Reserved Ordinances

nFS needs a way for someone who has selected a person to submit for temple ordinances to then unselect them. As it stands nFS support told me that everyone on the submitted list gets printed, then that list is taken to the temple. There I was to inform the recorder's office and ask that the people that I did not want to do yet be deleted. I called 2 temple recorder offices to verify before printing. One was not sure what to do, but the other verified this direction. However, they did not get deleted and are still reserved for me.

Issues:
1. If after selection, I realize that I picked up someone that another person wanted to do, who may be a possible match for another person, needs more research, or whatever, I should be able to unselect them prior to printing the list.
2. My change should not create more work for the staff at the recorder's office. The assistant recorder that I spoke to did not want to do this. However, another one who came on later in the day called me in response to the remaining cards and a cryptic note left with them. Apparently he couldn't figure out how to do this.
3. Unexpected changes in circumstances may make it impossible for me to complete what I anticipated. I may, or may not, have the ability to supervise the completion of the templework. Even if the cards are already printed, I would like the capability to release cards in my possession to others via nFS.

What do you think?

Another thing that could help this situation is to make contact information available for reserved templework. If someone actually contacted me wanting to assist with the templework, I'd be thrilled!!!

Right now, even where I am the only submitter, no contact info for me is visible. Where multiple submitters exist, this would be helpful.

Also, the date reserved would be nice to know. If it's been "submitted" or "reserved" for a decade and there is no known method to contact the person who initiated that status, there should be a way for a third party to claim these to do.

I agree and have submitted feedback to that same subject. I would like to have the ability to reserve a name then transfer that reserved name to another user. (another relative) It would also be nice if we could unreserve names which we have reserved and put them back into nFS without sending them to the Temple. Once reserved even if done in error the only options are to print the ordinance request or release the name to the Temple for others to do. I do recommend not selecting the printing option when reserving a name, always select to print later. You can do more research on names that are reserved and if you combine an ordinance later it will update the reserved name.

Seems like a program that was initiated to reduce temple ordinance duplication would spend a little more time implementing features that actually reduce temple ordinance duplication before it was turned loose on 13 million users.

In my efforts to test the system, I've run through the submission process for several of my ancestors who had an individual in the "possible duplicates" section that I knew was the same person, hoping to see some sort of double-check system or warning. Just trying to see what would happen when my cousins got online to find some names to take to the temple. Anyway, now they're reserved, and they're definately done, and I can't get rid of them either. Just have to wait for an update I guess.

I also have temple dates for several ancestors who are listed in the IGI, but for whom no record seems to be present in NFS. I was trying to see if it would find them in the submission process, but I can't see any type of verification process ocurring, at least as of two months ago. These too are waiting for me to print, but they're already done.

Un-reserving names is a necessary feature, long overlooked. However, there's a long list of unincorporated features that would reduce duplication. This points to a larger problem. I think NFS has been too confident in their matching algorithms and the idea that there is little or no duplication. This has caused them to ignore many issues that are becoming major problems as more and more users are coming online. Duplication seems to be getting worse, not better - even by insider estimates.

The new Temple Ready process which looks for duplicate ordinances does not start when you reserve a name. That process does not start until after you select the option to print the ordinance request. After you select the print ordinace request option the names are then compared for duplicate ordinances and you will be presented with possible matches. You will only see possible matches of Temple Ordinaces in this process. You don't see possible matches from AF or PRF. You also are shown the Temple Dates in this process. The process is very much like the old Temple Ready process.

If you reserve a name then go back and do combining and combine all the ordainances, the name will drop out of your reserve list once all the ordinances are combined.

Good to know. I haven't tried to print them, because I knew they were duplicates and didn't want to spend precious temple time just to test the system. Seems like the checks should occur before you even reserve them, right?

BradJackman wrote:Good to know. I haven't tried to print them, because I knew they were duplicates and didn't want to spend precious temple time just to test the system. Seems like the checks should occur before you even reserve them, right?

I was suprised the first time I reserved names that it did not do the checks then, but when I later selected the names to print, it went through the Temple Ready process and I was even presented with some good matches which were not presented as possible matches when I looked for possible matches before reserving the names.

BradJackman wrote:Duplication seems to be getting worse, not better - even by insider estimates.

I have a hard time believing that. The old TempleReady only checked ordnances done prior to 2000. While patrons were encouraged to check against the on-line IGI, I'm not sure how many got the word and did so. That's a number that probably varies by area. Even then, the old FamilySearch web page matching left something to be desired. Use of 3rd party tools seem to be the only way to do a search and have any reasonable confidence in the results. Even then exceptions were found.

I think nFS is an improvement simply because it checks the current up-to-date IGI if nothing else. That's about 800 temple-years worth of improvement (8 years of 100 operating temples.)

That's not to say I wouldn't like to see yet more improvement.

