 12 million names {in 2012} and millions of corresponding ordinances that are reserved. Many names have been reserved for years. Ancestors who have been found are no doubt anxious and thrilled when their names are cleared for ordinances. They, however, may not be very happy when they have to continue to wait for their ordinances to be performed.
“We encourage those of you who have a large reservation of names to share them so that members of your extended family or ward and stake can help you in completing that work. You can do this by distributing temple cards to ward and stake members willing to help or by using the FamilySearch computer system to submit the names directly to the temple,” said Elder Scott.
0 -
I posted my suggestion to the original problem posted here on her same comment in the middle of this thread: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/109829/sharing-names-with-the-temple-instead-of-reserving-the-names#latest where I outlined a procedure to not have to worry about the 300 line limit at all.
2 -
Thanks for your comments, but no one is addressing my issues. Just for the record, I have almost 800 ordinances that I have done since the temples reopened. That's right, it is actually 803, with a few that have come through the ones I have already released to the temple, which is over 2,300. I have the capacity to do the work, and I resent the fact everyone thinks I should release more names. I am fortunate to have a network of people who are willing to help, but I provide the cards. They are not my relatives, but friends and their families, and it is very rude, in my opinion, to ask them to help me and then to take additional resources and time from them to prepare the cards. I think that would be showing a lack of appropriate social etiquette on my part.
I currently have over a hundred I have done the research on, and can't even put them on the temple share under the current program. Even that is not well-thought out. If you don't want me to put more under my name, why can't they at least be released to the temple? On one hand you say more names are needed, and on the other hand, if it isn't done by releasing the ones I have, the others are held hostage. When the new program was put in place, I started the list I am referencing here, but I have done ZERO research the last few days. I even quit working on the list. I love statistics, and prior to the new policy I was averaging 25 names a day added to the temple list for the last couple of months, as I have become better at research and sources. Well, that's at a lovely standstill now. I won't give up the temple appointments (more distant relations) for baptisms. They need their work done and I have it in place. Those baptism appointments are hard to find. Not going to give them up. That means with the 7 in December, I have 280 names reserved. The remaining 20 are ludicrous. I have appointments for initiatory, endowments and sealings in a couple of days. I have the endowment....being highly motivated by efficiency, I want to be able to make it worth the time, gas and other opportunity lost costs to attend. I went to see if I could even do the ordinances ready for sealings to parents. I know I put a lot on the temple list that the only thing they needed was the sealing to parents. Couldn't access it because I have 300.
So if anyone needs some appointments, let me know. I'll let you know when I am releasing the ones I have scheduled this week if I don't find enough among my friends to make it work so my slots are full.
So nice to give standard answers and not address the issues that are valid. No one has addressed the issue of I have scheduled baptisms for the names I have in my list, and can't get to do any more work on my other ordinances because of that. I guess what you are really saying, if you think about it, is that I should release the names and HOPE someone else gets to them, when I already have appointments scheduled. Ridiculous. I hate standard answers.
“We encourage those of you who have a large reservation of names to share them so that members of your extended family or ward and stake can help you in completing that work. You can do this by distributing temple cards to ward and stake members willing to help or by using the FamilySearch computer system to submit the names directly to the temple,” said Elder Scott. Gee, he said by distributing temple cards to ward and stake members willing to help, as one of the ways. That is what I have been doing. It is a joint effort. I have sent links to some of my relatives, and they haven't been able to figure it out, so I have printed and mailed them cards. Again, I do not like cookie-cutter answers. None of the ones I have gotten solve my problem. I know p All these answers are doing is making me more reluctant, hence the zero research illustrated above.
By the way, Elder Rich Scott was in charge of the genealogy for the Charles C. Rich family. He did a session every single week for his wife's family, because when she was alive she did so much of his. Let's talk about busy people....
2 -
I had sent you a private message. Did you get it?
And yes, the issue cannot be fully addressed unless it allowed you to be able to keep reserving names while the ones you have appointments for are waiting to be done.
I explained to you in another post what I have been doing. I also average between 15 and 35 names a day when I do research. I have copied the URL from the web page that shows their family tree and all those green icons. They are there waiting for me to claim, almost the same as me waiting for the appointments to come so I can get the work done. I have 3 baptism appointments this month and I will also get all the sealings done this week. As they are done, reservation "slots" will open up in my personal page and I can click on one of the URL links I emailed to myself and go right in, reserve more names, print the cards, and they are ready for my next appointment. I am making the system work for me, and avid researcher with tons of names. I, too, have participated in about 800 ordinances since my temple reopened the very end of June. I do understand what your needs are. I've just been trying real hard to give you an alternative for the time being until maybe a change is made that will allow things to be different. I have seen it work the way I'm doing it. Saving the URL is just one more step, but that's all. I do all the research, attach all the sources, verify correct relationships and information. So, when I have more space on my reservations page, all I need to do is click on one of the many links I have saved and the reservations are right there for me to claim. It has been stupendous that I can still continue with my research without feeling like something is missing.
