Persons shared w temple and persons ready to be claimed BOTH have green icons. Can we make them diff

LegacyUser

R Greg Leininger said: why are some icons green and shared w temple and others green but not shared

I know Family Tree has switched to a new color "icon" system, but i have a ? or a recommendation:

I find a lot of new names to do temple work for, but more than i can do by myself. So I share w the temple: i find their work gets done quicker than if i leave them "green" as a unreserved person.

When i am looking at names in the Fam Tree, I wish they would have one green color for those you can request who are not reserved by anyone, and a diff color for those you can request but that are already shared w the temple. That way I can quickly tell if i want to open up that person's file to claim them or not. if it is a green icon but they are already shared with the temple by someone else, then I don't want to open that one up. so it would help if they were different colored icons

example:

Byron L harrington GMYW 1TL GREEN BUT SHARED AND
HIS GPA JOSEPH HARRINGTON GQ41 8ZX green but you can reserve.

Can we make these colors different so you know whether you want to open up that person's profile to claim it or not? thanks

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

R Greg Leininger said: I like your response and can understand that that may be the way to go. I have just one thought to that:

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. What are your thoughts on this?

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: Nice copy and paste

LegacyUser

Amy Archibald said: I did a similar experiment - releasing what I had shared before.

You can read about it here:

http://revealingrootsandbranches.blog...

Then after Ordinances Ready started, I went back and everyone that hadn't been picked up by another user, I re-shared with the temple file so that those names could also get completed at some point in time.

All these names are people who I have added to the Family Tree via research. So I didn't just want to leave them hanging in the Tree.

Now that another user can just grab them from the temple file directly (instead of with Ordinances Ready) I'm grateful that the color icon is green for them and not red anymore.

I don't search the Tree for green temples to reserve or add the the temple file.

This is what I do:

Currently I'm working on the descendancy of a set of 3rd great grandparents. I print out the descendancy as it currently is in the Tree, then I work through each person - adding all available sources (not just hints) - searching for sources I know I should find. All census during their lifetime, birth, marriage, death records, military, etc. Along the way, I may find a green temple left by someone else and I reserve the work and depending on what ordinance is available we either do the work or share with the temple file. And the reason I choose to share is because I did a lot of research to add to the structure of that person's page in the Tree.

I find hundreds of new persons to add to the Tree in this research process.

Some of those people are born within 110 years and need permission. If I know the living connected to them, I reach out for permission. If I don't know them, I add the person to my 110 year calendar so that they can get their work done when they do turn 110.

You can read about my calendar here:
http://revealingrootsandbranches.blog...

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: I'd love to see actual statistics on this, but it MIGHT depend on what temple district you're in, and/or how many people in your own district are submitting names (since your names go to your temple first, and then to the general population). I've worked in the baptistry for +8 years, and will see names that I've submitted a week prior already flow through...but then yes, for other names it takes a few weeks or months.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Hi Eric,

I do not know if this is true at this time or not, but one of the objectives (as stated by Ron Tanner over a year ago) was to no longer assign the shared names to the temple in which district the user lived, but group them together.

Another FS person stated that they would be grouped by the common language used by the temple. I don't know what that means, because there are a number of multi-language temples.

Because the rewrite would take care of "stuck" ordinances (created when a temple returned names to the pool if it was closing for renovation and/or deep cleaning), I believe the pooling of names was high on the priorities to be accomplished.

But again, I don't really know if this latest update included that feature or not.

LegacyUser

Tom J. McVey said: In February/March last year Bro. Tanner stated that they hoped to soon have "Global Sharing" of temple names. From my observations of managing nearly 30,000 names in various temples I would say that we are not in a state of "Global Sharing". I find some temples do various ordinances more quickly than another temple. For example it will take 18-24 months to get a female endowment completed in the temple where I reside but if I share with another distant temple by sharing with a friend who lives in that district and then they share the name with the temple I can get that same female name done in 3-5 WEEKS!!! I can do the same with male names. They take over 3 years to complete in my temple but by sharing with someone in another temple I can get them done in 10-14 WEEKS. If we had "Global Sharing" I wouldn't be able to do the above.

