Ability restricted to submit ordinances - more bugs in the recent update

LegacyUser

Cherie Ailene Morgan said: So along with the new changes to the color coding, we (myself and other users on here) have found another bug in the system.

When I come across an individual who has most, but not all, of their ordinances submitted to the temple, if I click on request for the unsubmitted ordinances, it automatically selects all of them and the only option I have is to select all of them and reserve them for myself. If I select them and share them with the temple, then the only ordinance shared with the temple is the new one that hadn't previously been submitted, while all the rest remain reserved by me. This is NOT my intent and I am not given any other option to ensure all the ordinances as submitted to the temple.

This has sadly been a very poorly thought out change to the system.

PLEASE FIX THIS!!

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: This all or nothing approach was been around before the change. It is not a new problem. and I have also raised it as an issue. but I was not clear in my title. You are and I thank you for that. I am going to redirect my created thread to here.

Here is what I had to say in that post:

Jim Greene responded in another thread about the new system

you certainly should be able to share just a sealing to parent ordinance without sharing the others. I just went in and checked and it allowed me to. Please include screen shots of each step you are taking so that we can try to figure out why it is not working for you.

I did some testing and I came up with a problem. This is in regard to G7TN-XH7 (not a relative). Everything but SP had been reserved with the temple system.

The system required me to reserve all the names. I did that.

Next, I pressed share ... with the temple and yes, it allowed me to share just the one name.

The already shared ordinances are now reserved for me to print and take to the temple (90 day time limit). Only the one ordinance (SP) is shared with the temple.

I believe the names will still appear on the original user who shared them, but they will also appear on My Reservations list, which will time out in 90 days.

I wanted to unreserve my limited 90-day reservation for the others, but it was all or nothing. Unreserving all of them also reserved the temple-shared name. I didn't want that.

This all or nothing issue needs to be resolved because at the present time, I cannot reserve and share just one ordinance. I have a lot of SP's showing up once I add the parents to a person's record.

LegacyUser

Cherie Ailene Morgan said: Only part of it was around before. We were never forced before to reserve a name when our intent is to submit it to the temple. There are layers to the problem. So the problems are multiplying instead of reducing.

BTW - interesting to see that you only agree when the issue also affects you directly.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said:

We were never forced before to reserve a name when our intent is to submit it to the temple

I don't quite understand this. In my experience, you always had to reserve the name before you could share it with the temple. You name always stays associated as being "reserved" for the name that you've shared, but I don't ever remember being able to take the old green icon and DIRECTLY sharing it with the temple. That doesn't mean it wasn't possible but I never saw anything like that which I remember.

Certainly in this new arrangement, it shouldn't be possible because then a person could take a name that someone else had shared with the temple and then re-share it with the temple under their own name. That is likely incompatible with the internal runnings of the software supporting the share with temple system.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I don't think, but do not know, that I can pull a name and then share it with the temple under my name. My experience above with what I ended up with suggests that (my sharing a pulled name) will not happen. So I think FS has this one covered.

For what was introduced with this change, I'm surprised there hasn't been more issues raised. Most of the complaints deal with combining icons, rather than the way reservations are handled. The "All or Nothing" approach needs to be addressed, and there are some minor glitches that have come up, but for the most part, the new system seems to work correctly.

LegacyUser

Cherie Ailene Morgan said: Jeff - look at the image I attached. The only ordinance that was not shared with the temple was the Sealed to Parents. All the rest were previously shared to the temple by 'cherig' on 15 July 2019. When I tried to share the Sealed to Parents with the temple, it did share that ONE ordinance. But it also took all the rest of the ordinances that hadn't been completed - Initiatory, Endowment and Sealed to Spouse and RESERVED THEM TO ME. That is NOT my intent. I want all of them to be shared to the temple.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Cherie,

Understood completely and agree. The "All or nothing" approach (as Tom puts it) has been a problem form a while and seems to have even gotten worse. At least before you could share them all at once and then unshare the specific ones that you wanted to keep reserved. None of this has been real intuitive for several months though, even when this had been reported in the old system.

My concern was that specific quote that you made regarding "being forced to reserve a name (in order to) submit it to the temple". I see now that I may have misunderstood the intent of the wording. As far as I know, you have never been able to share a name with the temple that you have not first reserved.

LegacyUser

Cherie Ailene Morgan said: What I meant by that is that in order to submit the Sealed to Parents to the temple, I am forced to reserve the rest of the ordinances to myself. This is not the intent of the user.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Yep not a good thing.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Gas Odell’s found a way around the problem, which he outlined in another thread.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: That’s gasmodels... My iPad wants to spell for me.

LegacyUser

Cherie Ailene Morgan said: We shouldn't have to 'find a way around the problem'. The problem should be solved. That's what Engineers are for. And there are multiple problems, so I doubt there is a 'way around' each bug in this update.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: For details, see Jim Greene's extensive (and run together) response in the https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... discussion thread.

He is a spokesperson for FamilySearch.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: I have forwarded this thread to the engineers, and they recognize this as a deficiency and say that they are on it. Look for a fix, just not sure how soon, maybe a few weeks, hopefully sooner.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Thanks, Jim.

There is another issue that needs to be looked into. And that is the ability to reserve names from the tree view by clicking on the green icon. There is no indication that the name has been shared with the temple and while it is now available to reserve, for many people they are not looking to take the name to the temple, but to make sure the information on the person's profile is complete.

I don't know what a good fix will be and possibly the best fix will be to open the person's ordinance page in a new tab (I don't like modal windows at all) when the icon is clicked. But I'm sure that would irritate a lot of people.

Thanks again.

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: Debatable that this is an "issue" to reserve from tree view, I personally like it after building a whole tree to make sure I caught every single person in there

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Thanks Tom, I have passed it along to engineering.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Tom: the reply from engineering is that when you go in from the tree to request a green temple, the following message will appear if one of the ordinances is from the temple list:

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Yeah, I saw that.

However, my current system will not allow me to unreserve single ordinances, either on the person's ordinance page or my temple page.

Are there any plans that will allow us to do that in the future, because right now, I do not think we can pick what ordinances we want to reserve without picking up all of them, including those shared with the temple system by others.

To me, that is a problem that hopefully will be addressed.

Someone in another thread (gasmodels) had come up with a solution, but I didn't try it then. I've forgotten the process and as such, see no way to unreserve the shared reservations that were picked up with I reserved (or wanted to reserve) a SP.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: I should have included the link to the discussion when I responded and said he had found a solution... argh!