Thanks for responding. That’s good to know so I need to play with something else. What browser are you using? (mine looks horrible on Chrome so I am using Safari) Michelle From: JCBrooks@aol.com Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 8:22 AM To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Family Tree on Mac It's working for me. I can go in through the tree to person and person detail page. I can also go in through the PID number search to person details. Michele In a message dated 4/28/2013 7:19:12 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, shellt@xmission.com writes: I have a Mac and on Family Tree this morning and I can’t seem to get to an individual’s Details Page. Clicking on “Person” results in nothing happening. In fact no matter where I click on person, whether it be on the individual’s summary card or at the top of the page, nothing happens. (I seem to be able to do most anything else) Is anyone else having that problem and have you found a way around that to access their details page? Michelle

I have a Mac and on Family Tree this morning and I can’t seem to get to an individual’s Details Page. Clicking on “Person” results in nothing happening. In fact no matter where I click on person, whether it be on the individual’s summary card or at the top of the page, nothing happens. (I seem to be able to do most anything else) Is anyone else having that problem and have you found a way around that to access their details page? Michelle

It's just that I have found out the submitter is very likely a less-active former bishop and he probably has the cards printed at home. -----Mensagem Original----- From: Rhonda Hawkins Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 2:05 AM To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Shared Temple Ordinances Jorge, These are the kind of things you should submit to help to get released. "some ancestors of my wife have been reserved by a person since before new Family Search. " Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Rhonda - yes - multiple times. I am liking the new Share feature that let's me check off multiple submitted names and then by checking the box for specific ordinances - let's me share, print etc. for specific ordinances - for all of them with one action. Very handy. New Temple tools I am liking the latest tweaks to Family Tree. It seems much faster, easier to add and submit names. Very versatile - making it easy for me to add children, siblings, parents - all from the same screen. Seamless - Temple submission - sharing - then flipping back to extend and add more information on the tree. Much easier - saves time Nice On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Rhonda Hawkins <thetexashawkins@gmail.com>wrote: > Thomas, > That's a great idea! Have you submitted it? > Re " The default should be that all names are set as 'submitted' to the > general > Temple - with an opt out to reserve only the few names that you can.." > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Jorge, These are the kind of things you should submit to help to get released. "some ancestors of my wife have been reserved by a person since before new Family Search. "

Thomas, That's a great idea! Have you submitted it? Re " The default should be that all names are set as 'submitted' to the general Temple - with an opt out to reserve only the few names that you can.."

I meant any time you "reserve" a name the default is the temple, not you. You must go the extra mile to keep it for yourself/print it. Michele In a message dated 4/26/2013 6:44:02 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, jbcowley@rmci.net writes: The main concern I'd have about making all Family Tree submissions default temple submissions, is that nonmembers may not be comfortable with that. Jerry __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 8272 (20130426) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Jerry - the 'submissions' in question are the submissions a member makes when submiting names for Temple work. Non-members would simply be adding their relatives to the interconnected family tree - not 'submitting' them for Temple work. So those names are not "submitted" for Temple work and are not included in this discussion. On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Jerry Cowley <jbcowley@rmci.net> wrote: > The main concern I'd have about making all Family Tree submissions default > temple submissions, is that nonmembers may not be comfortable with that. > Jerry > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature > database 8272 (20130426) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I do a lot of local indexing of obits, and the like. When I can spend ten or fifteen minutes identifying more information about a man or woman whose obit says "no known survivors" in our local papers, I put them into nfs. NOT to clear them for temple work myself, but to put the information out so a distant relative who may be searching for them can find them...even if it's a second cousin or somebody further afield but related. I know that eventually, these folks will get their temple work done, but if a family member finds it, and does it sooner than the millenium, so much the better. I probably wouldn't be inclined to put it where the information could be found if I thought it would go directly to temple file because it IS'NT my personal family. But I want to have the information found if it can be found--and sometimes people end up hundreds of miles away from where they were born or grew up. And of course, some of them were born and died before Social Security death index kicked in. And I suppose there are some that think I shouldn't even do that, but I must admit I feel sorry for someone who died with no known survivors, at least I can put them where someone who is related might find them. Of course, if a non-member submits a family tree, members could find it and do the Temple work--hopefully after verifying the information. (Sorry, but I know most of us make occasional accidental mistakes, and others among us grab anybody who has the right name, whether they could logically be the right family or not. It's those who give LDS genealogists a bad name, not that there aren't those among the non-members as well, but when we do Temple work for these folks, you'd think we could hold ourselves to a bit higher standard than "any same name will do" to seal into the family tree.) Karen On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Thomas Jay Kemp <thomas.j.kemp@gmail.com>wrote: > Jerry - the 'submissions' in question are the submissions a member makes > when submiting names for Temple work. > Non-members would simply be adding their relatives to the interconnected > family tree - not 'submitting' them for Temple work. > So those names are not "submitted" for Temple work and are not included in > this discussion. > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Jerry Cowley <jbcowley@rmci.net> wrote: > > > The main concern I'd have about making all Family Tree submissions > default > > temple submissions, is that nonmembers may not be comfortable with that. > > Jerry > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > > signature > > database 8272 (20130426) __________ > > > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > > > http://www.eset.com > > > > > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Finding ancestors is like eating potato chips--you can't stop with just one!

