Limited color coding on new temple ordinances causes extra work to see if shared with the temple

LegacyUser

Sandra Stewart said: The new color coding in the release today is frustrating because I cannot see if temple work is shared with the temple unless I go to the ordinances page for the individual.. It tells me that the ordinances are available even if they have been reserved by someone else and shared with the temple. I share a lot of ordinances with the temple myself and don't want to do ordinances that have been shared by others. It was easy to see in the past when I clicked on someone from someone else's details page or from the pedigree view without having to go to their ordinances page to see if work was needed. Now I see a green temple icon even if the work has already been reserved, but when I get excited and go to reserve it, I find that it has already been reserved. Very frustrating.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: With the new system, you can either view "My Reservations" or "Shared", meaning the reservations you have shared with the temple.


The new system allows you to "pull" any shared ordinance that has not been printed from the person's Ordinance page. The system will alert you when you start the reservation process when this occurs and lets you know that you have 90 days to complete the vicarious ordinance (this is currently not in force and the dates are being pushed out since the temples are closed to vicarious work during the pandemic).

Once you have pulled a name for vicarious work, you will see when you shared the name with the temple. If someone has picked up the name, then they will show on the Ordinance page:

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: A concern that has been around since New Family Search has been that too many people focused far too much on green icons and compiled huge reservation lists or just shared everything with the temple, depriving other relatives the chance to do work for their family.

I think this change is going to force a lot of people to change their approach. It seems we are being encouraged to quit focusing on finding green icons and instead focus on a researching a person and getting that person's work done, not stored on a reservation list. This will really be the case when the length of our reservation lists are limited.

I do like that if I have shared a reservation with the temple, the icon is blue for me (but green for my wife) so I don't go and try to share them again.

But more to the point, we don't have to worry about green icons being shared or not with the temple because Ordinances Ready will provide those names to relatives sooner or later. Shared ones sooner and not reserved by anyone later, but Ordinances Ready does provide names to whom we have a relationship whose icons are green but never reserved.

LegacyUser

Lyle Toronto said: Well said. They have proven that ordinances ready can find all those green temples for you. Even to the point that if there are no shared names in your close family, but there are unreserved ordinances it will give you those.

Let the computer do the hunting. Focus on adding names to the tree and taking the names into the temple.

LegacyUser

Sandra Stewart said: I am not looking for green temple icons. I am doing my own research in a separate system, then going to Family Tree to see if they are in FT. If they are in FT I add sources and make sure the information is correct and reserve the ordinances if they are available. It was easier to see that they were already reserved previously. Now I have to actually go to the ordinances page and look at it there to see if they are actually reserved or not. If someone else has them reserved, I don't want to reserve them as I have plenty to do myself. I have lots of time to research and enjoy doing so. It is exciting and motivating to see the numbers of people I have reserved and shared with the temple grow. It is also fun to watch my numbers drop as the work gets done - by me or by others. I love the fact that people can take the names I have reserved to the temple as they would probably never do the research themselves to find these people. It sounds like I should just do the research and let others "find" the names and take them to the temple rather than reserving them and sharing them with the temple myself. In that case, it won't matter what color the temple icons are. Is that what Family Search wants me to do rather than reserve them myself?

LegacyUser

Sandra Stewart said: I fully understand how the new system works - I just like to be able to see the color coding in the summary page of an individual rather than have to go to their Details Page and then their ordinances page to see if they are actually reserved or not. Now the color coding in the summary view shows a green icon that says it is available rather than a red icon that says it is reserved but shared with the temple. I have to take additional steps to see if the ordinance has already been reserved or not.

LegacyUser

Cherie Ailene Morgan said: Tom, your comments do not help those users who do not do their own temple work. Please keep in mind that there is not only one type of user on this site. Any changes need to accommodate everyone, not just a select few.

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: I agree with both Sandra and Cherie

LegacyUser

Cherie Ailene Morgan said: There are plenty of us who work on our own family lines and do not do the temple work ourselves. Basic common sense tells us that one symbol should not have two meanings. Green now means two things (has not been submitted AND someone else already submitted it) and Blue now means two things (I submitted the name AND I submitted the name to the temple). There has to be a better solution than having one color with more than one meaning.

LegacyUser

Sandra Stewart said: Amen!