Again, sending you virtual hugs. You are amazing for doing all the work you do, sharing all the work you do, and wanting to keep moving forward at your incredible pace. Thank you for being the amazing you that you are!!!
0 -
Thanks for making me feel a bit better. I decided not to "adult" at all today, I have been so discouraged. So excited to have another friend call tonight and say they are going to do baptisms tomorrow, did I have any names? Yup. In my bank of names that are over the limit but already printed out. I keep them, file them alphabetically, and distribute them to groups. I still would have problems with the limit, because I now have 9 groups going this month for baptisms. It isn't like I have a printer where I can just pop them out, I have to plan in advance. It used to be not worth the printer, because I used it so seldom that the ink dried out and I was making expensive copies...a new cartridge whenever I printed. I might have to re-think that one. LOL. I set myself a goal of 1000 ordinances from the end of July until the end of the year. I think I am on track. I have a deep imperfection-complex, and constantly have to over-achieve to even feel good about myself, so set-backs hit me hard. (I'm the only one I can imagine that obsessed about a 99% on a test in graduate school for 6 wks. Being the child of two bright perfectionists still shows...)
With that said, your idea sounds good, but the sheer volume of names I am pushing through with the constraints I have listed doesn't work. I can't get the sealings and initiatories I need for Thursday, so will cancel. I am doing temples far and wide to find appointments that dove-tail, so I save on time and gas. However, my inactive son said I can use his account...I asked today. So we shall see. Thanks again. And eventually I will fall below 300, so can use your idea until then. I have been using a notebook to do the same thing.
2 -
Hi Debra.
I feel for your frustration as I too have lots of names, not as much as you have and applaud you for doing a wonderful job and being a good example to us all, I also can at times feel frustrated, I therefore looked to see why? and would like to address your concerns, may I suggest that you read the following knowledge article,
How many family names can I reserve? is there a reservation limit?
This acknowledges who has made the changes and it is not the FamilySearch team as previously stated by one of your answers from Deborah J. White. I quote:
"FamilySearch needs to look at WHY people are over 300 names, not just that they ARE over 300 names. Has FamilySearch asked the WHY question? Have they talked with people who are over 300 names, to seek for understanding? I'm sure some don't have valid reasons, but OTHERS DO. Then, FamilySearch can address how to accommodate the valid reasons."
FamilySearch only follows the guidelines set by the First Presidency.
Please may I assure you also that FamilySearch employees are constantly looking at questions and answering all queries that arise.
SueC
1 -
I second this request to remove baptisms from the list. I have done over 1400 ordinances in the last 2 years (and that's with the temples closed for Covid). So trying to keep the baptisms I need is really tough with this limit.
2 -
Yep, this right here! No research was done, no questions asked, just punish people who ARE working on their family trees to help entice people who aren't to get going on theirs? Makes SO much sense
0 -
"FamilySearch needs to look at WHY people are over 300 names, not just that they ARE over 300 names. Has FamilySearch asked the WHY question? Have they talked with people who are over 300 names, to seek for understanding? I'm sure some don't have valid reasons, but OTHERS DO. Then, FamilySearch can address how to accommodate the valid reasons."
This is why so many are frustrated--FamilySearch surprises us with a major change, having never asked for our input, never acknowledged any possible legitimate reasons for having more than 300 reservations, never explaining, only dictating.
"FamilySearch only follows the guidelines set by the First Presidency."
We would do well to get rid of this common response, because it deceives people into thinking FamilySearch is somehow only a middleman, which is utterly false. FamilySearch interprets guidelines from the First Presidency and implements policies they feel adhere to those guidelines. The First Presidency did not dictate a reservation limit, nor did they say FamilySearch must enforce a limit at all. FamilySearch chose to make these policies, FamilySearch chose to provide no exceptions, FamilySearch elected not acknowledge any of the highly legitimate reasons why a person might need more than 300 reservations. That was FamilySearch who did that--not the First Presidency. FamilySearch could modify the policy tomorrow if they so chose, and instead find different ways to align with First Presidency guidelines. FamilySearch chooses not to. FamilySearch also chooses not to explain why.
That is their prerogative. They can do as they please. But let's stop pretending these changes are somehow First Presidency directives.
1 -
And your evidence for this is? Which general authority told you this?
Since the temple department has set the standard for the size of the printed ordinance cards, which Ron Tanner has stated in many of his FamilySearch presentations that they have, so that only three cards can print per page and not four or more and FamilySearch programmers cannot change that; and since general authorities have counseled us at least since 2012 to only have limited reservations lists; and since we were told back in March of 2019 that limits on list length were coming, why are you so positive that this 300 number was not carefully derived through ten years of study and research and careful consideration by the Temple committee headed by an apostle and given as specific direction to FamilySearch?