The main concern I'd have about making all Family Tree submissions default temple submissions, is that nonmembers may not be comfortable with that. Jerry __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 8272 (20130426) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com

That's what I was about to suggest -- glad I paused to read other answers first. If there is an incorrect relationship, just delete it. I suppose it gets more complicated if ordinances were actually performed or reserved. Can someone confirm? > From: jcbrooks@aol.com > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:44:08 -0700 > To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Shared Temple Ordinances > > Delete the relationship to incorrect parents on the person page in the family listing by clicking on edit relationship and then delete relationship. You can the create new parents and add children back to them. Keep track of children's PID numbers > > Is that how the rest of you would do it? > > Michele > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 26, 2013, at 1:36 PM, "Gay Davis" <grdavis@centurytel.net> wrote: > > > Many years ago I prepared names for the temple (several children) and did all their ordinance work except sealing to parents. I discovered before I did the SP that my research was incorrect and the parents on the name cards were not the correct parents of the children (same father's name). I reserved those names so no one would do those sealings and have been sitting on them for a very long time. What should I do to make sure those sealings are not done and others mislead about who the parents are for these children? Thx.

Michele is correct. Delete the relationships in Family Tree, give your reasoning and then link the correct parents. If you still have the SP reserved, unreserve those first so the sealing link will go away. Shanna -----Original Message----- From: lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:lds-ward-consultant-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of jcbrooks@aol.com Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 2:44 PM To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Shared Temple Ordinances Delete the relationship to incorrect parents on the person page in the family listing by clicking on edit relationship and then delete relationship. You can the create new parents and add children back to them. Keep track of children's PID numbers Is that how the rest of you would do it? Michele Sent from my iPhone On Apr 26, 2013, at 1:36 PM, "Gay Davis" <grdavis@centurytel.net> wrote: > Many years ago I prepared names for the temple (several children) and did all their ordinance work except sealing to parents. I discovered before I did the SP that my research was incorrect and the parents on the name cards were not the correct parents of the children (same father's name). I reserved those names so no one would do those sealings and have been sitting on them for a very long time. What should I do to make sure those sealings are not done and others mislead about who the parents are for these children? Thx. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Thomas Jay Kemp > To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 5:28 AM > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Shared Temple Ordinances > > > Deadbeats sitting on names .... for years ...? > No. > > It's likely that these were submitted by elderly members who have since > aged out ... members who struggled with computers and weren't sure how do > deal with the files; members that thought when they "submitted" their names > that they would be worked on and completed and have no idea that they are > still sitting there waiting for them to take further action. > > The every changing submission seems 'easy' for us to navigate - but for > others it is a maze of buttons, rules, options that are difficult to > comprehend. That's why only 1% of the Church is actively submitting names. > > Think back. The only way to 'submit' a name 6 years ago was to 'reserve' it > for 'you' to do. > The members didn't necessarily understand that. > Submitted - in the general understanding is that it's in the system - it's > being taken care of. > > So - if they submitted 200 relatives - it would take them decades to do > that much Temple work. > At the same time there was no easy way for them to flip those names in to > the general Temple file. > Difficult to follow - hard to understand computers - ever changing Temple > submission rules/programs - it would be easy for handfuls of names to > become millions of names stuck in the system. > > The default should be that all names are set as 'submitted' to the general > Temple - with an opt out to reserve only the few names that you can > realistically do. > > This new "Share" button makes it easy to flip the names to the general > Temple file. > But require the member to opt in to take further action. > If we could have the 'default' - set to submit all names to the general > Temple file - with a check box option to select out the few > names/ordinances that we want to do - it would dramatically reduce the huge > backlog of 'reserved' ordinances going forward. > > This "Share" button is really handy for accomplishing that - we should make > sure the members we work with are using it. > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 1:41 AM, <JCBrooks@aol.com> wrote: > >> It just occurred to me that maybe the reason the list is definitely >> shortened is because they don't want us to see how many ordinances are not >> getting done :-) >> >> I'm finding a lot a stale ordinances in my temple list that are due to >> the fact that someone else, some Legacy submitter with no contact info, >> submitted the names for work pre-2008 and has never completed it. Then I >> came >> along and added parents and a sealing to parents request. My request will >> not be done until the deadbeat (for lack of a better word) submitter >> problem >> is resolved. >> >> I sure hope they are working on that serious problem. It is a result of >> names that went missing in action after the switch to NFS (cards in temples >> went to limbo), people who printed cards and lost them, people who printed >> cards for a "must do" baptism and never completed the other ordinances, >> and >> people who either died or lost interest. >> >> Michele >> >> >> In a message dated 4/25/2013 10:34:14 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, >> dsam52@sampubco.com writes: >> >> I show at the moment >> >> Family Tree >> 132 reserved >> 75 shared >> 3 printed >> >> in new.Familysearch >> 205 total (that is the combined of 132 and 75 because I retain sealings.) >> >> Anyway, I had been told at least in nFS it is 400 the limit or it freezes. >> >> Nothing is said about the limit in Family Tree. >> >> The only limits I am aware is 50 records per batch to be printed. >> >> And in Getsatisfaction, it had been reported there are multiple issues >> with Temple lists right now. >> >> >> David Samuelsen >> >> On 4/25/2013 8:04 PM, Thomas Jay Kemp wrote: >>> I like this new feature. >>> >>> Does it list all submitted names - or to a number limit? >>> >>> For example - in nFS - I see a count that is double/triple the count >> that >>> is showing in the Shared (Reserved/Shared/Printed) combined counts. >>> >>> It seems like the new Shared count is up to a capped limit. >>> What is correct? >>> >>> Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to >> LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without the quotes in >> the subject and the body of the message >> >> Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to >> LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without the quotes in the >> subject and the body of the message >> >> >> Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to >> LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

never mind, it sudden updated so there is NO progress in Shared at all, still at 75. David On 4/25/2013 11:32 PM, W David Samuelsen wrote: > I show at the moment > > Family Tree > 132 reserved > 75 shared > 3 printed > > in new.Familysearch > 205 total (that is the combined of 132 and 75 because I retain sealings.)

Just checked, so there is some progress. 130 reserved 71 shared 1 printed David Samuelsen On 4/25/2013 11:32 PM, W David Samuelsen wrote: > I show at the moment > > Family Tree > 132 reserved > 75 shared > 3 printed > > in new.Familysearch > 205 total (that is the combined of 132 and 75 because I retain sealings.)

