Change batch due date functionality to allow completing a batch through the due date
The Due date on batches needs to be changed, either to allow a person to complete the batch through the indicated date, or to indicate clearly that work must be completed before the indicated date. The Knowledge Article that indicates that "If you do not complete the indexing and submit the batch before the due date, the system withdraws the batch" doesn't address this concern.
Point 1: Whether it be a credit card bill, a utility bill, an insurance payment, any other financial payment, any project of any kind that an employer gives a worker, or even a presidential election, “due date” in every industry and across the world means that a person has "through" that date – not “before” that date – to complete the given task.
Point 2: Being able to depend on a “due date” to mean the above, allows a person to gauge his or her schedule to complete the given task on time.
Point 3: Being able to complete a task by (“through”) a due date provides a boost of self-confidence and self-satisfaction, both of which encourage a person to go forward and complete future tasks by (“through”) future due dates.
Issues: By even admitting that a person must submit the batch "before" the due date defeats all three of the above points. (1) It fails the very definition of “due date” acknowledged by most if not all other organizations across the world. (2) It makes it almost impossible to gauge a personal schedule to complete a batch on time, because using the term "due date" subconsciously promotes the common definition idea that a person has “through” that date to get it done. (3) It promotes discouragement, because failing to complete a batch by ("through") the due date is psychologically similar to failing to accomplish a work-related task on time.
Furthermore, while the concept of releasing a batch in the name of speed for the greater good is laudable, it doesn’t address the discouragement generated by failing to complete a task on time.
Conclusion: Please change either the function or the wording to reflect what is actually meant. It would be best to have the system function as the rest of the world defines "due date" - giving a person “through” that date to complete the task, thus allowing the sense of accomplishment and "job well done" that encourages a person to take on future batches without wondering how long one actually has to accomplish the task. (And again, simply redefining "due date" in a Knowledge Article to mean "before" that date is woefully insufficient.)
Comments
-
Mark
.
As an aside ...
.
Just a suggestion ...
.
For a possibly quicker response ...
.
Can I humbly suggest that you post this problem/issue of yours in the 'Group' being "Indexing Chat" in the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum; so that, the members of that group can answer/assist you.
.
Here is the direct 'link' to that 'Group':
.
Indexing Chat
https://community.familysearch.org/s/group/0F93A000000LissSAC/indexing-chat
.
Description: Welcome! Come in and ask indexing and review questions, offer your help, share your stories, and find friendship.
.
There is a wealth of experience in that 'Group' (both of, "indexers"; and, "Reviewers").
.
The regular participants in that 'Group' may able able to provide another/further perspective on the matter.
.
And, it is more likely to be quickly passed onto the right people in 'FamilySearch', if need be.
.
By the way, that 'Group' is a "Public" group, which may join, if you so desire.
.
I hope this helps.
.
Brett
.
0 -
I went to the link and provided the same information. So far, the responses have offered explanations of how the system works and how to work around the issue, but no solutions to fix it. I added more comments there, with ideas on how to fix it. Here is the link: https://community.familysearch.org/s/question/0D74V000008Dd93/detail
0 -
Mark
.
The person in the best position, to respond, has been been "Tagged", in that last 'Answer' by 'Jim' (19 Minutes ago)
.
Hopefully, that person can join in.
.
Just, be patient; and, wait and see ...
.
Remember, it is the "Christmas" and "New Year" period.
[ It may take a little time, longer than usual ... ]
.
This 'Feedback' Forum, will be just a long; or, I suggest, even longer.
.
By the way ...
.
I DID NOT say that you were "Supposed" to post in the 'Group' being "Indexing Chat", in the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
.
I SUGGESTED that you post in the 'Group' being "Indexing Chat", in the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum - BIG Difference.
.
IF, you expect Users/Patrons to 'Read' what you say; THEN, you should do the same.
.
I know that you are 'frustrated' ...
[ But, those who responded in the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum ONLY want to help/assist ... ]
.
But ...
That said ...
.
What you have to remember is that 'FamilySearch' is a FREE website, for ALL, created; and, maintained, by the Church; plus, there are many competing priorities in the various Parts (eg. "Family Tree"; "Search" (Records); "Memories"; "Indexing"; "Ordinance" Work; etc ) of 'FamilySearch'; and, that there are very limited resources available to 'FamilySearch'.
.
'FamilySearch' is NOT a "Pay"/"Subscription" website.
.
Brett
.
ps: At least you got some 'nibbles' ... in the 'Group' being "Indexing Chat", in the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum ... better than here ...
.
0
