Copied: "Total names "shared with the Temple" is being reduced..."
I am continuing here a conversation started here: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/129925/total-names-shared-with-the-temple-is-being-reduced-by-some-unknown-reason-why#latest and here: https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/129910/need-quick-and-secure-way-to-unshare-and-reshare#latest by @Earl Garrett Morris (I hope this is not viewed as being too helpful or not my place.)
@Earl Garrett Morris wrote:
The Family Search program has always shown the number of names that one has shared with the Temple. When I got to 73,000 names "shared" the number shown upon opening began to be reduced to a lesser number. The last time, yesterday, when I opened FS the number was 66,000. I am not interested in setting a record for "names shared" but I am curious as to whether names I have shared are being removed from my "shared" list and, thus, being "unshared" with the Temple. I do not have a phone number to call to talk to a qualified person to discuss this, and I am not interested in having this question plastered in a "public forum" but I do not know of any other way to get an answer.
I answered at the second link above with some theories. Since then I have disproven one and come up with another.
The first thing I think you may be misunderstanding, is that the program has never shown the total number of names you have shared with the temple. It only shows the names you have shared that still have uncompleted ordinances. That is the way the program as always worked.
Your goal is not to have an ever increasing list of shared names, but to have a shrinking list that eventually gets to 0. In other words, it is actually great news that your number is falling.
As I mentioned, I did test and disprove one of my possible reasons for this. When someone takes a person off your shared list as a 90-day reservation, either through Ordinances Ready or directly on Family Tree, the name is not removed from your shared list. A temple icon replaces the checkbox so you cannot do anything with that individual and remains there until the ordinances are completed or the person unreserves the 90-day reservation.
This really leaves just two possibilities I can think of.
1) The ordinances are being completed. This will remove them from your list. You should see them on your Completed list which holds the past two years of completed ordinances up to a maximum of 3000 lines.
2) Other researchers are working in the same lines you are and are finding duplicates whose ordinances are completed that you missed and merging them with the records of people on your shared list. Again, since merging the duplicates brings with it all the ordinances, if they are all now completed, they will fall off your shared with temple list to prevent the ordinances from being unnecessarily repeated. (Also, if the ordinances were not completed but were reserved by someone else, the reservation with the earlier date is kept while the later reservation is canceled. That would also remove them from your list.)
Again, both of these situations are great news. You should be thrilled to see your list is shrinking.
If you have any names that you know were on your shared list that are not there now, you should go to their Family Tree pages and check their ordinances pages to see the current status there. If you do and find that they have reverted to green icons, rather than showing as completed, then something else is going on.
If you have further concerns, you should post here that you want a moderator to private message you to discuss this matter.
It is incorrect to say that when ordinances shared with the Temple system are completed the number is removed from ones "shared" list. I have been doing this for several years and when one opens FS one can go to the Shared Ordinances list and it will show, on a daily basis, what shared ordinances were completed and at which Temple in the world. But those names are not removed from a contributor's "shared" list. This recent reduction in the number of "Shared" ordinances is a departure from any practice I have ever seen. It does not match with the number of "Shared" ordinances completed on any given day. Please get this query to an FS program master who understands the details of the software who can answer this question.0
Please have a Moderator private message me. Thank you.0
Private messaging is not necessary, just have someone answer on this section so all can see.
Gordon Collett ✭✭✭✭✭
From your other post:
Some have reported that when a "shared" ordinance is completed that ordinance is removed from the "Shared" list. That is incorrect, the ordinances "shared" always remain on the contributors summary list. FS does show, on a daily basis, what "Shared" ordinances were performed and in which Temple.
I think we are having some difficulty due to terminology. Completed ordinances do vanish from the "My Shared with Temple" list just like they do when they are completed from our "My Reservations" list. The only place you can see which shared ordinances were performed and in which Temple is on the Completed list:
This Completed list only hold the past two years of completed work or 3000 names, which ever is smaller. If you have reached 3000 on this list, as new ordinances are completed, the oldest ones will fall off.
If you have actually been looking at the total of Shared plus Completed and your completed list has hit 3000, then your total of these two will start decreasing because Completed will never get any larger.
I do hope a moderator can clear up your question. Please let us know the answer. This would be important for everyone to know.1
Im not sure the precise answer to your question - though I do concur with others that one would think the number is reducing simply by those for which the work has been completed.
BUT a few intriguing questions:
With a number as high as 66,000 -- how long do you actually have to sit there at the computer - after you initially visit the page -- until the names on your reserved list actually display? I have to imagine it must be a few minutes if not much longer??
also you quote the numbers of 73,000 and 66,000 -- I have to assume you just rounded those numbers off for us. and that the actual numbers were not those precise numbers - but close to those numbers.
if indeed those were the exact numbers of 73,000 or 66,000 then I have to assume you may actually be bumping up to some system limitation that is measured at the 1,000 level. and might even vary from one display to another due do the database queries timing out at some point -- and at different places in the number count simply due to varying loads on the system at different times.
also how many years did it take you to get to a number that high??
also what temple district do you belong to?? wonder how many other people in the temple district have issues getting their names done with all of yours in the queue . . .0
The responses to my question concerning the "shared" number of ordinances being reduced from 73,000 to 66,000 are comments of "speculation". Please have a qualified FS staffer answer the question. As to some of the recent comments of "speculation" I include the following:
Each day, upon opening FS, one of the things that the FS program shows on my account is what ordinances that I have "shared" were performed , real time, and in which Temple they were performed. This includes Temples from all over the world.