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: I really don't want to beat a dead horse, so please bear with me. When someone has reserved a name and then shared it with the temple it is no longer reserved by them unless they go in and take it back from the temple. Sharing it with the temple means I am giving up my right or desire to perform those ordinances. I say this because I see in Sandra's notes that she is indicating that she is not interested in doing work that someone else has already reserved. If it is shared it is no longer reserved. True, with time the temple will take it and print it and give it to a patron, but that time could be years from now, for all practical purposes it is not reserved.  Am I seeing that right?
What would your workflow be if there was no reservation list? when you are in the tree you see an indication that someone's temple work is waiting to be done, and when you clicked on it you get a barcode that can be scanned and a card printed--valid for some time period, and not returned when completed, only an online notification given. No lists, no queues, all real time. Just curious on your thoughts? Thanks. I know there are others on this thread, but I am interested in Cherie's and Sandra's opinions first. Others can chime in, but please give it some time to consider it before answering. And please, let's keep it kind and civil.

LegacyUser

Gordon Collett said: Sandra, I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to take the liberty of re-writing what you said to turn it into what you might have meant and certainly what others here have put forward.

You originally stated:

I share a lot of ordinances with the temple myself and don't want to do ordinances that have been shared by others. It was easy to see in the past ... if work was needed. Now I see a green temple icon even if the work has already been reserved, but when I get excited and go to reserve it, I find that it has already been reserved.

My very liberal editing would turn this into:

I have plenty of ordinances on my personal reservation list so I share a lot of ordinances with the temple myself and certainly don't have the need or time to do ordinances that have been shared by others since those will be completed eventually anyway. However, I do want to make sure that all my relatives' work will be done. It was easy to see in the past if work was needed. Now I see a green temple icon even if the work has already been reserved. I would get so excited upon seeing a green icon to think that I have found a relative whose work I can share to the temple queue so it can get completed even though I can't complete it myself. But when I go to reserve it, I find that it has already been reserved. It's turning into a waste of time to check any green icons but I'm afraid that if I don't check all of them, a relative's work will never get reserved to the temple queue. This is very frustrating.

LegacyUser

D. Llewelyn said: Agreed.

LegacyUser

Sandra Stewart said: Thank you Gordon - your "liberal editing" is exactly what I intended. To answer Jim Greene's question about no reservation queues I believe that would mean that I would no longer reserve names unless I was going to go take the name to the temple myself. I am very sincere when I ask the question - is that what FamilySearch wants us to do? I know there is a concern about people who reserve large numbers of names - more names than they can possibly complete in their lifetime - and do not share them with the temple. I just really like to do the research and put the "pieces of the puzzle together" so to speak - that means that I add names to Family Tree as well as connect names that are already in Family Tree, but not connected to each other (parents and spouses). When I do that and find that ordinances are not completed I do want to make sure that the work gets done eventually by reserving the ordinances myself. Again, this is a sincere question:
Would FamilySearch prefer that I go ahead and do the research, but not reserve the ordinances? Should I be letting other people "Find" those individuals and reserve the ordinances instead? If I understood that was what FamilySearch wants, I would definitely follow their counsel. (Although I have to admit that I get a lot of personal satisfaction as I watch my reservation list grow because I add names. I get an equal amount of satisfaction as I watch it drop when the temple work is completed by myself or others. I personally enjoy watching the numbers as I tend to put a great deal of effort into finding names for a few months and then put a great deal of effort into completing the work for a few months before starting the cycle all over again. I've actually doubled the number of names I had reserved since the Covid quarantine started and am planning on doubling my time in the temple when they finally open again. My reservations list is a motivator for me). I should add that I love the new functionality that was added with the change - it is just the color of the icons that has me frustrated due to the extra steps it takes to find out the actual status of the ordinances.

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: That doesn't sound accurate, because I work in the baptistry and I watch all the names I submit flow through within weeks (sometimes a bit longer for the males).
Why would someone do this you ask?
A. I have a list/pool/whatever you want to call it, of names that if at anytime friends/relatives want names I can pull back from the temple and send them over to them so they don't have to go look for any.
B. The "temple ready" thing, especially on the app is very flawed and not trusted, and thus...
C. The names in A. are ones I know are not duplicates, have been vetted, and I feel VERY comfortable speaking to every single one of them if a question ever arises.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Thank you Sandra and Gordon for your very thought-out and thoughtful replies. Let me answer your question this way Sandra. The temple experience can be a very moving and motivating experience, even a life-changing one. There is real power associated with the turning of hearts. We have found through our research that the most profound experience is when we know the loved one for whom we are doing the work. Followed close behind by us knowing that person vicariously through our research and efforts to qualify them for temple work. Next, we have found that knowing we are related to the person for whom we are officiating is a better experience than doing the work for a random name given us upon arrival. It is our desire, and our leader's desire, that every member have the most rich temple experience possible. We know that not everyone has the ability or even desire to do family history research. However, everyone should be able to easily come in to the FamilySearch app, either on their phone or on their desktop, and find someone to whom they are related who needs ordinances, find out some basic information, and go to the temple.  That is why we are presenting the names that are reserved and shared as available. We want them to feel that they can go in and find these names easily. Ordinances Ready is also a vital part of this plan, and we will be doing other things in steps to make this goal a reality. Our ultimate goal is that every person who arrives at the temple comes already knowing for whom they will be serving. And hopefully knows a little about them.  Even if that means pulling out their phone in the parking lot!!  Thus, my question. The day could come where temples don't have or don't need lists. More food for thought....:) The things we now do manually, are candidates for automation. We need to build a system that users can trust, and users need to learn how to trust the system.  Thanks again for all you do to contribute to this work, and especially for such a kindly worded posting!

