Jump to content

JPreto

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    529
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JPreto

  1. No because the cache is 1000km away from me... But I asked a local player to do it, since one of his caches was also logged by this cacher... I´ll wait and see... Funny, cache cop... Very true!!!! I like this game and when others try to ruin it, it makes me sad and can´t help it. How many times did you went to caches that weren´t there and the owner knew it but didn´t do anything? In Brazil, when I started less than a year ago, 1/3 of all the caches I visited were DNFs... Maybe you would be doing the same thing if that happened to you... Or maybe you would just mind your own business also...
  2. Greetings! Recently I continued a "cleaning" process in Brazil of posting NEEDS ARCHIVE notes in caches that have NEEDS MAINTENANCE logs for over 6 months. In one of those caches something funny happened. This specific cache was first DNFed in April 2013 and in September 2013, the CO answered to me personally saying that the maintenance was going to be done quickly and so he did. Even tho the CO is physically 8000km away and for 7 months he couldn´t make the maintenance, suddenly, after my NEEDS ARCHIVE log he not only enables the cache but immediately a FOUND IT is logged by another user. But it´s not over yet, I post a note in that cache saying how strange that is since the user who FOUND IT, 6 days ago was 8000km away and he didn´t log any other cache around this one (2 less than 500m away). Immediately after this note the same user logged those 2 nearby caches, another 2 disabled caches and a cache from CO, almost 1000km away from each other. All of this stinks like hell and just shows how people can be... the CO has over 14.000 caches and logs his own caches. Any advice on how to deal with situations like this where the same user, to protect a cache form being archived, uses a different identity to mark a FOUND IT right after a supposed maintenance is done, which I really doubt it was actually made? Thanks!!!
  3. Clear as water! I feel the same way except here in Brazil, and since there are so few caches, before posting a NA log I wait at least 6 months after the NM log. But it all depends on the way people geocache in your region.
  4. Says who? I think it was clear that the FTF side-game can be played as you want. - I see people hiding with the CO and signing an FTF. - I see people not leaving the car in the parking lot and the co-players signing the FTF log for both players. - I see CO hiding caches with FTF already signed in the logbook. - I see people logging the FTF, in an anterior date (1 week before) but after the CO checks the cache and tells it is lost so he replaced it. The CO has no way to confirm if it is true or not. I´ve already, extensively, explained how I play the FTF side-game, but the fact is there are no rules for the FTF game, you make your own rules!
  5. Nice point...what if, in 10 years time he logs in Geocaching.com and claims the FTF? BUSTED!!!!! Even if you tear the log, the FTF is there, TW!!!
  6. Yup, this really clears it up... Thanks for the explanation!
  7. What is official then? Because nothing is Official then, you can log a find even you haven´t found it. You can place a cache and say you find it. You can co with the CO and say you found it. Because, even tho a cache as been archived by Groundspeak you can still log a found (in caches not locked). Hoooooo...but wait, why would Groundspeak lock a cache if it is still part of the game? Why did Groundspeak locked almost all virtual caches that are archived? If it was like most of you are saying, then Geocaching.com is just a place where you can show to yourself or to others that you have been in several places (or wish you´ve been in couching logs) searching for boxes that another person hide it. But it is not... Groundspeak and Geocaching.com website make rules for publishing caches according to what they feel is best for the game. Don´t you get it? Or maybe it´s me that doesn´t get it! I liked it when I read someone saying "for the purists...", maybe I´m just a purist wannabe.
  8. Sorry, is it just me, but if the FTF side-game is played like this it starts to be a "who has more friends" game instead of what I feel is the goal: to be the First to Find a specific cache among all players? But as "fishgeek" put it : "The bottom line is that it is still up to you to cache the way that you feel is correct, and to realize that you have no say on how others cache." The First Post, and the goal of this topic, is because "Dogmeat*" asked for opinions because he felt, so I think, it wasn´t fair for him that someone, a friend of the CO, had the FTF on Geocaching.com website because the cache wasn´t yet published on geocaching.com website. I pointed out my opinions and my vision of what the game is for me, how I play it. If I was him I would put {FTF} at the top of my post and explain why I did it. The CO could delete my log if he wanted but since the side-game FTF is not recognized by Groundspeak, so no reason to delete my log, my found would be undeleted and just gave more work to the Reviewers or Lackeys.