1 -
@Gordon Collett you demand evidence, but FamilySearch has never claimed the First Presidency made the specific policy. In every single case, they have cited a specific quote from the First Presidency that makes general requests.
I'll turn it back to you--where is the direct evidence that the First Presidency demanded a 300-name limit? Where is the direct quote from a First Presidency letter demanding a limited reservation list of any kind? It does not exist, nor has FamilySearch claimed it as such. Thus, we should stop inferring things that neither the First Presidency nor FamilySearch has made.
When the 2-year limit was instituted, the same "following direction from the First Presidency" claims were made. I followed up with Ron Tanner--he explained the very thing I just described--that the First Presidency has given general guidelines and FamilySearch decided how they felt like implementing those guidelines.
1 -
And when you call the Church's temple department they promise to call back. It's been a week and no one has returned the call.
I haven't seen anything to indicate this is anything but "policy", rather than doctrine or inspiration. We've had several retractions on issues that have harmed the church's image, when people try to claim inspiration or direct instruction when it is their interpretation.
From my standpoint, I have done zero submissions on my family line for about 3 weeks. Considering that I was averaging 25 names a day, that adds up to a goodly amount. Then put in the ones I "unreserved" that didn't go to the temple, just unreserved (can't send anything to the temple unless you use the button on the reservations page, rather than the individual's page when you try to move it, and I found that late, like 250 names late_) and the net loss of work on my part alone is 775 names that could be into the temple now, but aren't, because someone is power hungry.
I had one person explain to me after the last RootsTech conference they had a million new members of the genealogy community and they want names for them. Good luck with that.
0 -
Also, @Gordon Collett, just because the temple committee has looked at something doesn't mean it was actually "run by" the general authority over the committee before they implemented it, with full details. They are advisory, not receivers of revelation for policy or doctrine, as far as I understand it. You demand others provide evidence and provide none yourself. I would like to know, with adequate citations, who said it and when it was said. It should be verifiable if it is true.
0 -
Ok, I stand corrected and apologize for getting carried away in my comments. However, the implication that whoever decided that 300 was a sufficient limit just pulled that number out of a hat one day without thorough analysis of the massive amounts of data FamilySearch must have on sizes of reservation lists, rates of ordinance completion, and length of time names sit on reservations lists, in view of the fact that the first announcement that a limit would be established was over two and a half years ago suggesting that creating a limit was probably first discussed many years before that, annoyed me.
0 -
@Gordon Collett I also apologize if my statements suggested the new policy decision was haphazard. I have great respect for FamilySearch even though I disagree on certain decisions and wish certain concerns would be directly acknowledged and addressed. Despite certain disagreements, I believe FamilySearch is the best thing to happen to family history in the last 20 years and love what they are doing.
I do think when it comes to addressing policy changes, we need to move away from suggesting the policies themselves came directly from the First Presidency. It can be a tempting path because it seems to shut down dissent, but I think the better path is empathy--trying our best to understand the problems and the hurt a new policy has caused, and recognizing that a policy may be good overall, yet not good for every single case. Even church policies made by the First Presidency have been tweaked after sincere efforts at empathizing.
0 -
@Gordon Collett So I have a question and a couple of comments after what you wrote. Thanks for clarifying. I only started doing my own FH after years of doing extractions and other people's work at the temple, so I had no idea they were thinking of limits, or to be candid, I would not have given as many to the temple, because I thought I could pull them back when needed for my own sessions, but oh, well. Live and learn.
So my question in this, you asked what general authority had said certain things to a previous poster. I wonder who you would go to in Family Search, when they seem so well insulated? I had several ordinances that weren't recorded at one of the temples, and I called Family Search because they didn't show up on my completed list. They told me it was the temple's problem, to call them. I did, and they pulled the cards of my previous day's 19 ordinances and checked, saying it was adequately recorded, it was Family Search's problem. So I called Family Search again and for the second time they told me to call the temple. I repeated that I already had. It was a big mess, and no one seems to claim the authority, or responsibility, but hides behind pointing fingers at someone else.
And for the record, It was Elder Scott who told me directly, there was a hierarchy in the Church for a reason, if you thought something was wrong, you were supposed to go up the ladder. I can't even find the ladder for Family Search. And I emphasize the word supposed. It is our duty and obligation when we raise our hand to sustain someone to not disengage our brain, but rather help them fulfill their calling to the highest level possible. That means pointing out, with love, mistakes and trying to improve policy. If someone is not willing to actively help others with their calling, they should not raise their hand in confirmation. (That is just my opinion of what sustaining someone means. I don't think it is what I joke about all the time, that someone is raising their hand in celebration of it wasn't them. It is them, every single time. )
Maybe if you have the answer of who to talk to, I can move up the ladder. I very carefully verify my facts and then move up the ladder. I have done it before, and there have been policy changes in other organizations. I would like to do it here. The last time I got stonewalled by someone who was power hungry and wouldn't tell me who was their supervisor so I could go up the ladder, I decided to go from the top down instead of the bottom up. Seriously considering my options here.