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: P.S. Sandra, I am not going to directly say yes or no on what FamilySearch wants you to do. Only say that the more the patron who acts as the proxy for the ordinance can easily do, including taking it from the tree so that they can see how they are related and any attached memories, the better the experience.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Because of the great numbers of youth participating in temple work, which is fabulous and we would never want to deter, baptisms and confirmations go very quickly, and then the rest of the ordinances bog down. As much as we love that you can act as a names broker for your family and friends, our research indicates it is a much better experience if they can easily find a name and find something out about that person--at the very least how they are related to them.  That is the experience we are trying to promote. that is the experience that deepens testimony and brings people back to the temple more often.

LegacyUser

Christine said: Jim, I hope it is okay for me to chime in. . I love how you defined the temple experience. I would guess most of us who are researchers feel the same way. For that reason I hope the church never does away with reservation lists. I have had powerful spiritual experiences finding these relatives. When I print the cards I write on the back how I am related and a little about the person to remind me of their story. Much of my research lately has been finding forgotten or undiscovered babies who died shortly after birth. When we are in a sealing room sealing infant after infant to their parents I find it difficult if not impossible to hold back tears. When I see on the card that this gg grandmothers cousin had 10 children and only one survived to adulthood, I am so grateful I was able to have a reservation list so we could complete the family sealings all together, after mom and dad and brothers work was done.

I certainly understand and support the desire to help all have these experiences and am grateful for the miracles we experience in finding. But if we were not allowed to reserve people we find and complete the work when all in the family are ready, the experience will not be the same, for me at least.

I do, however, support a limit on the number of names in our reservation list.

I also personally love searching, documenting, and sourcing a family and leaving them for someone else to find to do.the temple work. That is also a really important service we can do for others.

LegacyUser

Sandra Stewart said: Christine - you are awesome! I feel exactly the same. From Jim Greene's comments I can see the direction FamilySearch is heading and I do love it. Our stake just launched a challenge to find a name, learn some details about the individual (how related, when/where they lived, occupation, # of children/siblings, etc...) and prepare together to take them to the temple when they reopen. (I love your example of writing the information on the back of the card). I am working with our Ward Leads in the stake to help them encourage this in their wards.

Jim, I'm curious about your comment that the day could come where the temples don't have or need lists. That seems to imply that we will all be bringing our own names - found ourselves or through Ordinances Ready, and the temple won't provide names. But won't FamilySearch still need researchers who submit names for those who do not do the research, but only the temple work? What do you foresee happening with the names that are researched and added to Family Tree by individuals like Christine and I? It sounds to me that my question about doing the research, adding the information to Family Tree and then leaving the ordinances unreserved for others to "find" and reserve is going to be answered in the affirmative - and I need to prepare myself to accept that:)

I'm also curious about your comments about building a system that users can trust. I feel a lot like Bro. Eric J. above who commented earlier in this thread, where I do know that the names I have "vetted" (added to the system, researched, and sourced) are valid. I do find that names reserved by others are sometimes just green temple icons they found with no sources attached to show that they really existed let alone that the information or relationships are correct. They have not done enough work to make sure that a duplicate does not already exist. They rely on the fact that the system does not tell them there is a possible duplicate and go ahead and reserve the ordinances. (Or, they mark a possible duplciate as "Not A Match" because the information is not an EXACT match, when they really are ). The possible duplicates function is great, but does not always find them. It requires additional research skills to discover that the William Jones who married your relative, Mary Smith and you think he was born about 1850 in West Virginia because that is where they were living when they married, is the same William Prescott Jones, b. 6 Jun 1851 in Richmond, Virginia with parents John Jones and Elizabeth Brown, for example, and his temple work has already been completed (with the exception of the SS because he was not linked to a spouse). Those kinds of research skills are hard to teach as most people are not patient enough (or have the time to devote) to learning them.