Delete the relationship to incorrect parents on the person page in the family listing by clicking on edit relationship and then delete relationship. You can the create new parents and add children back to them. Keep track of children's PID numbers Is that how the rest of you would do it? Michele Sent from my iPhone On Apr 26, 2013, at 1:36 PM, "Gay Davis" <grdavis@centurytel.net> wrote: > Many years ago I prepared names for the temple (several children) and did all their ordinance work except sealing to parents. I discovered before I did the SP that my research was incorrect and the parents on the name cards were not the correct parents of the children (same father's name). I reserved those names so no one would do those sealings and have been sitting on them for a very long time. What should I do to make sure those sealings are not done and others mislead about who the parents are for these children? Thx. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Thomas Jay Kemp > To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 5:28 AM > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Shared Temple Ordinances > > > Deadbeats sitting on names .... for years ...? > No. > > It's likely that these were submitted by elderly members who have since > aged out ... members who struggled with computers and weren't sure how do > deal with the files; members that thought when they "submitted" their names > that they would be worked on and completed and have no idea that they are > still sitting there waiting for them to take further action. > > The every changing submission seems 'easy' for us to navigate - but for > others it is a maze of buttons, rules, options that are difficult to > comprehend. That's why only 1% of the Church is actively submitting names. > > Think back. The only way to 'submit' a name 6 years ago was to 'reserve' it > for 'you' to do. > The members didn't necessarily understand that. > Submitted - in the general understanding is that it's in the system - it's > being taken care of. > > So - if they submitted 200 relatives - it would take them decades to do > that much Temple work. > At the same time there was no easy way for them to flip those names in to > the general Temple file. > Difficult to follow - hard to understand computers - ever changing Temple > submission rules/programs - it would be easy for handfuls of names to > become millions of names stuck in the system. > > The default should be that all names are set as 'submitted' to the general > Temple - with an opt out to reserve only the few names that you can > realistically do. > > This new "Share" button makes it easy to flip the names to the general > Temple file. > But require the member to opt in to take further action. > If we could have the 'default' - set to submit all names to the general > Temple file - with a check box option to select out the few > names/ordinances that we want to do - it would dramatically reduce the huge > backlog of 'reserved' ordinances going forward. > > This "Share" button is really handy for accomplishing that - we should make > sure the members we work with are using it. > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 1:41 AM, <JCBrooks@aol.com> wrote: > >> It just occurred to me that maybe the reason the list is definitely >> shortened is because they don't want us to see how many ordinances are not >> getting done :-) >> >> I'm finding a lot a stale ordinances in my temple list that are due to >> the fact that someone else, some Legacy submitter with no contact info, >> submitted the names for work pre-2008 and has never completed it. Then I >> came >> along and added parents and a sealing to parents request. My request will >> not be done until the deadbeat (for lack of a better word) submitter >> problem >> is resolved. >> >> I sure hope they are working on that serious problem. It is a result of >> names that went missing in action after the switch to NFS (cards in temples >> went to limbo), people who printed cards and lost them, people who printed >> cards for a "must do" baptism and never completed the other ordinances, >> and >> people who either died or lost interest. >> >> Michele >> >> >> In a message dated 4/25/2013 10:34:14 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, >> dsam52@sampubco.com writes: >> >> I show at the moment >> >> Family Tree >> 132 reserved >> 75 shared >> 3 printed >> >> in new.Familysearch >> 205 total (that is the combined of 132 and 75 because I retain sealings.) >> >> Anyway, I had been told at least in nFS it is 400 the limit or it freezes. >> >> Nothing is said about the limit in Family Tree. >> >> The only limits I am aware is 50 records per batch to be printed. >> >> And in Getsatisfaction, it had been reported there are multiple issues >> with Temple lists right now. >> >> >> David Samuelsen >> >> On 4/25/2013 8:04 PM, Thomas Jay Kemp wrote: >>> I like this new feature. >>> >>> Does it list all submitted names - or to a number limit? >>> >>> For example - in nFS - I see a count that is double/triple the count >> that >>> is showing in the Shared (Reserved/Shared/Printed) combined counts. >>> >>> It seems like the new Shared count is up to a capped limit. >>> What is correct? >>> >>> Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to >> LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without the quotes in >> the subject and the body of the message >> >> Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to >> LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without the quotes in the >> subject and the body of the message >> >> >> Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to >> LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' >> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Many years ago I prepared names for the temple (several children) and did all their ordinance work except sealing to parents. I discovered before I did the SP that my research was incorrect and the parents on the name cards were not the correct parents of the children (same father's name). I reserved those names so no one would do those sealings and have been sitting on them for a very long time. What should I do to make sure those sealings are not done and others mislead about who the parents are for these children? Thx. ----- Original Message ----- From: Thomas Jay Kemp To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 5:28 AM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Shared Temple Ordinances Deadbeats sitting on names .... for years ...? No. It's likely that these were submitted by elderly members who have since aged out ... members who struggled with computers and weren't sure how do deal with the files; members that thought when they "submitted" their names that they would be worked on and completed and have no idea that they are still sitting there waiting for them to take further action. The every changing submission seems 'easy' for us to navigate - but for others it is a maze of buttons, rules, options that are difficult to comprehend. That's why only 1% of the Church is actively submitting names. Think back. The only way to 'submit' a name 6 years ago was to 'reserve' it for 'you' to do. The members didn't necessarily understand that. Submitted - in the general understanding is that it's in the system - it's being taken care of. So - if they submitted 200 relatives - it would take them decades to do that much Temple work. At the same time there was no easy way for them to flip those names in to the general Temple file. Difficult to follow - hard to understand computers - ever changing Temple submission rules/programs - it would be easy for handfuls of names to become millions of names stuck in the system. The default should be that all names are set as 'submitted' to the general Temple - with an opt out to reserve only the few names that you can realistically do. This new "Share" button makes it easy to flip the names to the general Temple file. But require the member to opt in to take further action. If we could have the 'default' - set to submit all names to the general Temple file - with a check box option to select out the few names/ordinances that we want to do - it would dramatically reduce the huge backlog of 'reserved' ordinances going forward. This "Share" button is really handy for accomplishing that - we should make sure the members we work with are using it. On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 1:41 AM, <JCBrooks@aol.com> wrote: > It just occurred to me that maybe the reason the list is definitely > shortened is because they don't want us to see how many ordinances are not > getting done :-) > > I'm finding a lot a stale ordinances in my temple list that are due to > the fact that someone else, some Legacy submitter with no contact info, > submitted the names for work pre-2008 and has never completed it. Then I > came > along and added parents and a sealing to parents request. My request will > not be done until the deadbeat (for lack of a better word) submitter > problem > is resolved. > > I sure hope they are working on that serious problem. It is a result of > names that went missing in action after the switch to NFS (cards in temples > went to limbo), people who printed cards and lost them, people who printed > cards for a "must do" baptism and never completed the other ordinances, > and > people who either died or lost interest. > > Michele > > > In a message dated 4/25/2013 10:34:14 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > dsam52@sampubco.com writes: > > I show at the moment > > Family Tree > 132 reserved > 75 shared > 3 printed > > in new.Familysearch > 205 total (that is the combined of 132 and 75 because I retain sealings.) > > Anyway, I had been told at least in nFS it is 400 the limit or it freezes. > > Nothing is said about the limit in Family Tree. > > The only limits I am aware is 50 records per batch to be printed. > > And in Getsatisfaction, it had been reported there are multiple issues > with Temple lists right now. > > > David Samuelsen > > On 4/25/2013 8:04 PM, Thomas Jay Kemp wrote: > > I like this new feature. > > > > Does it list all submitted names - or to a number limit? > > > > For example - in nFS - I see a count that is double/triple the count > that > > is showing in the Shared (Reserved/Shared/Printed) combined counts. > > > > It seems like the new Shared count is up to a capped limit. > > What is correct? > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the > subject and the body of the message > > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

