New Family Search needs to have a "Family Queue Tab" to share reserved Temple Ordinances names with

LegacyUser

John Martin Toner Donnelly said: Tom I'm done with you seriously your trolling now and it's not amusing or appreciated in the slightest.

You clearly have no ability for perceiving the benefits or the workings of the proposed system and I wish you all the best in your endeavours trolling others on this forum.

The proposed system will encourage those family members in the group once they see what work has been done on the tree and see what work is available to do at the temple for their own personal ancestors they will be more encouraged to go and do the work for their personal ancestors. In turn this will give them a satisfaction and possibly hunger to find more ancestors to do the work for.

When only o e person is reserving all the names for his or her family and the rest of the family can not see the reserved names then the rest of the family is not then doing the work for their family in the temple, yes it's possible they can get that through temple sharing and ordinance ready but your limited then to what the person reserving is going to share with the temple and what has not yet been reserved if anything.

In other words they can't see all the potential work to be done for their family in once place. This system would allow them to do that. And not just to be able to see it but then to print and perform the ordinances without the need to share or email. And that work again as I said earlier when they experience the joys of doing work for their own ancestors will help build the spirit of elijah, encouraging them to find more ancestors to do that work for.

LegacyUser

John Martin Toner Donnelly said: Oh and it's hard to ignore your personality when your being passive aggressive with your use of bold text and telling me nonsense like that I should go and use Facebook.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Hey John, I'm pretty sure that Tom isn't trolling in any sense of the word. He's just not like that :-)

Much of what he has been trying to emphasize is quite legitimate IMHO. As I mentioned before, the benefits that your suggestion is intended to provide are also things that I know are right up there in the mandates assigned to FS, but the implementation of these benefits are very problematic in view of other things that are considered to also be important and must be supported.

I already know that these concepts are being focused on a lot at this time at FS since they are considered quite important. But since there will be significant trade-offs with other important issues depending on how these capabilities wind up being implemented, I am personally very interested and curious as to how it will be resolved
:-)

A common "reserve pool" for a group is just one of many ways that can provide these benefits, but it also runs contrary to what we have been told is in FS's priorities at the moment. So what other methods could be used? I personally don't know, but that is why sending in ideas here and discussing their pros and cons is good. The engineers do get a lot of ideas from the forum from what we've been told.

For example, a similar request to yours has come up frequently. People want to be able to share the "Living" records in their accounts amongst their families so that everyone doesn't have to have their own private copy. I know that FS is seriously considering those capabilities as well, but they must comply with international laws on privacy which continue to grow and evolve. That alone is seriously limiting how they could achieve this.

So when you present a suggestion on this forum in order to improve benefits to the users and their families, don't be too offended if someone suggests that it is not a good idea (for whatever reason). Usually the intent and benefits of ALL are always good ideas, but suggested implementations of that idea usually need some discussion to explore side effects and potentially more affective ways of doing things. Those are some of the benefits of this forum and how it is intended to work.

LegacyUser

John Martin Toner Donnelly said: My objection is the manner in which he phrases his counter, whilst it's obvious no every one will agree on everything and different people have different opinions, he is being passive aggressive in the way he says what he says and that's never nice.

In top of that the only comments coming from him are totally negative, without any constructive criticism as to how the idea could be tweeked to alleviate some of his concerns. There are still many things to work out on this, maybe Tom can provide some suggestions instead of only problems and criticism.

LegacyUser

John Martin Toner Donnelly said: And by that I do not mean go and start a Facebook group, which I'm sure we can all agree it's a comment that's totally provocative and unnecessary.

LegacyUser

Gareth Taylor said: Hello, I'm concerned that this thread is becoming somewhat contentious. Is there a way that we can stop the thread please.

While we may not like the responses in terms of deliverables, this is clearly a point we have now made and that feedback is recognised by those who are in a position to influence it.

No offence is intended by requesting this, so my apologies if any is received.

Stayson.

LegacyUser

John Martin Toner Donnelly said: Agreed

LegacyUser

FamilySearch Moderator said: This shared family list has been considered for a long time. It has some complexities to consider. Thank you for your comments.

Please consider that this forum is to help each other, that means there may be push-back on ideas. That is fine. Don’t take offense or retaliate and be willing to respect each other’s opinions.