Keep green to mean one thing - Temple ready.

LegacyUser

James Steven Chipman said: People like me who feed many names to the Temples are frustrated with the decision to change green so as to have multiple meanings.

When green meant Temple ready I could view a couple in family tree as well as their children and grandchildren and know in seconds if there was work to submit or a duplicate to be resolved. User friendly doesn’t begin to describe how enjoyable it was as you could check 50 names in seconds.

Having multiple meanings for green has made it much more difficult to locate a Temple ready ordinance because now you have to open each specific individual to find out what green really means. It used to be that every time a green would appear I would get a smile on my face because I knew I would be submitting a name to the Temple or cleaning up the record. Now after twenty to thirty of those “already submitted” greens without finding anything Temple ready I just walk away from it.

There has to be an easier way of locating Temple ready individuals.

I respectfully offer this suggestion to again make it easy to locate Temple ready names and ordinances. Leave green to mean one thing - what it always meant which was Temple ready. Make another color like light blue to mean reserved and submitted to the Temple but eligible for completion within 90 days.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Please see other threads on this topic. Green does not mean 2 things, it means the ordinance is available for someone to perform. You do not need to go in and reserve it and give it to the temple. That was never the intended meaning of a green temple, it was a meaning that others assigned to it. We have created Ordinances Ready to take green temples from the tree and give them to people (relatives first if available) who have indicated they are going to the temple. All green temples can and will be picked up by Ordinances Ready. You can spend your time looking for Orange temples, which usually mean there is a piece of data missing before this can be turned green. if you are going to the temple look for green or use Ordinances Ready, if you want to help in the tree turn orange to green.

LegacyUser

James Steven Chipman said: Brother Jim:
I appreciate your quick reply. I am glad to know all green temples can and will be picked up by Ordinances Ready. I was not aware that I didn’t need to be reserving and submitting them to the Temple. All this time I thought I was helping the cause by doing so. Thank you for clarifying that.

LegacyUser

R Greg Leininger said: Jim, can you clarify something on your explanation above? If someone has a green icon and is not shared w the temple, will the temple system come along and be just as likely to claim THAT name for temple work to get done soon as compared to a green icon person who is shared w the temple?

I am curious as to your response, because I have had SCORES of names claimed by the temple and their work has gotten started that I have shared w the temple in the last 2 years. However I have not seen many green unreserved unshared names claimd?

If it is true that the temple system picks up on "green names" regardless of unreserved vs already shared w temple, then there is no reason to ever "share w temple." Is that a correct statement?

LegacyUser

R Greg Leininger said: Jim, can you clarify something on your explanation above? If someone has a green icon and is not shared w the temple, will the temple system come along and be just as likely to claim THAT name for temple work to get done soon as compared to a green icon person who is shared w the temple?

I am curious as to your response, because I have had SCORES of names claimed by the temple and their work has gotten started that I have shared w the temple in the last 2 years. However I have not seen many green unreserved unshared names claimd?

If it is true that the temple system picks up on "green names" regardless of unreserved vs already shared w temple, then there is no reason to ever "share w temple." Is that a correct statement?

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Thank you James. I want to remind you that I took a long-term look to explain a short-term change. My advice is that it is too early to stop sharing names with the temple, but moderation in all things. Logic tells me (based on the numbers of those who do the review before sharing, and those who don't) that a green temple that comes from the temple list probably has not received any more scrutiny than one that has never been on the temple list. That is why I say they should not be treated differently and one green temple works for all. Treat them all the same, they are all your relatives, unless your name shows up as the one who shared it, do what you normally do.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Hi Greg.  Right now for most ordinances the temple list is faster than waiting for OR. "B/C" and "I" go fairly quickly, while the rest especially "E" take quite a bit longer (depending on the temple district, up to this point). Yes, OR will pick things up, but today it is slower because we are still getting people ramped up on its use. When every temple-goer realizes that a better experience at the temple awaits them as they use OR to get family names and to learn about the person before they go, then it's usage will increase and hopefully become the faster and better means. OR will go out and look for names in your own list, then it looks for green temples in your lines, with shared previously and never shared, then if it finds no one then it will give you unrelated names, just like going to the temple and getting a card there, except, you will still be able to look the name up in the tree and learn something before you go to the temple. Did that answer it for you?

LegacyUser

R Greg Leininger said: I dont fully understand how OR works, but I assume it a process that is active ONLY WHEN a specific person goes to OR and asks: show me names i can take to the temple. Is that correct? If so, then those names will only get taken to temple once someone claims them. the OR system, i assume, is a very "active process," not passive. whereas "sharing w temple," is passive in the sense that if i share names w temple system that i cannot do, then sooner or later, they will get done, even i i do nothing more in the future re that person (thus a passive process for me).