David, My list is definitely much, much shorter in family tree than in nfs. In nfs it shows that I have 6,159 when I load it until it stops. Ordering by date the earliest date is 21 august 2010. The earliest ones are almost all those shared with the temple to do. In ft it shows that I have 77 reserved, 2379 shared, and 621 printed. This leaves 3,082 which show in nfs and not in ft. In addition the earliest date I can find in the ft list is Feb 2012. I suspect most of the deficit is in the shared but it would be very nice to know that I actually have a total of 77 reserved and 621 printed or if it just chopped it off completely after some point. Loading all of the reserved first and then printed second and then share thirdly would be useful. Also I still cannot tell whether those in printed are printed by me or the temple (I am certain most of the 621 printed are temple printed). By loading each list separately one would hope that the smaller numbers are actually correct and just the shared one is off. It would be nice to know however. Steve Kelsey ----- Original Message ----- From: "W David Samuelsen" <dsam52@sampubco.com> To: <lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 1:05 AM Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Shared Temple Ordinances > I'm not seeing mine shortened - it increased, by dividing into two > pages, one showing shared with temples and one you do yourself. > > David > > On 4/25/2013 11:41 PM, JCBrooks@aol.com wrote: >> It just occurred to me that maybe the reason the list is definitely >> shortened is because they don't want us to see how many ordinances are >> not >> getting done:-) > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