The number of ordinances I have "shared" has never had any bearing on this procedure. Therefore, I ask the original question, and wish that it would be answered by a qualified FS Programmer who really understands how FS is programmed. "
"What is happening in the FS software that it no longer shows the actual number "shared" and appears to be "stuck" at 66,000"?0
I hope you do get your answers/
Note though, that this is the "Community" (users helping other fellow users) - the vast majority of us are people just like you.
and even 99% of the true staffers will really not be in a position to answer your question with certainty. This would require some intimate knowledge with the programing code as well as info related to your specific case.
BUT I do hope you are able to make contact with a person who would be in a position to know.
I hope the moderators will be able to connect you. Good Luck.0
I think I should never have started this dialogue. The only way my question can be correctly answered is with a "staffer" who is intimately involved in the FS software, and the likelihood of their responding to me is probably zero.
I enjoy, each day, opening FS and seeing my shared ordinances performed, in which Temples, throughout the world.
I have been messaged by some who suggest I should, "Let someone else find the names". I wonder how the deceased, who are finally getting their work done, would respond to that suggestion.0
God bless you in your service.
as long as you are "sharing your names", as you are, many other people from around the world are also able to participate in the wonderful work of the Lord for those same people you have started the process with - as these people around the world complete it by doing the ordinances..
in these latter days it is even easier than ever to initiate the work - but then share the blessings with people around the world who participate in the completion of the work. Thousands of people around the world will be completing the names on your shared list. And when ALL the ordinances are completed for a given person -- they will drop of your shared list until your numbers are down to zero. (sometime in the years ahead - God only know how many)
God Bless you for your service.0
In my case -- over the past year -- my names have gone down about 1,000 names
as people around the world complete my names - my record count of shared names is going down little by little.
and when all ordinances are competed for a specific name - then it no longer shows on the temple shared name list and my record count keeps going down little by little - just like yours keeps going down.0
My thanks to all who have shared your observations. To you who are interested, I think I have finally figured out what is going on, as follows: Some of the names that I find who have ordinances that need to be performed have "some" of their ordinances that have already been "shared" with the Temple. I do not understand why someone would share some of the needed ordinances for a person, but not all of them. If this assumption is correct, someone who "writes" or "supervises" the FS code has changed the way the system works so that the system has gone back and placed all of the "shared" ordinances with the first submitter, thus the second submitter (me) would see a reduction in their shared ordinances total. This is the only answer that makes any sense. Unless a FS "staffer" who manages the software reads this long blog and answers for us it appears that we will never know. I am just a minor "ant" on the ant hill of FS users and I am sure they do not have the time or inclination to answer this long thread of communications. This is the only summation that makes any sense. Thanks to all for your observations!!!0
Not sure that I understand or not.
BUT to summarize what I and others have stated previously
all of our Shared Temple Ordinances COUNTS go down with time - just like yours.
When all the ordinances for a given person are completed they are then removed from the "Shared with Temple List"
Mine has gone down over 1,000 records over the last year
and so has everyone else's gone down as they are completed (unless they keep adding new people to the list)
"Shared with temple" is NOT cumulative for all current and previously shared -- rather it is only those that are CURRENTLY shared and pending. Once they are all complete for that person - they no longer are included on that list.0
I have been doing Descendancy research for six years. Your statement that as shared names have the work completed in a Temple that name is removed from the Shared list is incorrect. Every day, as I open FS, names that I have shared and that have had ordinances performed in a Temple somewhere in the world are shown in my FS. In all this time, never has the total shared number been reduced as a result of these ordinances being performed. THERE IS NO CORRELATION TO ORDINANCES COMPLETED VERSUS ORDINANCES SHARED!!!
It would be helpful to those of us who are engaged in this issue to have a qualified FS staff member post the real reason as to why, after six years of doing Descendancy, the "Total Shared" number is reducing.
I have learned, in attempting to contact a qualified FS staff member to answer this question, that there are so many queries on issues related to using the FS software that a one-on-one is impossible.0
I have been doing the work for 30 years and have done tens of thousands of names.
And I have been in contact with the FamilySearch Staff who administer this system.
and the way it is currently configured is that ONCE - ALL the ordinances for a given individual are completed - then the name is removed from the SHARED list. That is how it works -- period.
That is exactly what Qualified Staff will also share with you.
Now it is true that it might take many years for the names that are initially shared to drop of the list - because it can take many years to complete all the ordinances. So it is quite true that for many years your list of names was continually growing and not shrinking. But now that various of them are completing all ordinances then finally the record count is now reducing.
That is exactly how it is designed by the Engineers and staff.1
Like you - I also have a large number of names that have been shared with the temple over a large number of years
When I click on FILTER and then "ASCENDING"
I can see the very earliest names (from that list) that I submitted. (for me this was back in 2017)
but I have been submitting names for 30 years or so.
the reason I only see back to 2017 is because the ones that had ALL ordinances completed - were dropped from the list (though it may have taken 4-6 years for that to occur)
and this is evident as I browse my earliest names - I cannot find a single one that has all the ordinances marked as complete -- because they would have been removed from the list
The only ones left from my earliest submissions are just those that are still pending a given ordinance.
Like this one submitted in 2017 but still pending Endowment and Sealing.0