I'm wondering if there are any thoughts being discussed about potentially not offering green temple icons for individuals who have no sources or maybe only one "legacy" source for example? What are other ways that we, as researchers, can help this work move forward in a more positive way if we are not as concerned about adding people to our reservation lists? I have tried the New Volunteer Opportunity that is helping to fix place names. Could we have a volunteer opportunity where we can help find and attach sources to those individuals who have no sources or mark them somehow as "not a valid name" if a source cannot be found? (It would be wonderful to do additional research, particularly on any names shared with the temple, to validate them as they are waiting in the backlog as well as prior to their being submitted).

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Christine and Sandra, I want to reply to you both, but I don't want to take this too far because a lot of it is just thoughts and speculation and what if's, and none of it is being worked on. Discussed? Perhaps. Implemented? No, not fully.
Currently there are actually multiple reservation lists. We each have our own, the temple has theirs, and others may be coming (e.g. family lists) and some lists may be going, but probably not all lists. This work is the work of gathering scattered Israel on both sides of the veil. It is a family work, and not a factory work. 
I agree wholeheartedly that most who have been involved in research have had their hearts turned and have felt the wonderful blessings that accompany this work.  Some, I fear, become addicted to that wonderful feeling and start to stray beyond their families, or do so much that their families abdicate all the work to them--and that is fine as long as the families carry a proportionate load of performing the ordinances.  We can't have spectators in this work, there is work to do for everyone. And everyone is needed and wanted. We try to set rules, but also try very hard to not be too prescriptive. Agency is always in play in all of God's work.
Just a few minutes ago I posted something that is very pertinent to this discussion. Here is the link: https://console.getsatisfaction.com/familysearch/conversations/temple-icon-color-change?reply_id=205...
Please Christine, keep doing the things you love, it is vital. We broke some workflows this time, we may again, but it is not intentional. What is intentional is to bring this work to everyone, and make it easy for every role. Change is never easy, but change is a vital principle of the gospel--when change is for the right reasons.
Sandra, I think the link above answers most of your questions. I do want to reiterate that the heavy dependence on sources is a genealogical standard not a temple standard (as much). If we were to enforce sources as a temple standard we would disqualify almost half of the world from participating. Not what the Lord has in mind. We are focused on a statement from one of the Seventies who manages our department: "This is a work for all of God's children, and all means all."  We have a lot of growth and change in order to have a system and a process that can handle all.
Thanks to both of you for your willingness to help, and for your civil discourse!!

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: Where I disagree with you here is...even if that IS the case, why is it FS's role to try and moderate that? If people want to build trees and send them to the temple file...who cares? Why would that be anybody's business but their own. I do a ton of names and then my parents practically live at the temples and I have cousins that are doing a ton of the work too. Aside from the actual rules with regards to submitting names...why not just let people live their lives as they see fit and give them the tools necessary to live their best lives? If people are "spectators", why is that YOUR business? Leave that up to families and bishops/stake presidents, but that's not for you to decide, and especially not Family Search's either.

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: I've read too many prophecies that your "there could come a day where temples don't have or need lists" is pure speculation, can we stick to getting this new color scheme mess cleared up so it works for everyone please?

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Eric, Jim Greene has a long and very involved history going back to the nFS days, with the development of the current FamilySearch. If anyone has a big picture one what now exists, it is Jim Green. He is, to be blunt, the authority on FamilySearch.

What he has tried to do is to let us know what is or may be coming. He is very knowledgeable about the system and the reasons for the designs. He is also in touch with the "Brethren" and is very much aware of their directions with respect to FamilySearch and all things temple related.

LegacyUser

Sandra Stewart said: Thank you Jim for your insights. I've learned a lot and have some pondering to do. I appreciate your time and attention to my dissatisfaction with what is a very minor detail in the big picture. I have seen FamilySearch make changes to the program through feedback to this forum and appreciate all that you do. I also understand that some changes do not align with the direction and future of the program, but trust that it's okay and can make changes to my processes if necessary for the greater good.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: In another thread, it was suggested that a light- and dark-green represent the difference between those with a shared, but no unshared ordinances to be reserved, and those that are all shared ordinances. Jim passed this on to the engineers to consider.

LegacyUser

Sandra Stewart said: That would make me very happy!