I love this idea that default is to submit to the general file! I didn't mean to offend late last night with the word "deadbeat" (sorry) but reading further you will find that I gave most of your reasons for people not completing the names except the one about computer inability....which is a very real problem. I concur.. Michele In a message dated 4/26/2013 5:29:07 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.j.kemp@gmail.com writes: The default should be that all names are set as 'submitted' to the general Temple - with an opt out to reserve only the few names that you can realistically do.

If we have people in our wards who have computer problems (no computer, no knowledge of working a computer, physical difficulties in using a computer & not able to find appropriate adaptive equipment/software), perhaps we can enlist youth that may need service hours, or a family history consultant (we're the most underused people in our ward, despite efforst to let people know we are available to help in a variety of ways. Asking folks if they can use some help seems to irritate them...does it make them feel guilty? or just annoyed to be reminded? who knows.) I have two people who do not have computers, are older & not likely to be able to learn the skills needed to do their own FH research due to physical & financial constraints. They do what they can to gather family info (write letters & make calls), and I computerize it for them, and get it into the system for them when appropriate. In the meantime, I have separate files in the genealogy program on my home computer for their families. I rarely do anything research-wise for them, if they're not sitting beside me, or if they're not at least making phone calls to family, or writing letters. One just handed me 8 letters he got back containing obits & news stories about some of his extended family: Wonderful stuff that doesn't show up in Ancestry or Family search! Ancestry has been doing photos in family tree links that are now showing up at the top of their screens when they match names on the requested individual. If I can confirm it's the same family, I copy their information (especially the pictures, as the individuals I've been helping don't have pictures of a lot of their family), but don't add this stuff to their family tree without serious confirmation work...most of the names are the same, but there's often discrepancies in dates or places. It means further research. (And many people can use Ancestry at their public library for free, except copy costs.) Has anybody noticed lately that many of the family history centers are NOT accessible if someone doesn't have a car? They just moved one that could be gotten to by bus & a couple blocks walk to a place way off the bus lines, and the other one in the other stake is also way off the bus lines. This is unfortunate because it limits the accessibility to a lot of people that may also not have their own computers. (Using the clerk's office for access to familysearch.org/newfamilysearch/familytree--as has occasionally been suggested as a possibility--doesn't work in our building, because it seems like there's always brethren using the equipment who have higher priority claim when the meetings aren't in session.) But, hate to say it: I still do not like Family Tree. I keep going back, but have trouble with what I need to do to uncombine, and fix things that are wrong. Karen On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:46 AM, <JCBrooks@aol.com> wrote: > I love this idea that default is to submit to the general file! > > I didn't mean to offend late last night with the word "deadbeat" (sorry) > but reading further you will find that I gave most of your reasons for > people > not completing the names except the one about computer inability....which > is a very real problem. I concur.. > > Michele > > > In a message dated 4/26/2013 5:29:07 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > thomas.j.kemp@gmail.com writes: > > The default should be that all names are set as 'submitted' to the > general > Temple - with an opt out to reserve only the few names that you can > realistically do. > > Please send the one word message SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-L-REQUEST@ROOTSWEB.COM > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LDS-WARD-CONSULTANT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Finding ancestors is like eating potato chips--you can't stop with just one!

Where is the "like" button under your message so I can click it? :-) Yes, I agree people do not "sit on names" for years. In my case, some ancestors of my wife have been reserved by a person since before new Family Search. The names were printed by someone like "jdoe123456" who has never claimed this legacy contribution of his own. It could just be someone who never got into nFS, or even died since the original PAF submission. > Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:28:08 -0400 > From: thomas.j.kemp@gmail.com > To: lds-ward-consultant@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [LDS-WC] Shared Temple Ordinances > > Deadbeats sitting on names .... for years ...? > No.