  9. Yup. I've lost interest in being first to find. Last to find takes more research and is more of a challenge. Being last to find is actually very easy. But you might have a lot of really angry cache owners when they find out you walked off with their cache. Totally Off-Topic, or maybe it isn´t, but I can´t help it: You are actually never last to find because even if you retrieve the box from is original place someone can make a Throwdown and say FOUND IT!!! Or Throwdowns are not part of the game... I can also say FTFAT (FTF After Throwdown) Just one remark, a traditional cache A has been placed inside the 0.1 miles mark of another traditional cache B and I published it in another listing, like my Facebook or whatever, so someone goes there and claims the FTF... after a year or so the cache B that was blocking the listing in Geocaching.com website is archived so I resubmit the cache and it is listed in Geocaching.com. So the FTF goes to? The FTF on Geocaching.com goes to the guy that first discovered it a year ago!!!! Come on, can´t you see you are using the rules/guidelines/indications as you please. Sometimes you follow Groundspeak, others you follow another site, but the "results" are always in Geocaching.com website because is the biggest and most important in the geocaching game. It´s like using a law of any country in the world and saying: "But I am a world citizen so I can choose whatever country I want to be judge at..." Can´t you see you are mixing 2 different things, about the same game, but use them both in the same website because it´s where you get your numbers and you can brag about it?
  10. Reference please? (Edit: this request is moot based on Keystone's post) Does it have to be written? Try and log a FOUND before a cache is published... As pointed before by me, how easy would it be for Geocaching.com website make the cache available for all after the CO enabled it and before the reviewer approves it, but they don´t do it. Also, if the cache is only available for some people (friends of the cache owner) how fair is the FTF side-game?
  11. There's nothing in that quote about only being able to log a find after the cache is "approved by a Reviewer." (...) The listing guidelines do have this to say about logging finds: "Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed." As someone put it FTF is a "side-game" of geocaching, even if it is not recognized by Groundspeak it is by most of geocachers, we will see what the future holds... This Topic is about if it is ok or not to claim a FTF before being published but now it has turned if physical logs on any cache prior to the publication date should or shouldn´t be recognized in the Geocaching.com Website. For me there are 2 statements here: 1) If the FTF side-game is important for some, and not important for others and it is not recognized by the Geocaching.com guidelines then, and answering to the first post, it really doesn´t matter if I write or not the FTF (First To Find), the FTFAP (after publicaction), the FTFNL (new log), the FTFAM (after maintenance) or the FTFAFTF (FTF After FTF) also called STF (Second To Find). It is for you and for you, only since the game is not competitive and no one really cares about this. This is my hypocrite and sarcastic version. 2)Since I believe that most geocachers like the game and love their numbers (otherwise why do photologing and couchlogging) the FTF side-game is another challenge inside the Geocaching.com that is recognized by most geocachers. In this case, and considering that the cache, inside the Geocaching.com, is only available for ALL website users (Geocaching.com game players) I feel that all logs before the publication date are off the game, the same way all "archived" geocaches are off the game. For me the game and FTF sub-game start when the cache is published. And by the way... Following the same reasoning, if the cache already has a GC code and it is physically placed, why Geocaching.com website doesn´t allow players to view the cache? If Geocaching.com website wanted that it would be easy to allow caches to be seen after being enabled by the owner but prior to reviewer publishing. What would be the "problem" to say: "Cache is in place but not published yet." I rest my case...
  12. There isn´t because Groundspeak doesn´t consider a FTF as an achievement but it sure states that the cache can only be logged after being approved by a Reviewer. So, the FTF, First To Find can only be registered after the cache has been published. This doesn´t mean that the same cache serves for 2 different websites thus, the FTF from the other website is different from the FTF from this website, because different rules apply. Again, just my opinion, you may or may not agree with it.
  13. I hate to be pedantic, but this isn't so. Groundspeak does not own the term "Geocaching," and it's played on other sites all the time. The rules of Geocaching are NOT managed by Groundspeak; GS just happens to be the largest listing service for geocaches. Ok I understand that, but remember that the topic is "FTF Being Claimed Before Cache is Published" so I figure that it is related to this website "Geocaching.com" and the guidelines that apply to it. Considering THIS website and THIS topic I still feel that logging a FTF before cache is published goes against the rules of the game described in THIS website. Hopping that this example clarifies my opinion about the rules of Geocaching, inside the Geocaching.com website, managed by Groundspeak. If there are different rules for this game in other websites you shouldn´t, but you sure can, use those rules here. This is my initial reply to the topic, not being sarcastic and maybe a bit more clarifying...
