Marking of Green Temples that have already been reserved.

LegacyUser

Douglas Russell Johnson said: Typically I will spend 3 to 4 hours per day looking for "new" family names where temple work needs to be done. Most of the names that I find I will submit to the temple for the work to be done. Recently Family Search made some changes to Family Search where it shows a Green Temple for those names that are already reserved and have been submitted to the temple for the work to be done. Most of my time now is looking at names that have already been reserved by others and have been submitted to the temple. It really is not worth my time to look at green temples that have been reserved by others. I am losing my interest in looking for new names. I am not the only person that feels this way. There really has to be a better way to utilize people's time in looking for "new" names.

LegacyUser

Amy Archibald said: There are just over 1 Billion names in the Family Tree and estimates of 110 Billion people that have lived on the earth.

The focus is now on finding the missing 109 Billion people via historical records (many of which are indexed) and ADDing them to the Family Tree (for which if you are related you can then reserve temple ordinances).

The temple file is FULL of names of person's whose work needs to be done. There isn't a need for users to search the Tree to find green temples to submit to the temple anymore.

Most users who are looking for a green temple are those who are wanting a name to take immediately to the temple themselves.

The Ordinances Ready process will pull names already shared with the temple file and will also search the Tree for related names still needing temple work (green temples). Users can now also find a "green temple" and reserve it for 90 days (because it was shared with the temple previously).

The FamilySearch software now can find the green temples in the Tree via Ordinances Ready.

There is no longer a need for other users to search for them to then share to the already Full temple file.

LegacyUser

D. Llewelyn said: 90% of the time, when I research, it begins with a green temple and leads to the discovery of many additional people/family members who do not yet exist in Family Search. The research almost always starts with the green temple.

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: Many different types people come to Family Tree with many different goals.

Those who come to just find a name ready to take to the temple.
Those who activity add to the tree but have no interest at this time in temple work.
Those who for any number of reasons can't get to the temple but want to make sure all their family's work is done.
Non-members who see the value of Family Tree but don't even know the temple pages exist.

Please see my extensive example of why Douglas has a very valid point.
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

LegacyUser

Douglas Russell Johnson said: I agree with Gordon. A different color would save a lot of wasted time.

It is hard for me to believe what Amy says is true. She says, "There isn't a need for users to search the Tree to find green temples to submit to the temple anymore." This comment tells me that those people are not important, so we should stop trying to find them.

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: Agreed.
Amy no need to copy and paste your same comment to everyone's thread.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Another problem that is similar has been something that I have never used. By clicking on the green temple icon, a popup opens where the user can reserve the vicarious ordinances. I thought (and thanks to Eric for alerting me to this) that the only place where one can reserve ordinances is on the ordinance page for that person's profile.

By adding the ability to pull ordinances that are not reserved by anyone, but shared with the temple, the same green icon is used, with the intent that it is used to "grab and go to the temple". The other ways that the green icon is used (to discover if a name is truly fleshed out with all the correct details, which often leads to adding people to the tree and setting them up with sources, and so forth).

There is no one way to correctly research a family. Often we (and that includes myself) have one way that we like and others use a different method. I don't have a solution for this kind of research, but it is an integral way many use to research their ancestral lines.

The emphasis (according to Jim Greene) of the new system is to help clear out the backlog of temple-shared ordinances. That's going to take a while, since no temple is currently available to do vicarious temple ordinances. Presently, according to the listing, only some temples are open for living sealings during the pandemic.

That doesn't mean that we need to stop researching and adding people to our reservations list, and share them. That still needs to go forward, but the new system allows anyone to "grab and go", even those names that are shared with the temple system.

What got left in the dust are the various means people use to research their families.

I don't know of any good solution, so this is something that FamilySearch will need to explore as far as helping users with researching their families.

LegacyUser

R Greg Leininger said: my same concerns: some people do Fam Search to find new names thru new research. others like me use record hints to link to family members. Using those hints plus looking at persons' already linked sources such as marriage records and Find a Grave, I have found many NEW names to add to Fam Tree.

But when i am looking through family lists, i would like to know that the Green icon is EITHER for names that are ready and unreserved OR names that are ready to pick but are ALSO shared w the temple. I wont take a look at the ones shared already w temple. i only want to look at the unreserved names so i can see if there are any errors to correct, any new records to link, and any children, spouses, siblings, etc to add. THEN I share them w the temple. See below of one of my posts:

some of us find names from census record links but have too many to take to the temple ourselves. You can do one of two things:

1. you share that name w temple, or

2. you unreserve the name and hope that someone else will come along who has the time to do it NOW.

I did an "experiment" for about 8 months, where I had 10 male/female names for each ordinance and shared w temple. I kept them in one pouch to monitor.

I then took a similar number of male/female names for each ordinance, and unreserved them as green icons for anyone to reserve. But I kept them in another pouch to montior later.

8 months later, about 60% of the "shared w temple" persons had their baptisms and confirmations done by then, yet only 1 of the "unreserved" group had been claimed and had their baptism/confirmation done in the same time period.

so it appeared better to me to share all my names w the temple, assuming they would get done sooner. So it is helpful to me if the green icon is for names shared w temple OR unreserved names, not both.

If already reserved w the temple, i dont want to open up that profile, but if it is unreserved, then i will, in order to correct any potential errors, link any new records and then share w temple. I think their work will get done sooner than leaving them unreserved.

So a diff color icon to tell between shared w temple and unreserved helps, so i dont "waste my time" opening up the names of 8 kids in a family, only to see that they have already been shared w the temple.

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: Hold up, Jim actually said that?!?! That the point is to help "clear out the backlog"?!? And this is the solution!?!? To keep it family friendly I guess I won't say anything.... THE way to clear it out is to get more people to the temple, but why are we trying to "clear it out" in the first place? In a way, isn't this a good problem to have? There are SO many people that don't have the time/resources/etc to go research names, and that's fine, hence the temple shared names...after all we're all trying to do our best to get through them as best as we can. Not to mention that we already know it'll require the Millennium to complete the entire work, so why don't we all just get out of everyone's way and keep trying to do our best, INCLUDING garbage IT updates?

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Yes. Jim Greene's two major posts are in the https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... discussion and the https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... discussion.

He stated in the first discussion (from the 12th)

We need to have the ordinances performed for the names that the temples already have. Therefore, we are changing the emphasis and changing the meaning of the green temple. It now means "This ordinance is available for temple work to be performed." It does not mean "This ordinance is ready to be requested/reserved or submitted/shared with the temple."

. The statement is toward the bottom of the very long and hard to read response, but it is there.