Color code change for ordinances already sent to the temple file from green to anything else

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: I love the new option that if a name is submitted to the temple file, someone can still request it, but can we please change the color from green to something else? I get there are issues with people who are color blind, but when actually working in a tree that's partially done (including ordinances partially requested), it makes it FAR easier to see that yes, green actually is something that can be requested. Now with green also meaning someone has submitted it to the temple file, you just make twice the work (not to mention, if you click on a name and hover over the green ordinances it says they're good to be requested, it doesn't mention the fact that they're already in the temple file). For example, say an individual's work is all submitted to the temple file except sealing to parents (because there are no parents), I come along, add the parents in...now when i request ordinances it'll pick up the new sealing to parents ordinance AND the already submitted to temple file ordinances, and then I have to manually pick just sealing to parents. You're throwing more steps in, and when you multiply that by the hundreds, you're wasting alot of time that could be spent actually working.

LegacyUser

Lynne Stanley said: The ones that have been shared with the Temple System, having them the same color as you mentioned seems that it might lead to some problems. It is nice that those ordinances can be requested with a click of a button rather than having to send in a request to the help center.

There are other colors that now mean different things, such as blue now means reserved for both printed and not printed. I don't like it!!

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: Perfect example, I JUST ran into the scenario described above. I can't request/submit to the temple file just a sealing to parent ordinance, because it's reserving all of the ordinances, and now nothing can take place with that 1 ordinance unless I do all of those ordinances myself. You just defeated the entire purpose of temple sharing with this change.
I'm looking at: G7TN-XH7

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Eric, I am not sure what is happening with your system, but 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.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: two LOUSY methods now!

No way to know which ones I am holding waiting for temple to reopen for proxy work, and no way to know which one had been shared with temple!
This requires check EACH,EACH, EACH person.

Please restore the colors marking "Share with Temple" which was DARK RED AND the color marking the ones "TAKEN for ordinances" which was BROWN.

2nd lousy way, I got 26 pages to go through to find all in an instant. I prefer one full scrolling page. At least I can spot ones need attention or not.

You made it harder for us to do any work now, as the result because the filters are NOT showing "SHARED with Temples" and "Taken by Temple" (usually in batches of 10 names).

BLEECH!

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: Often I would go in to unshare endowment ones. Now you are not making it any easy, only HARDER.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: Blue here, blue there - you are not making it any easier to know in an instant which is shared or held by me.

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: Right on the mark, and because of it, I don't know I printed or not. MUCH LESS if other patron printed or not. That is worse.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: Blue means someone has the ordinance reserved, if it is in your ordinance list then you have it reserved. If it is green then it can be reserved. By you or anyone else.  I think in the past we made things more complex, this is the beginning of making things more simple. When the next round of changes come you will see what I mean.  The overarching principle is that the ordinances are being performed, if at all possible by family, even if it is distant family. A 10th cousin 3 times removed is better than a 3rd cousin who is holding onto it and not getting the work done. That is what is driving the changes.

LegacyUser

JimGreene said: David, have you seen the filter button? Take a look, it will do exactly what you want to do. Click to see just endowments. Voila!

LegacyUser

W David Samuelsen said: viola? which one shared and which ones I still hold? the filters do not display which ones are shared with temple. Scroll, scroll, page, page to find those ones.

3,000 shared, almost all endowments. Scrolling is easier than page by page.

Why so many? I have less than 5 cousins on that side of the family.

LegacyUser

Eric J. said:

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: It forces me to request everything, and not just the sealing to parents

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: Posted below

LegacyUser

Sarah Lynne Bradford said: I agree and wholeheartedly support - there needs to be a separate color for names that have never been submitted. Green for both is a huge time waster.

LegacyUser

Jessie Hearle said:

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The blue means the ordinances are not available for you to take to the temple. It doesn't matter if they have not been printed, or printed, they are not available.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: You never were able to reserve just one ordinance. It was and continues to be all available or nothing.

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: So if someone is on the ordinance tab, they THEN have to go to the ordinance reserved page to do something with it? That's beyond absurd

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: That has always been the situation, Eric. You had either all or nothing. As before, you have the same option of reserving everything, printing just what you want, and then unreserving the rest. That has not changed.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: The goal is for the user to find names to take to the temple. Reservations are done from the person's ordinance page and everything is fully spelled out.

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: False, I've done it hundreds of times. For example, G7TN-XH7, how do I reserve/send that ordinance to the temple file? Show me. Does it just sit out there from now on?

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: You claim you were able to reserve a single ordinance before? I'm sorry, but I never saw that option. You could reserve all, print what you wanted, and then unreserve the rest.

On G7TN-XH7, press the Request button. You will be reserving all of the names to take to the temple, but you are only concerned with the SP ordinance. Once all have been reserved (again), share all with the temple.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Jim, 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.

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

If there is a problem with the new system, it existed before and that is the "all or nothing" approach to reserving and unreserving names.

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: Show me, because when I try that it grey's out the share option so I can't do anything with it. Right here please with screenshots, show us all how it's done.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Not really. I can quickly and efficiently see just the ordinances I have reserved that are not shared or all the ordinances that I have shared.

LegacyUser

gasmodels said: Because we can not reserve names shared with the temple if say the endowment is shared with the temple and the SP is available and I attempt to reserve the SP I will get both the endowment and SP added to my reservation list. The endowment will be a 90 reservation and the SP will be a two year reservation. If I do not want the endowment (say I was a female and it was a male record) I can release only the endowment and the SP will remain on my list. So you can with a little more work reserve just the SP just as before. ( I know this works because I tried it and was able to complete as outlined. I eventually released the SP and left the record untouched)

Before because all was shared with the temple you could not reserve. I agree with your comments that this is not a major issue and just because it takes a could more clicks we do not need to be concerned. The ability to take shared ordinances to the temple by just reserving greatly outweighs have to release something we do not want. I look at the gains from the new release as much more significant that any difficulty being created.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: Eric, the display is not for the Ordinance Tab on a person's profile. It is for my Temple page. You really need to use the system before jumping to a conclusion (like I did with my first comment back to you).

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: But the underlying problem is...unless you actually go do that ordinance, there's absolutely no way to send it to the temple file

LegacyUser

Eric J. said: Thanks for more condensation Tom, with no context one is simply left to guess what a screenshot is for.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: It is up to you to see my responses as condescending, Eric. You have control over how you view things. You really do need to use the system for a while. You'll find it is much better than the old system because it adds so much more information, particularly who did what and when.