  14. A cache only needs to reviewed and "approved" before it's listed on geocaching.com. I've listed caches on facebook before I've submitted them for publication here. It was found a dozen or more times by my facebook friends before being listed here. Oh sorry, my mistake them... I thought we were in Groundspeak.com site and the rules that apply in this game were described here. Facebook or other sites that have coordinates of caches do not belong to Groundspeak.com Official game called Geocaching, so until the cache is published is not part of this game. By the way, I think that most games can be competitive or not, depending on how you play it, and I don´t "a55-u-me" that everybody has to play any game the same way I do. I agree with Darwin Theory that evolution comes from diversity. But if we are talking about the same game, the same rules apply. The game we play here is called Geocaching and the rules of this game are managed by Groundspeak, not Facebook or any other website.
  15. I agree with this post! The first cache I placed was in January 1st 2014 and I want it to be challenging so, I made a challenge. Initially it would be to find a cache in every Brazilian State, there are 27 states, much less than in US, so the challenge shouldn´t be so difficult, the problem is there are 2 states without active caches so, the reviewer told me I couldn´t publish it so I rephrase the challenge to 25 states and he told me again, sorry can´t publish, it is a possible challenge but not achievable by many geocachers so I changed it for 5 states. In the beginning I was really mad with the reviewer but after he explained it to me and tell me that I can make an easier one now and after a few months or years make an harder one of 15 states and them a really difficult one in 25 or 27 states. It all depends on your country cache´s placement. A 2000 finds challenge in Brazil is impossible, since only around 1500 caches are active...
  16. I'm assuming you can cite a source for this? I've read the guidelines several times, and I can't seem to find it. Help a brother out? In the game guidelines it is said that all caches must be approved by a reviewer, did the reviewer approved the cache? No! The cache can actually be never published because it doesn´t comply with all the guidelines, thus never loggable online. Is it clear for you now? You may be confusing a couple things. First, an unpublished cache is loggable, but only on a limited scale. The cache owner can post logs on their unpublished caches, as can Reviewers and Lackeys. Second, there is a distinct difference betwixt loggable and findable. Just because a geocache is not active on this website, does not mean it magically becomes invisible, or slips into some alternate dimension. Cache can be physically in place but not part of the game yet. It clearly starts after the approval of a Reviewer, until then is waiting to be approved to be part of the game. If you can find it: of course yes. If you can sign it: of course yes. If you can log it when it is published: it´s up to you but, in my opinion, you shouldn´t!
  17. Adicionada essa informação. Muito obrigado!!!
  18. Great to see a newbie with game ethics!!!
  19. So in cases like 2) "found box but no logbook" you would log a DNF? Here is my example of a case like this. In this case is even funnier because the CO contacted me saying why didn´t I placed a new logbook and I replied because I didn´t have one at the moment. Around 3 weeks later, I passed again in this cache, placed a new logbook and alerted the owner maintenance was done.
  20. Good point about being sure that it is the logbook, signed paper slip is not a logbook... in my only case it really was the cache´s logbook, see here!
  21. Greetings everyone!!! This is something that I have presented in the Brazilian Forum in January 1st 2014 but got no comments so far, as it is in Portuguese I will now put it in English so everyone can comment. A geocache is usually composed by three parts: X - lid Y - container Z - logbook I just consider FOUND, 515 cases so far, if: 1) Find the box (X+Y) with logbook (Z). Most common situation. 2) Found the box (X+Y) without logbook (Z) but I am sure that it is the correct container, for instance by looking at logs from previous visits or the owner. If I have I place a new logbook. Only happened once so far. 3) Found the container (Y) with logbook (Z). Alert the CO that the cache has no lid and Needs Maintenance. Only happened once so far. 4) Find the logbook (Z) in the supposed spot but no box (X+Y). If I have a box I place a new one indicating that I placed it as a provisional box. This may be considered a Throwdown but I really think that the most important part of a cache is the logbook since some caches are really only a piece of white paper (we called it logbook) inside a ziplock. Only happened once so far and I didn´t have a box to replace. There were cases I found only the cover (X) or the supposed container (Y) without cover and never logged a FOUND. But this is me... I know it can be highly contested the fact that I log a FOUND in situation 4) but this is how I do it. Any comments on how you play the game in these situations? Thanks!!!!
  22. Até agora estou a conseguir cumprir o desafio, já tenho 80 caches publicadas e 15 caches à espera de serem publicadas. Obrigado a todos os que têm visitado os meus caches e registado DNFs já que desta forma tenho conseguido manter os caches activos e no lugar para que quem visite tenha o prazer de encontrar o cache.
  23. Suponho que estas estatísticas sejam de Numero total de caches colocadas de Owners com caches colocadas no Brasil, seria interessante saber quantos caches cada um deles tem no Brasil, por exemplo: 9º - Kelux 156/57 Portugal Obrigado!
×
×
  • Create New...