Cedar Grove Seekers

Although we love FTFs, we would not like to see such an option for a couple of reasons: 1) The first to log on GC.com does NOT mean that person is the FTF (although a few will disagree). 2) Some cachers are 'given' the FTF (i.e advance notice of a cache before publication). Some view this as a true FTF, whereas others do not. Let both groups of people quietly consider themselves FTF. Instead of rewarding an FTF on-line, we like to reward the FTF with a prize. This will ensure the first to actually find the cache will get the prize (regardless of when they log on GC.com), and we NEVER give anyone advance notice.

As we've stated in many FTF threads, we believe the FTF can only be after the cache has been published, therefore we would gladly claim the FTF even if it was beta-tested. However there are some cachers who feel that regardless of the circumstances, a beta-tester or even someone who joins the owner in the hide and logs their name, are the true FTF. If your area has many of these cachers, then I'd just forget the beta-tester altogether. As a bit of an FTF hound I understand that there might be kinks, and expect to help work them out naturally during the race for FTF.

I have a cache listed on another site. It has 1 find in nearly a year. Because that site is wildly unpopular I will be cross listing it on GC.COM shortly. The logbook has already been signed and the first person who finds it when it's published here can't possibly be the FTF. Many people don't realized that this a listing service and not the only one. As a cache owner I can choose to advertise my cache any way I see fit. If I choose to list it elsewhere first, post coordinates on Usenet or e-mail them to friends before listing the cache here, that is my business and there is nothing whatsoever cheesy about that. Once its published here, I don't care how you frame it, if someone else already found it you aren't FTF. I didn't realize there was more than one listing site. I've never witnessed FTF confusion in my area due to the cache being listed on another site, but I'm sure it happens.

As many have said, there is no official FTF award on GC.com or any official rules. As a result, everyone has their own personal determination of what is considered an FTF. In my own personal FTF list, I would include ones where I was the first-to-find after it was published on GC.com. If another cacher was with the owner when it was placed, and wants to claim an FTF too, they are free to do so. It will not affect my personal determination that I was FTF. That being said, I am pretty strict about claiming my own FTFs, and believe I have missed a few because the cache log was 'pre-signed' (I suspect). Unless I know for a fact that that was the case, I don't claim an FTF. I have witnessed a few situations in my area where someone has readily admitted to having advance information and therefore agreed they were not the FTF. In summmry, one's FTF list is based on their own criteria, and as long as they are comfortable with it, it shouldn't concern others.

Regardless of how the first person to sign the log book found the cache, he is the FTF. If you are the second signature in the logbook, it is impossible for you to be the first to find it. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. In my area, a big part of the FTF is the race to the cache. The 'starting gun' is when it is published on GC.com. If another cacher went with the owner to place the cache and logged their name, they didn't really find it, the cache was merely placed with their name in the book. This argument is extended to those who had advance information, or beta tested the cache. They found the cache before it was even published, hence a false start. The above situations have never actually happened to us, but I've witnessed it enough. Most local cachers are now very careful to not let anyone have any advance notice.

I agree with most of those rules except for 8. I know of several situations where another cacher signed the log before the cache was even published; either they were beta testing it or they went along with the owner to place the cache. In my opinion the FTF can only occur once the cache has been published.

We remember the days when we were merely platinum members. We were so naive.

On our first few caches placed, we included a few paragraphs of explanation in the write-up. We then placed a Letterbox-Hybrid, such that reading the description was essential to finding the actual cache. We got some complaints from people who couldn't find the cache at the posted coords (it's not there - you must follow the instructions) and that's when we realized that many people just don't read the cache descriptions. Since then we try to keep the descriptions short and sweet. Despite the short write-ups, we still try to put out quality caches, and do a pretty good job of maintaining them.

what he said! What if the cache is in plain view 30 feet up in a tree, and the cache requirements state that you must retrieve the cache to log it as a find. Is the first person to spot the cache really the FTF?

I've been a part of a few shared FTFs - prior to finding we have agreed to search together and share the FTF, regardless of who finds. If we don't agree to share, then it's the person to first RETRIEVE the cache. Merely being first to see the cache is sometimes difficult to determine, and if it is a cache that is easy to spot but very difficult to get to (i.e high in a tree), then being the first to see it is meaningless. We much prefer sharing the FTF.

If we can't find a cache we post a DNF. We might e-mail the owner if we strongly suspect that the cache is missing, but we still post a DNF I believe, in some cases, those cachers who replace a potentially missing cache do it so that they can log a find.

Maybe to make your first cache placement a little less stressful, don't worry so much about placing a TB in it.

I didn't even realize people tracked posts. I'm just posting this to see how many we have. Edit: Cool, our 100th post.

I don't think we've ever done an official night cache, but we love finding regular caches at night.

The one we like to use the most is FTF (First to Find)

One wouldn't typically consider finding an old cache with a new log-book, or replacement, container as an FTF. A cache is more than just a log-book or container. The FTF is the cacher who is first to find the cache after it has been originally published.

Edit: deleted duplicate post

You are free to have superior smilies just don't try to use them to bludgeon me. But what I was really asking wasn't if you cared or not, I asked : Are those logging finds on caches designed to be found multiple times doing something wrong? My intent in asking this question is simple, I am attacking a standard that I see touted by a small group of geocachers. The purpose of the standard is unclear, I suppose it might have some secondary value to some people somehere but I haven't seen any strong defenders of the standard and haven't seen anyone offer any valid reasons why it should be adopted, I have seen a lot of sour grapes. The standard asserts that GC#s=Finds. I live in a community that has moving caches, multiple-target caches and and uses recycled cache pages to list monthly events, the community has conclusively and completely rejected the standard as silly. I am free to reject your response as silly also. On a more serious note, in general I disagree with logging a cache more than once. I have never found a cache where I believed it was OK to log it more than once. However, I can undertsand that there might exist some caches where logging more than once is acceptable. I don't fully undertsand these exception caches and why they exist, BUT if such caches involved completely independant searches/events, then I'd be less likely to disagree with logging them more than once.

Apparently I am not "Most Cachers". I prefer the multi-cache to the traditional. Having found and DNF'd a few of yours I know it will be fun whichever way you go, but you might want to seriously consider a multi or a series of multi's. I agree, I like multi-caches too. Numbers can be rewarding, but being one of smaller group of people to successfully finish a multi is also rewarding. We did an 11 stage multi that was 25km (15 miles) - only one find, but very rewarding.

We're in.

We don't care if you log a cache more than once, and we don't expect you to care that we think our "smilies are better than yours".

Ah, I'm not sure if that's true. Cache placement is not a requirement for anybody. It is if one no longer wants to be a newbie. It's a rule, I checked it out.

You have met most of the criteria, with the exception that you have not placed a cache yet. Once you've done that, you'll no longer be a newbie.

I think the coin travelling idea is pretty cool and it would give you a story to tell about how you got the coin. If you had a note included, indicating it's mssion, then it might not get stolen along the way, otherwise they aren't too expensive so not much of a loss. If I encounter it I'll be sure to move it along.

Your friend should use the "Grab..." option when he receives it. For example he should go to Found It? Log It!, and then choose "Grab It from cantonage"