Conflicting Information in New OrdinanceStatus Pages

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: The new simpler ordinance handling and status pages are looking good! However, I did find something rather confusing to me. Here is the person record for an ancestor of mine on his "Ordinances" tab as I see it from my account. Note the Reservation dates for the SS ordinances for his two wives:



Now here is that same information as it appears in the Shared list under my Temple tab. Again, note the reservation dates:



QUESTION: What is meant by the Reservation dates here? They OBVIOUSLY do NOT mean the same thing since they are displaying totally different values on the two web pages from my account.

What does "Reserved" mean? Or is this just a new feature bug--i.e. the "Reserved" on the Temple Share list is really just the date it was SHARED but has been incorrectly labeled as "Reserved"?

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Interesting observation. This looks like a bug, to me with respect to when the name was shared with the temple. I cannot think of any action that would produce the day difference with respect to shared with the temple.

As far as the reserved date is concerned, on the temple page, the date being shown appears now to be the date the ordinance(s) was/were shared with the temple.

The reservation date on the person's ordinance page appears to be the original date reserved. Having both the original date reserved and the date shared on the person's ordinance page is helpful.

Except for the day difference between the Temple page and the Ordinance page.

I did not see any of the day difference on my names. They were shared a few years ago.

The temple page needs to use the word "shared" rather than "reserved" when viewing your "Shared" list.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: I had concluded all of those things as well. But the bottom line is still, "Why is the same identical terminology being used in the same context, in two totally different ways?" Something is obviously wrong (whatever it is).

As far as the reserved date is concerned, on the temple page, the date being shown appears now to be the date the ordinance(s) was/were shared with the temple

Maybe, that does sort of seem to be the issue in this case. Although I think with the new simplified icon status system, in addition to the temple, the term "Shared" might also mean shared with another person, or even Reserved by someone through Ordinances ready or by a direct Reservation from the desktop of one of your "shared with temple" names (which now finally appears to be possible). So in the case of the latter 2 situations, "Reserved" might be an appropriate word, but without the extra information, it is totally misleading and confusing. What does it really mean? You can't tell from the dictionary definition of the word, that's for sure.

By the way, that one day error was no surprise to me. I have seen it MANY times in the change/status related pages in FS. Can't remember the exact details (I've just ignored it for many months), but the date stamps in change history reports frequently have this error. Changes marked in the old watch list report that we would get and in the actual watch list pages, would frequently have that one day error when compared to the "View all changes" list.

Personally, I would prefer to have all watch list and change history records be marked with a REAL time stamp. I am not convinced at all that the sequence of changes shown in the change history or watch list changes are truly in the order that they actually occurred. If you look at changes that occurred to a person in your watch list and compare that to the actual view all changes for the the person on their details page, they have always been significantly different. But since there are so many things that make the change history so cryptic, I tend to only report the more significant ones.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Jeff, I will share this with the engineers, it may well be a bug. The only thing I can think of is that they put that date because it is the date when these changes went live, but not positive and it doesn't look right.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Thanks Jim.

Like I said, I've seen that same type of error occassionally over when comparing change histories with the same changes in watch lists. Obviously it should be corrected if possible, but the inconsistent use of terminology (especially right now with the confusion around the new colors and the more general use of the Green icons) is a bigger problem in my books, so see what you can do

Thanks!

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: The engineers have reported that they are "on it"