Design Modification Request: Descendancy Chart: Be able to select Reserve by reservation type

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: There has been extensive discussions (not all have been agreeable), but I think there is an answer for those who use the icon color green to search the descendancy pedigree chart for persons who need more work.

Right now, there are two type of reservations indicated by the green icon in the chart: Those that can be reserved for two years (a normal reservation) and those that can be reserved for 90 days (a new ability to pull a name from the temple-shared pool).

While many temple-shared names need more work to "flesh out" the profile, anyone can pull any name without having to be related, the same as if they picked up the name from the temple.

By combining functions with the green icon, one cannot scan a descendancy chart to find those that need work and are otherwise available for the traditional reservation -- those that are need more work are now represented on the chart by the orange icon.

This discussion topic is the request for users to select the "Reserve and go" {to the temple} or "Normal reservation"


I consider the reasons behind the decision to be off-topic for this thread. For those with issues about the decision to combine the functions, see Jim Greene's response in the https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... discussion thread.

Please respect the intent of this discussion to provide a solution for those seeking normal reservations from the descendancy chart.

Thank you.

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: Leaving the icon red would probably have meant that it would have taken years for many people to realized that they could now print cards and complete work for those temple shared ordinances. Changing the icon to green certainly got everyone's attention on the new function.

My suggestion in another post was to bring back another icon:

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Mm, I have my reservations (bad pun, I know). Like the blue hint and the blue in progress, having two icons the same color (or nearly the same) is going to be a problem. We really need a filter to get rid of the one we do not want.

Also, Available - Shared may end up confusing people who do not use the system extensively.

LegacyUser

Angela Rae Cottrell said: If sharing names with the temple is still going to be an option, I like Gordon's idea of the two green squares, one with a temple icon and one without. I think most people could be taught that both green icons represent available ordinances, but one has already been shared with the temple. This is a simple resolution for all. However, from what I'm gathering from these posts, it sounds like sharing names with the temple is going by the wayside? It would be preferred that we just leave them for people to reserve, rather than share? I am happy to do this, however, my only concern is that some names would fall through the cracks. At least sharing with the temple, even though it often takes a long time for the ordinances get done, keeps that from happening. I don't totally understand everything about ordinance ready, but perhaps it would or does scan the system for those names that have been available for a long period of time and que's them first for printing.
This would resolve my concern of names falling through the cracks and the need to share names with the temple at all. Any enlightenment would be greatly appreciated.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The only problem is that both icons are green. We already have a problem with the Green Hint Icon and the Green Temple Ready Icon as it is, especially on small displays.

It is not a problem with a magnified display on a large screen, but definitely a problem with those of us with vision that is no longer as sharp as it once was.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: One you have reserved a name, you can share the ordinances with the temple. There is a problem with the All or Nothing approach, but that is partially resolved at this time.

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: Sharing with the temple is definitely not going by the wayside at all! In fact it is going to be even more emphasized than ever before!

Ron Tanner has mentioned several times that in the near future, we will only be able to have a limited number of names on our personal reservation lists while our shared with the temple list will still be unlimited.

Gone will be the days of people having 10,000 names reserved and not shared with the temple that no one else can then complete.

Now, let me stress they have not announced what the limit will be, but say, for example they decide on 200. That means that if you have 200 names on your personal reservation list, you will not be allowed to reserve any more names until you share some of those 200 with the temple.

So if anything, we are being encouraged to share everything with the temple except for a few special names.

Previously when your distant cousin had done a ton of research and shared everything with temple so that when you came to Family Tree all you saw were red icons, you had four choices: 1) contact that relative and ask for names, 2) contact support and ask for names, 3) hope Ordinances Ready would give you the names you wanted to complete, or 4) wait 20 to 50 years for the ordinances to be completed by random strangers at the temple.

Now, when you see a relative on the tree whose research is done and needs ordinance work, just click on that green icon, print a card, and go to the temple.

Previously when you were doing research and completed a distant relative for whom you would not have the opportunity or time to complete ordinances for, you had two choices: 1) leave the ordinances unreserved and hope another family member would find it some day or 2) share the ordinance with the temple and hope you were not offending someone by depriving him of the opportunity to complete the work for his great-great-grandfather.

Now, just reserve those names and share them with the temple, being comfortable in knowing that when that great-great-grandson finds the name in Family Tree, he can just print out the card and complete the work that you so lovingly prepared for him. And if he never does find the name, the work is still guaranteed to get done someday.

LegacyUser

Angela Rae Cottrell said: Thank you for that explanation Brother Collett! That clarifies some things for me. I can with confidence continue to share the names with the temple I cannot do myself. They will now be available to more people to accomplish the temple work and that is great! I have had people ask me to unreserve names in the past and then they don't go and do the work. It's a little disheartening. I'm glad to see the new reservation opportunity, but with the 90 day limit.

It is interesting how we each use the system differently to accomplish the same goal of redeeming the dead. I do not use the descendancy pedigree chart to look for green temple icons for people who need more work as described by Brother Huber above, so that solution will not solve the problem for me. I am just hoping for a quick way to distinguish that my relatives either have their ordinances completed or that I need to reserve them to either do the work myself or share with the temple. I keep clicking on green temple icons only to discover they are already shared. It's just time consuming to do that everytime I'm on a person page with the amount of work I do.

Thanks to everyone trying to find a resolution to this issue! I think everyone has the end goal in mind of moving the work forward!

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: One of the problems with the old code is that the shared with temple ordinances were temple-centric, meaning that if a name was shared, it was put into a pool for that temple on a first in, first out basis. This resulted in some temples having names sit for years before any work was done while others took far less time to have the ordinances performed by the patrons.

Now, with the new change, the names go into a temple pool, but if I think what happened, took place, that is a general temple pool, meaning that it is served by all the temples, not just the temple district in which the user lives. I believe it is still first in, first out, and if an ordinance is pulled and not completed within the 90-day period, the name reverts to its previous place in the list. This is the way it works with Temple Ready and since the time frames are the same, I do not see it working any differently with names that are pulled using the new system.

If I am wrong, perhaps Jim Greene or someone familiar with the new system can inform us about how names are now being shared and distributed in the new system.