While I would like to see some specific numbers released by NFS, the ones that are rolling around are that 30% of all submissions in NFS are duplicates. A co-worker of mine went down to the Joseph Smith Building to try to get someone to listen to her concerns in person, and ended up talking to someone who confirmed the 30% duplication estimate, and also told her that they estimate that 99.9% of the individuals in NFS have already had temple work completed, but have not been merged. This means that nearly everyone with the "temple ordinances are ready" button is a duplicate. The 70% of temple work that are not duplicates is coming from uploaded and manually entered individuals from people's unique research. Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

I can't speak for everyone, and I'm sure each instance is different, but as for myself, I check and double check the IGI and temple ready and use PAF insight. I find that about 3 of 1000 names that I submit for my clients turns out to be a duplicate, and usually those are only because of false information that was later corrected by further research in orginal documents, and there is no way to find those anyway.

In a side by side test of one client's information after cleaning up the database in PAF and NFS, I had many more people ready for submission in NFS than in the IGI, roghly 4 to 1 if I remember correctly (it was about 4 months ago). Upon closer examination, I could find the temple dates in the IGI that I couldn't find in NFS. So if they shut down the old IGI, like they're threatning to do, my duplication rates will go up. Garaunteed.

My hypothesis for why I'm not finding the temple dates is this. I am searching for person X. Person X's temple dates have been merged with person Y in NFS. When searching for possible duplicates, I discount person Y because I know it is not person X, even though it includes the temple dates for person X.

The solution is to have a perfectly clean database. In absence of that, the people I hire to check for temple work will need to spend much much much more time merging and unmerging to make sure they find the right temple dates and unconnect them from the wrong person and put them onto the right person, all just to make sure they don't duplicate temple work, or encourage duplication, that wouldn't have been duplicated if they had run through the standard IGI, PAF insight, temple ready process.

It gets down to the fact that most members don't know and don't follow the rules. They don't check the IGI or use PAF insight because it's difficult, so there's duplication. If checking the IGI was difficult, do you think they're going to get into the complexities of multiple identity merges and mixed data problems in NFS? Nope. There will be lots of duplication in BOTH systems, because it's not easy and most people don't want to spend the time to do it right.

Personally, I think it takes more time, information, expertise, and patience to do it "right" in NFS.

I do beleive there is duplication in newFamilySearch. I doubt the 30% estimate. I'll bet that was a off handed guess by someone frustrated with nFS.

I do not agree that 99.9% of the records in nFS have already had the work done, but just need merging. (that was probably a off handed guess as well) I agree that the number is very high, but not that high. nFS has different standards for allowing ordinances. Under the old system you were required to provide dates and places to clear names. nFS requires only that the person be linked into relationships. So there are a lot of individuals in nFS without ordinaces completed for them. The parents of many of the extracted records where only parents names were extracted may need their ordinances. The spouses of a lot of the children of direct lines do not have dates and places and have not had work preformed for them. Many of the submissions to the PRF were made by non-members and those individuals may not have their work done for them. I think these make up more the .1% of the entire database. I would hope people would do more research on these names before clearing them for the Temple, but they are individuals in nFS which have not had the work done for them.

There are other solutions besides starting over with a new database, the searches do need to be improved, but all the data is there. The Temple Ready search routine in nFS should be searching all temple records whether they have been combined or not, I would not be suprised if it already does that. The Temple Ready clearing process in nFS needs to take into account that not all members will have done all the combining, and it does do that to some respect, it may need more refining to get better but it does check for duplicates before printing ordinance request forms.

I have cleared names in nFS where all combining was done and I could not find any more duplicates, but in the Temple Clearing process more duplicates were presented to me as possible matches which were not found in my searches for duplicates. These were new names I had entered into nFS from my research and I could find no duplicates, but while clearing the names I was presented with some extracted records where some of the sealings to parents were done. So the Temple Clearing process is searching for completed ordinances using different routines than are included in the other areas in nFS.

I've already had some very good luck in averting duplication of temple work, and at the same time have found work only partially done or not at all because the combining was done in error.

One was a second child with the same name born a couple years after a sibling died and that sibling's death occurred at age 3 I think it was.

One way to find what names might still need work and spot duplicates is to click on the temple symbol if it has an arrow by it. I've found duplicates right there, and then went in and did the combining, sometimes a second group of names needing combining would show up, but eventually it would go down to the point where there was but the one record, and finally showing up as having all the work completed.

The other place to find the duplicates is to go to 'parents and siblings' view, and combine the children duplicates, that has also found more information as well. Do the same with spouses and children.

On occasion, I've found entries in the combining process with one child but not the others, and separate entries of the parents with a different child every time. After properly comparing them, you should know if these are indeed the same parents or not, and the chlidren will fall into place. Then go in and do the same on the children. Many are saying start with the parents in any relationship first then combine the children.

GarysTurn wrote:I do beleive there is duplication in newFamilySearch. I doubt the 30% estimate. . . . nFS has different standards for allowing ordinances. Under the old system you were required to provide dates and places to clear names. nFS requires only that the person be linked into relationships.

Please clarify how submitting names with relationships, but no place or time (even approximate) will decrease duplications. There may be places and situations where generally accepted genealogy documentation is not available. (i.e., third world countries & places plagued by civil war) However, less strident submission rules will, once again, increase duplication.

Also, is the church still adding extracted work without searching for completed templework?