So sharing w temple seems to still have a benefit to " my names", since they will eventually will get done. Whereas w OR, if i understand Ordinance Ready correctly, will find you names , but only if you search for it. so nothing passive about those names getting done which are unreserved.

Have i summarized this correctly, or have i totally misunderstood how OR works?

LegacyUser

Amy Archibald said: Ordinances Ready is based on the sex of the logged in user. ie: females only get female names.

Names for one temple session based on temple limits. Not sure if they are still the same, but they were: 4-baptism/confirmation, 5-initiatory, 1-endowment, 10-sealing to parents, 5-sealing to spouse

Ordinances have 90-day expiration date.

Ordinances Ready searches for names/ordinances in this order (at least this was the order before the temples closed in March):

1. Names on YOUR reservation list.
2. Shared temple names on YOUR reservation list.
3. Related to you shared temple names submitted by OTHERS.
4. Search the Tree for names related to you – Green Temples.
5. Shared temple names NOT related to you.

So if a user has never reserved any names before, the software will search for related names already shared to the temple file. If it can't find any related names there, the software will search the tree for related to you names.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Yes, Greg you have summarized correctly, and you have made valid points. Sometime in the future, I hope, every person who goes to any and every temple will be using OR to get their names. Until then it is wise to continue to share names with the temple. You have explained that well. What no one has been able to adequately explain to me is why a name, that for all practical purposes could have been reserved and shared by someone who thought they could do it and had a change of heart and mind. They have not done a thing to that name except reserve it and share it, and yet now it is treated as if it is perfect. Why is it not worthwhile to check that just like you check all of the other green temples. I understand that experience has shown you that the likelihood of it not having issues seems to be higher with those already reserved, but it is nowhere near 100%. Why doesn't that name deserve the same scrutiny and checking? These are all ancestors, members of your family. Are there that many members of your family doing the same work you are doing that you can trust it automatically if it has been reserved/shared?  Why is it ok to do the checking on a green temple never reserved but a waste of time on one that has been reserved? Just how certain are you that the person who reserved/shared it checked it?  Yes, your job just got bigger because there are thousands from the shared list that now show up as green. But what is more important, being accurate or getting through them all as quickly as possible? I just see a lot of inconsistencies in the reasons you and others are giving.
Yes, having another color could mark it so that others now know it has been verified, but how is that triggered? How do we know someone we trust did the verification? Wouldn't it just be easier to come up with some agreed upon note or discussion that could be easily seen to know that it has been verified? You check it out, you mark it, done.  Next person in opens it, sees the discussion or mark, closes it and moves on. Two color icons do nothing to prove what it is that you are claiming they are needed for.  Anyone just going through and reserving/sharing leaves them in the exact same state as FamilySearch programs giving them a green temple. And yet you trust the one but not the other. Please enlighten.

LegacyUser

Jeff_Luke said: Hi Jim - respectfully, while green may have one meaning (ordinance can be reserved) the green colored icon does cover 2 different 'states' which used to be color coded.

1) can be reserved and has never been shared with the temple and
2) can be reserved and has already been shared with the temple

There are many, many comments on the different forums and that make it clear that many people used the green icon as part of their workflow, and it is disrupting many people to not be able to distinguish the 2 different states without a lot of extra mouse clicks.

One suggestion I saw several times on this forum was to use 2 shades of green to distinguish between the 2 states.

Is this being considered? Or some other alternative to distinguish the 2 states easily?

LegacyUser

R Greg Leininger said: Jim this has been my first experience w this forum. It seems that no matter how long we "kick this topic around," we are not getting to any consensus.

As I said before, my experience has been that most persons w a green icon that have been already reserved w the temple, usually have no additional records to link. There is nothing for me to contribute for verification unless i take each and every name of that group and go through all records already linked to that person and see if there are any mistakes to be corrected, or do original research (not my skill set).

This person w a green tag, already shared w the temple, is not someone I plan to take to the temple. Why?: I already have 1500 names linked to me and 1300 of them are shared w the temple.

On the contrary, I find that most names I see in Fam Search who are unreserved (also green and not shared w the temple) are much more likely to have additional records to be linked to them. This has been my main source of finding 2000 NEW NAMES in just 2 years (eg finding new siblings or spouses thru additional census or marriage records and linking a Find a Grave entry to that person). For me it is a MUCH MORE productive way to spend my time. I am trying to add NEW NAMES to Family Search, so that others who do not have a knack or interest for this sort of research can claim names to take to the temple that I have found.

And so... I bid you all Adieu. I am leaving this forum and will not read nor respond to any more posts. thanks