LegacyUser

Stephen Jorgensen Kelsey said: The other recent change putting the dindividual and family on different pages makes things very difficult.....this was a bad decision...and obviously made by someone who has not used the program very much at all.

LegacyUser

R Greg Leininger said: I am not sure what you are referring to. On a std FS page, it shows individual and parents and siblings, or are you talking re the mobile app?

LegacyUser

R Greg Leininger said: I have noticed this too. I live in a Utah temple district that has a LOT of patrons, so a lot of submissions. Through sharing w temple, I occas see a few done in my temple, but many done outside, including "foreign site" temples.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Jim told me in private correspondence that there was now just one temple list..., so no more sharing by temple district. It is now global.

LegacyUser

R Greg Leininger said: Yaaay!! That is what i suspected was happening. I have seen them getting done much faster in the last 3-4 months or so. They seem to be more recent submissions though. Does that mean that ones you shared w the temple 2 years ago are not "dropping into that global bin," or are they included also?

LegacyUser

Tom J. McVey said: When did you start seeing this happen? I know from person sharing experience that I can get names shared in different temples and for example I can get female endowments done in just a few weeks. That was all pre-March 14th. I've not seen an indication that we are in global sharing...wish we were.

LegacyUser

R Greg Leininger said: I have seen endowments get done quickly ONLY if I share that name w a friend/family and they know it is coming and they take it to the temple.

On the other hand, if I share a name w the temple that needs just their endowment done, I have RARELY seen any get claimed by any temple and it gets done. This is my pre Covid experience, even after Global Sharing began.

LegacyUser

Tom J. McVey said: I've used a unique method of sharing names that has netted between 70,000 and 90,000 ordinances completed yearly the past 5 years. You've got to know people across the globe to make this work. I can explain but would rather do off-line if interested at mcveycolo@gmail.com.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Jim indicated there was now only one list for the shared names. He didn't say anything else about the list.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: In another discussion, it was been suggested (and passed to the engineers by Jim Greene) that the two remain green, but that one is a dark green, while the other is the current lighter green.

One of them will indicate that at least one of the ordinances for that person has not been reserved (is currently unreserved and not shared). The other will indicate that all ordinances are shared, but available for any person to "grab and go" to the temple.

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: Please for the love yes!

LegacyUser

Patty Reay said: Holy moley yes!!!! This is so confusing. I'm just looking for people that need info added to be eligible for ordinances, and I'm having to check tons of people that look the same but don't need anything.

LegacyUser

Stephen Jorgensen Kelsey said: I agree fully. This is not a good change. By allowing someone to reserve an ordinance which is already reserved and sent to the temple and giving them 2 months to do it. What prevents one changing the ordinance and they BOTH end up doing it. In addition when reserving ordinances one must look carefully again to see if someone has already reserved the ordinance before reserving them. Please make them different colors again......I was very appreciative of the red color for those already reserved and sent to the temple. The rationale that people are hoarding these names is unreasonable. Any request I get to give someone an ordinance is usually always accepted. I do family history at least 6 to 8 hours every day and have numerous names reserved. Is the message that you want us to stop doing relatives names? For my part that is about all I can do as 14 of my 16 great great grandparents were members of the church. I am also helping a couple of other people especially one with Mexican ancestry which has been interesting for me.

LegacyUser

Stephen Jorgensen Kelsey said: In addition, people just looking for names to do which have been submitted by someone else are missing the little detail of doing some work to get the name. We have been assured that names we have put into the temple file WiLL get done eventually even after we are dead which is comforting and makes me want to continue my work. However, I see this erroding with this change. As someone above stated there are plenty of people who are not yet in family tree who need to be added. Please let people work to find them rather than giving them a name someone else has researched. You have made it very easy to find a name and enter it. Please encourage people to do that rather than having them use someone else's work.

LegacyUser

Chas Howell said: Depends of the size of the display you are using

LegacyUser

Analee Marie Ballif said: Also, it can be frustrating when a person has a few ordinances that have been reserved and are "up for grabs", plus one ordinance that has never been reserved. Sometimes, when you try to reserve only the one that has never been reserved, the system forces you to reserve them all--with the ones reserved by someone else to expire in 90 days. I wish I could just reserve the ones that have never been reserved.

