Changes made in FamilySearch

In order to preserve the promise of transparency and open communication, the change log records changes to topics made by both customers and employees. Anyone can dispute a change by clicking the "Dispute" link and entering additional details.


  • June 24, 2020 21:05
    Don M Thomas, the poster:
    Reason: removed by the poster
  • June 24, 2020 04:08
    FamilySearch Moderator
    Reason: As the participant assumed, this comment violates our Code of Conduct. Please see https://www.familysearch.org/help/salesforce/viewArticle?urlname=Community-code-of-conduct if you have questions.
    Dispute this change
  • June 24, 2020 02:29
    Dorothy Badger, the poster:
    Reason: removed by the poster
  • June 24, 2020 02:29
    Dorothy Badger, the poster:
    Reason: removed by the poster
  • June 24, 2020 01:32
    Robert Wren, the poster:
    Reason: removed by the poster
  • June 23, 2020 22:28
    Dorothy Badger, the poster:
    Reason: removed by the poster
  • June 23, 2020 22:27
    Dorothy Badger, the poster:
    Reason: removed by the poster
  • June 23, 2020 02:53
    FamilySearch Moderator
    Reason: offensive language. please review the code of conduct.
    Dispute this change
  • June 23, 2020 02:52
    FamilySearch Moderator
    Reason: offensive language. please review the code of conduct.
    Dispute this change
  • June 22, 2020 03:53
    Don M Thomas, the poster:
    Reason: removed by the poster
  • June 21, 2020 18:20
    Jim Greene
    Changed reply in topic of What is our responsibility for ensuring our relatives' temple work is completed? by Jim Greene to I am not sure there is a desire to define a best practice when it comes to sacred work. I can tell you that in our planning and design we have designed Ordinance Ready to go through the tree and find the green temples, whether shared or not, for people who are ready to go to the temple, at least within the next 90-days. It will look for ones with family ties first, and if none are found it will do the same as the temple list-- share one that is not related to you, starting with the ones that are the oldest. So you see, we have a way to ensure that the work gets done even for those who don't have relatives that are members of the church. Elder Anderson at RootsTech a couple years back said that we should reserve as many names as we would do. Accordingly we have designed and implemented a system that does not maximize an experience of hunting green temples and submitting them to the temple list, rather, a process of finding, documenting, verifying and harvesting what we can consume, and leaving the rest for the gleaners and for Ordinance Ready.  Sharing the breadth and depth of the blessings of doing temple and family history work, not just the blessings from performing the ordinances..
  • June 21, 2020 04:13
    joe martel
    Changed reply in topic of Under "Couple Relationship", we need "unwed" by joe martel to It's been a while since I brought this up. There are a number of dimensions that complicate the discussion: what is what object, compromise in UI to simply illustrate multiple attributes, evolution of a feature.&nbsp;<br /><br />1. The objects: There are Persons, and Parent-child Relationships ( PCR)that have a child Person with 1 or 2 parent Persons, and the Spousal Relationship (SR) that represents two Persons who have a formal spousal Relationship almost always established by some formal or defined event. <br /><br />2. In the Family members section (and in other views like Tree, changelog...) the bubble of two people is overloaded in the UI, as has been done in genealogy programs for a long time. That bubble can mean:<br />a. Two people who were formally espoused - married... through some formal or defined event and no children<br />b. One or two people who were parents of one or more children, but had no formal espousal<br />c. One or two people who were parents of one or more children, but had a formal espousal<br /><br />a. has SR, and no PCR<br />b. has PCRs<br />c. has SR and PCRs<br /><br />3. When FSFT was designed it followed the above rules and the SR meant there was some formal (government, religious, cultural) event or definition (say of time together) that made those two legally, or thru law, or religious joining/ceremony "married". I'm using that term loosely here. This marriage usually afforded some aspect of inheritance, property ownership..., rights.&nbsp;<br /><br />User weren't satisfied with the limitation to the formal events (Marriage, Common law marriage, Divorce and annulment). After a number of year since release FS evolved and loosened the set of events of the spousal relationship to now include informal&nbsp;events like "lived together". Now users have requested many other non-formal aspects&nbsp; to "togetherness" like unwed, one-night-stand, acquaintance...<br /><br />Additionally after request from users the aspect of NOT has been added to the Person further clouding the model of formal relationships. These include&nbsp; No couple relationship and No children.&nbsp;<br /><br />So over time the model has become more complicated and cloudy. So "<u>What does it mean when two names are inside of a Couple Relationship box together</u>?" It depends, and by looking at 2a, 2b, 2c you have to look at this bubble and in the middle the existence of the "No Marriage event"&nbsp;says there is no spousal (now couple) relationship. If it doesn't say that then there is a couple relationship (formal or informal). The existence of the No Couple Relation ship and No children Person details Other info facts are independent and could be out of sync with what the couple bubble shows (looks like a good candidate for a data quality warning)<br /><br />PCRs and no SR:<br /><br /><img src="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1841490/13417-1m4xbid_inline.png?1592712713" title="Image https//d2r1vs3d9006apcloudfrontnet/s3_images/1841490/13417-1m4xbid_inlinepng1592712713" /><br /><br /><br />PCRs and SR:<br /><img src="https://d2r1vs3d9006ap.cloudfront.net/s3_images/1841491/13417-b48ftd_inline.png?1592712740" title="Image https//d2r1vs3d9006apcloudfrontnet/s3_images/1841491/13417-b48ftd_inlinepng1592712740" />.
  • June 19, 2020 05:48
    Harold Lloyd Christensen, the poster:
    Reason: removed by the poster
  • June 19, 2020 00:03
    Jim Greene
    Changed reply in topic of "Suggested Tasks" no longer useful by Jim Greene to I am not meaning to be argumentative, I just want to explain briefly why we made the change. There are many threads you can read to get more details. The green temple icon was always meant to mean, from the FamilySearch point of view, that the ordinance was ready and available to take to the temple. Now that we have made any ordinance on the temple list available as well it has been confusing. To those who are coming to FamilySearch to find a family name to take to the temple making these temple names immediately available to them simplifies their workflow, where before they had to either contact the person who shared it, and hope they reply, or contact support to intervene. We have many more who are in this category than those who feel that sharing with the temple makes it done. &nbsp;It is a hard trade-off when we have to decide which audience to please more, so we have to look at all of the facts and the audience size then do what it best for most, based on the criteria given to us by our leaders, and the directions we are heading. &nbsp;Again, I apologize that we made your work harder, but at least now you know why.<br />P.S. look for orange (or yellow) temple icons if you are looking for those that need work in order to make them temple ready..
  • June 18, 2020 20:46
    Jim Greene
    Reason: Timing not right
    Dispute this change
  • June 18, 2020 20:46
    Jim Greene
    Reason: Timing not right
    Dispute this change
  • June 18, 2020 20:46
    Jim Greene
    Reason: Timing not right
    Dispute this change
  • June 18, 2020 19:55
    Jim Greene, the poster:
    Reason: Timing not right
  • June 18, 2020 19:54
    Jim Greene
    Reason: Timing not right
    Dispute this change
  • June 18, 2020 19:54
    Jim Greene
    Reason: Timing not right
    Dispute this change
next » « previous