0 -
Boy, what can I write beyond pure speculation? Not much, so take this with a boulder of salt.
Recently I looked around various websites to see if an organizational chart for FamilySearch is posted anywhere and couldn't find anything. So I have no idea what their hierarchy is. Really, the interface between us and them is just this Community Board which appears to me to have three rolls and it can be important to keep clear in mind when writing those rolls and who our audience is:
1) As a place to get help working with the FamilySearch website. Most moderators do a good job pointing people to Help Center articles. Some do an excellent job going the extra mile and explaining what those Help Center articles mean in the context of specific questions. A few have at times given some pretty questionable advice. Other community users play a big role here.
2) As a place to post ideas to improve the website and to post bug reports. I have found that the people behind the moderators are really responsive to this, particularly to calm, well reasoned, clearly expressed concernes and I do think everything gets forwarded to them properly from the occasional hints we see of this. But I get the impression they are woefully understaffed and have a huge number of things they are working on. Requested improvements can take years to show up, usually in a form that is far better than what was requested.
I think the quickest response that I have ever seen here was when the change was made that any relative could take a name to the temple that someone else had shared with the temple. That was when all red icons that meant a name was shared with the temple and untouchable were changed to green icons. People who spent the vast majority of their time searching for green icons and turning them red were very upset because then most of the green icons they found were already shared with the temple. Within a couple of months the green icons on already shared icons were changed to the current green with stopwatch icons.
3) As a place to make sure temple ordinances are displaying properly. I have to say that it looks like the team that the moderators forward ordinance issue to have gotten really good. It seems that all ordinance display issues are dealt with within a couple of days.
So regarding FamilySearch issues, our current path really is just polite, specific, clearly expressed and reasoned posts with fully explained requests to forward them to the proper individuals, then ignoring comments and avoiding debates with other community members when such just detract from the real matter at hand. Posts like "I hate your website and am never coming back" and similar tantrums are far less useful to the people behind the moderators than well presented exposition.
Regarding your comment that you hadn't heard that limits were coming, a good place to hear what is in store for us on FamilySearch has always been the "What's New At FamilySearch" presentations by Ron Tanner every year at RootsTech. Here are two recent ones:
2019: https://www.rootstech.org/video/whats-new-on-familysearch?lang=eng
2021: https://www.familysearch.org/rootstech/rtc2021/session/whats-new-on-familysearch
I don't think his 2020 presentation was recorded. Also, his live Q&A sessions always cover a lot of good issues ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwJDNC5Ehtxqt1o4rs-0AKg ) but are watched by far too few people. He often gives out his e-mail address so people can write him directly with questions and concerns.
Regarding you rexperience with getting those ordinances displayed properly, (Did you ever get that fixed or did you have to repeat some) that sounds like a miscommunication issue in that no one you talked to really took the time to understand what you were saying and seeing. Cases like that really require thoughtful, clearly expressed facts. Currently such things should work pretty well through the temple section of these boards.
Based on the fact that there are two databases for temple work, 1) the actual, official ordinance database that records each specific ordinance exactly as it was done and 2) Family Tree, it sounds like there was a communication issue between the two since it appears that the person at the temple recorders office, which I assume deals only with the ordinance database since that is where they record ordinances, could apparently see them just fine but Family Tree, which can take a couple of days to catch up with the ordinance database sometimes, was not displaying the completed ordinances. Unfortunately it sounds like you were stuck between two people who did not understand how the databases work or that information was not transferring properly. If the temple recorder's office could clearly show you that the ordinances were recorded, really all you could do was keep calmly repeating to FamilySearch support that the temple said they were properly recorded until someone actually listened to you.
But back to this new policy. I really trust that as the initial bugs get worked out and as people adjust their priorities to work within the new policy things will be fine and better for everyone than they were before. I think a few things need to get into place:
- The Perform Next filter needs to work on the shared-with-temple list.
- Sharing directly to the temple from the ordinance page with clear directions that this still means that we are only to reserve people with whom we have a proven common direct ancestor.
- Allow printing of cards directly from the shared-with-temple list.
- Blocking couple sealings until the individual ordinances for each of the couple are completed.
- A warning that a child's parents are not sealed (this can't be a block because we are to complete the sealing to parents for the spouses of our relatives without doing any ordinances for the parents of that spouse since we are not related to them.)
I think I have rambled enough and at this point not really sure I've even commented on your comments or answered your question, so I should probably stop here!
0
