The former color codes for temple ordinances
Tom Huber said: Welcome to the community-powered feedback forum for FamilySearch. FamilySearch personnel read every discussion thread and may or may not respond as their time permits. We all share an active interest in using the resources of this site and as users, we have various levels of knowledge and experience and do our best to help each other with concerns, issues, and/or questions.
We are no longer in a position where names submitted to the temple is more important than to have the ordinances performed. Therefore, while not changing the meaning we are changing the emphasis of the green temple. We need to think of it as "This ordinance is available for temple work to be performed." It does not mean "This ordinance is ready to be requested/reserved or submitted/shared with the temple." (This clarified statement was made by Jim Greene on June 17th.)Jim Greene's two major posts are in the https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... discussion from June 12th, 2020, and the https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... discussion from the weekend of June 13th-14th, 2020. The modified statement about the emphasis being changed appeared in the https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea... discussion on June 17th.0
Merlin R Kitchen said: If I am correct, the advice we are given is to only reserve the ordinances that we can complete in 2 years.
To reserve the ordinances for 39000 people means that you are prohibiting close relatives from doing the ordinances for people they know and love.
Please, Please unreserve 38900 of those names you have reserved, and your problem would be solved.0
Christina Sachs Wagner said: Love this explanation from Jim Greene!0
GWYN KLAFKE said: I am the only member of my family in the Church of Jesus Christ. I have shared with the temple the majority of my family names, so if others want to do the work they are welcome to do so. I have served as family history consultant several times. Over the past few years my husband & I have done thousands of ordinances in the temple. I want my ancestors to have their work done. I've never been told to only find as many names as you can personally do. I also kept track of which temples were doing my names & there were more than 80 from all over the world. I know this is the most important way for me to spend my time--doing work that is eternal.0
Tom Huber said: That was the case a while back, but then, FamilySearch imposed a two-year limit on how long a name could be reserved and nothing done with it. The user had the option of sharing the names with the temples, which was still a problem for those who wanted to do the ordinances for their relatives.
As part of the massive rewrite, the first major new feature was Ordinances Ready, which treats both unreserved and shared names as it was a green icon. There were limitations, of course, and no way to select a specific relative or a relative of the opposite sex.
Earlier this month, temple shared names were changed from Red icons) to green icons, so anyone (including people who are not related) can take the names and go to the temple. They have 90 days to complete the ordinances (once the temples reopen). Jim's explanation tells us why this happened.
The beauty is that users can no longer keep others from performing the ordinances for their relatives. Also, the temple lists have been consolidated into one list, so the first reserved is the first pulled by any temple. It will help take care of the massive backlog and the green icon means that relatives can now "grab and go" to the temple, regardless of whether the name has been shared or is unreserved.0
Tom Huber said: The instructions given in this forum's discussion threads by FamilySearch personnel, as well as by Ron Tanner in his live Facebook sessions, started emphasizing that we should only reserve as many names as we can complete in a reasonable period of time.
It is also the reason for the change in the reservation policy of a limit of 2 years (one year from the last ordinance you performed for that person).
Others have come into the forum with many thousands of names that they have reserved. It turns out in one case that the user had been reserving all the people in an area which had the same surname without even attempting to see if they were related.
I purposely reduced the number of names that I had reserved and shared with the temple to under a hundred, simply because it is not easy for me and my wife to attend our local temple.
It does not matter if I fully researched the person or not (yes, I do spend the time to do that), I have completed the hard work of making the record worth of all acceptation
Let us, therefore, as a church and a people, and as Latter-day Saints, offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness; and let us present in his holy temple, when it is finished, a book containing the records of our dead, which shall be worthy of all acceptation. (Doctrine and Covenants 128:24 (part)and if someone is related, they are able to reserve the name and take it to the temple.
Now, we no longer have to worry about having too many names in our list, shared or not. Anyone can pull a shared name and take it to the temple. What a wonderful blessing for our deceased relatives.0
Tom Huber said: There is some discussion regarding the green temple icon. One of the suggestions was to provide two shades of green, which still allows anyone to "grad and go". One shade would represent that there is at least one ordinance that has not been reserved. The other shade would represent that ll ordinances have been shared.
That has been passed up to the appropriate developers and will likely be discussed with the council that determines what should be done with respect to all things related to the temple in FamilySearch. The council is led by Elder Bednar and two other members of the Quorum of the Twelve also sit on the same council.0
Erika Campbell said: Amen to that. Just reserve as many as you can possibly take care of within a reasonable time. Then reserve more unless the work is already done. We should only reserve names for direct ancestors, that is the rule!!!
Tom Huber said: There is an article titled, "Individuals for whom I can request temple ordinances" at https://www.familysearch.org/help/hel...
Publish dates are now being added to the articles, but right now, a lot of the links do not work to other articles. In the case of the above article, the links all work.
Basically, we are responsible for
1. Immediate family members (spouse, children, siblings, and parents).This last option (#5) is rare and should be used only in certain cases, so I do not research any area for more possible relatives. The problem is that the family names are common in those areas where the family lived 200 or more years ago and still live there today.
2. Direct-line ancestors (parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on, and their families).
You can also submit the names of the individuals below:
1. Biological, adoptive, and foster family lines connected to your family.
2, Collateral family lines (uncles, aunts, cousins, and their families).