LegacyUser

Dorothy Badger said: i agree - i was just trying to post a message to FS, but it won't post

basically, a missionary told me that there are many people who have a great deal of difficulty distinguishing colors .... red/green, shades of green, etc .... so i can see a need to make a change of some kind

and i am delighted with the additional feature of being able to reserve an ordinance that has already been shared with the temple

but like all of you, the lime green "can be requested" has become frustrating

my suggestion i am trying to post is to allow us to "hover" over the lime green, and have it show a message of complete information regarding that ordinance

for example: today i was looking at Bernard Sydnor Davis Sr (LJGW-F64) and when i hover over the E and SP (yellow color), they each provide a thorough explanation which includes "needs more information"

however, Bernard's sister Alva McNeal Davis (LJGW-XJF) shows light green for SP, and says "can be requested" - so i go to the ordinance page to make sure that the SP gets taken care of, and the information is much more complete and shows that it has already been reserved and shared with the temple

I CAN SEE TWO VERY POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THIS WHOLE THING

1 - go back to the color code and the way it was a month ago, and make sure that the users with trouble distinguishing colors know that they can simply “hover” over the ordinance icon (on the person page) and they will have a complete explanation of the current status of that individual ordinance

2 - if we must keep the new color code, is there a way to have all the "hovers" (regardless of the color) give complete information, like they did with the previous colors? this would GREATLY reduce the # of clicks and amount of page changing necessary to be able to do a quick overview of a complete family from the father's person page - i do this A LOT

(each ordinance needs its own information, and not the person as a whole is either available or reserved)

i am not trying to complain - this is intended only as positive feedback - i am on FS almost every day, and practical use brings a different view than the programming process

(and i have probably totally confused several, but i think it's a solution to eliminate the frustrations of color-distinguishing and information searching)

Kathrine O Beeder

My comment about ordinances in "Can Be Requested" mode: I have many, many names I have gathered and shared. I don't have men/boys available to do my men's ordinances, but you would be amazed at what I can get done with a nice smile and request from others to help me. This is my latest request that I think would be a huge improvement: I just printed the last of ALL OF MY FEMALE baptisms/confirmations. I am sure I will have more in the future. But for now, I have made my own separate list where people have shared ordinances that intersect with my family members (these individuals show a relationship to me). If I do future baptisms (yes I am old but that's how you get them done and it's easier to share with others if you are there in person) I can go to this other list I have, and request some of those female baptisms/confirmations.....but I HAVE TO REQUEST ALL OF THE ORDINANCES. I have a lot of my own work to do, but have ran out of baptisms/confirmations, but want to keep doing baptisms myself because that's how I can get volunteers that also help me with the boys; and I would still be doing them for direct ancestors. I have about six pages (50 individuals to a page) that are simply males, of baptisms/confirmations only. So I thought it was a great idea to request the baptisms/confirmations from others that have shared to keep getting baptisms done that are related to me. But I certainly don't need to take the whole set of ordinances. I have many, many of my own already reserved/shared. And with the other ordinances I have already taken myself (and shared), I certainly can't perform these additional ones in 90 days. So if you can't change it so we can just reserve the ordinances we are going to do in a timely manner, will it let me re-request them if the 90 day time limit has passed? In the event I want Initiatories that I am out of, etc.?? Or does it refuse me since I am on record for previously reserving them, but not getting them done?? (On my personal lists, I would move these shared individuals (not mine, but related) to other sections on my own "watch sheet" but don't reserve that need initiatory, endowment, etc. I know I use lots of words, and hopefully I have given important details that help you understand my request and why. (I'm afraid to start a new paragraph in case it sends this unfinished....) Also, I find the "ORDINANCES READY" not useful to me because 1) It gives me people not related to me; 2) The ordinances are not in proper order - someone just did a sealing to a couple I shared that have no other ordinances performed. I thought this would be a great feature when I first saw it because I thought it would do the work for me to go through MY OWN reservations and find the ones that had the ordinances done in proper order to allow the ordinances I was looking for. So in spite of this feature, I still have to go through by myself and verify relationships/ordinances completed/direct line issues, etc. Could you do another similar feature with the algarythms (sp?), etc. that would verify these things for people like me with many, many people in our reservations?? It would be amazing!😉😎🕍