3. Descendants of your ancestors.
4. Your own descendants.
5. Possible ancestors, meaning individuals who have a probable family relationship that cannot be verified because the records are inadequate, such as those who have the same last name and resided in the same area as your known ancestors.0
Analee Marie Ballif said: I do spend a lot of time reserving those that already exist on the shared family tree who have not been reserved and then sharing them with the temple, worried that if I don't reserve them, no one else will, and they'll be missed. Am I thinking wrong? Will they definitely be found by someone else if I leave them?0
Tom Huber said: Sooner or later, whether you do it or someone else does it ten, twenty, or fifty or more years from now, they will get done.
But you are not wrong.
There have been a couple of people who tracked a limited number of their relatives to see what would happen (for about a year, prior to the new ability to "grab and go" any person).
In essence, those left open (not reserved) often got their ordinances completed, but those shared with the temple either did not, or it took longer for them to be completed. Since the recent change, it doesn't matter if you reserve and share or not -- if there is sufficient information for the person's ordinances to be reserved, they will be picked up, even now if shared with the temple.0
Joseph Vernon Leavitt said: I'm hoping that the reason we haven't yet seen proper action taken on this issue is because more time is needed to put it into place.0
Earl Garrett Morris said: I am one of the respondents who is not supportive of the recent color changes to FS icons. We now have the following statement from Jim Green.
"We are no longer in a position where names submitted to the temple is more important than to have the ordinances performed. Therefore, while not changing the meaning we are changing the emphasis of the green temple. We need to think of it as "This ordinance is available for temple work to be performed." It does not mean "This ordinance is ready to be requested/reserved or submitted/shared with the temple." (This clarified statement was made by Jim Greene on June 17th.)"
No disrespect, but who are you Jim Greene, and what authorized Church leader gave you the authority to make this statement, which, by the way, brings to a halt the work of a vast army of Saints who are doing exactly just what you suggest be brought to a halt.0
J. Matthew Saunders said: My only comment on the color coding is that it is not a problem is colors can be reduced, but colors weren't confusing if you learned what you were doing. Not sure if some more of this applies because the system keeps getting changed because of mobile devices. Some things can just be handled better from a desk top and shouldn't be 'dumbed down' because mobile devices can't handle it.
One color suggestion to keep would be between printed and not and those holding. It is very hard to distinguish and as details that made it easy to distinguish things keep getting pushed together, it makes it harder and possible for more mistakes. I have voiced my opinion before in a very real manner, not to complain, but to ask the developers to really listen to people.0
J. Matthew Saunders said: Gordon,
I appreciate the time you took to write and being specific is the most important thing. I didn't know if my color comment was clear enough and not huge in significance. The color on the reserved names is the same as the head of the men. Printed, not printed and held names also are all the same color. Some people may rely on color icons as visuals and who can decide exactly how it affects them. I believe what they express is real to them and we can't say it doesn't and not that you are. I believe the desire is that we express what we feel and see. All of these changes will affect each of us in a different way and all of us have different views. Surely not an easy task for any developer. Last of all, I do know that FS does read these and I only remark that they hopefully listen, because listening is an active thing and is shown with even a simple response. For example when someone is really mad a simple I am so sorry that you feel that way expression lets that person know that they did read and know that they feel that way. I'm not writing this so family search will write anything here, I just know real listening goes far beyond reading. Your interaction with each one of us here shows you are reading and listening and express how you feel. Thanks.0
J. Matthew Saunders said: I did note one more color item and that is the color gray for completed and blue not completed are very close in color and make it difficult to distinguish them.0
R Greg Leininger said: A moderator recently mentioned that he was asking the engineers to look at going back to two cclors, one for names that can be requested and are unreserved, and the other being one for names that are shared w temple but can be requested.
I was disappointed to see that the "new update" shows a dark green/aquamarine color for names to share w temple, but they have reverted back to making it so that no one else can request them. Why did they do this? All names that are shared w temple should be able to be "picked off" and claimed by anyone else.
Have I missed something here, because that is what it looks like to me. so a step backward in my mind. Can we get that fixed? You dont want to go back to the old system of having to send an email to someone asking them to release the name to yourself. HELP0
J. Matthew Saunders said: Wanted to reply to this earlier. Just an example of how two items with the same color that are not alike look alike...printed and not printed items are exactly the same color. It was very easy to distinguish it prior to this, I think meshing of the colors is more confusing than it was before, there really weren't that many colors and if people would take a moment they could figure it out...
I am also very frustrated about the way FS changed the color system. I have been working on FS for years and even though it took a bit of learning the old colors (several of them) it was so much easier and less confusing and time consuming than the new way. The filters do not make up for this, I wish you would bring the old colors back. People that have a hard time remembering them can print them off and put them on their computer - a sticky note would take care of that! It may not be a big deal for users who have only a few names on their lists, but for those of us who work with a lot of submissions this change has been a HUGE step backwards in my opinion.
I truly hope that the engineers in FS read our feedback and comments!0
This may not be the correct thread to post my feedback to but it started out with the change in colors, and that is what I would like to comment on.
I am very frustrated about the way FS changed the color system. I have been working on FS for years and even though it took a bit of learning the old colors (several of them) it was so much easier and less confusing and time consuming than the new way. The filters do not make up for this, I wish you would bring the old colors back. People that have a hard time remembering them can print them off and put them on their computer - a sticky note would take care of that! It may not be a big deal for users who have only a few names on their lists, but for those of us who work with a lot of submissions this change has been a HUGE step backwards in my opinion.
I truly hope that the engineers in FS read our feedback and comments!0