Prefinds - How Can We Stop Them?

[+NotThePainter]

How can we stop pre-finds? I know that FTFers "play a different game" than many cachers. But should pre-finds be allowed? I like the competition of pre-finds but good competition requires a level playing field.

 

How can we stop it? I don't know all the methods, but some of them can be stopped.

 

TB's should not be publically droppable until the cache is published. Yes, the hider can place it, of course, but watchers should not get the email.

 

GUIDs should not be spelunkable. (And no, I don't know how to this, but I've met a cacher who claims to have been able to produce a printout containing reviewer's notes of unpublished caches. For mystery caches, these often have coordinates in them. I've also heard from the same cacher that GUIDs can also be decoded (and on, I don't know how) to reveal coordinate information.

 

There is even the possibility of more holes. One of my recent hides was found pre-publication. I'm not sure how. It was a traditional so the rewiewer's notes didn't have coordinates. I did not put any TBs in it.

 

I'm sure for many cachers this is a non-issue. But for some of us it is. I just got back from a FTF run where another cacher, with much better cache sense then I, would have gotten is first ever FTF. He was pumped. Too bad the cache was logged 2 days earlier.

 

How can we stop pre-finds?

 

Should we stop pre-finds? (Obviously, I vote yes...)

[+Kit Fox]

How can we stop pre-finds? I know that FTFers "play a different game" than many cachers. But should pre-finds be allowed? I like the competition of pre-finds but good competition requires a level playing field.

 

How can we stop it? I don't know all the methods, but some of them can be stopped.

 

TB's should not be publically droppable until the cache is published. Yes, the hider can place it, of course, but watchers should not get the email.

 

GUIDs should not be spelunkable. (And no, I don't know how to this, but I've met a cacher who claims to have been able to produce a printout containing reviewer's notes of unpublished caches. For mystery caches, these often have coordinates in them. I've also heard from the same cacher that GUIDs can also be decoded (and on, I don't know how) to reveal coordinate information.

 

There is even the possibility of more holes. One of my recent hides was found pre-publication. I'm not sure how. It was a traditional so the rewiewer's notes didn't have coordinates. I did not put any TBs in it.

 

I'm sure for many cachers this is a non-issue. But for some of us it is. I just got back from a FTF run where another cacher, with much better cache sense then I, would have gotten is first ever FTF. He was pumped. Too bad the cache was logged 2 days earlier.

 

How can we stop pre-finds?

 

Should we stop pre-finds? (Obviously, I vote yes...)

 

 

I'm an avid FTF hunter, but all my FTFs were logged after the caches were officialy posted. I can remember racking my brain at 5:00 am trying to solve a devious puzzle, in order to find the cache on the way to work.

 

I have found caches where they have been "beta tested," but that isn't an issue for me. Now going back to your examples, I think this is nothing more than a bunch of hackers that need to cheat in order to grab FTF. I don't support their methods. My belief is that a new cache is fair game, when it is published.

[+trailpuppy]

What are "GUIDS"?

[+NotThePainter]

What are "GUIDS"?

 

Lets look at the URL for one of my caches

 

groundspeakcom/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=bb12b6f0-2b7e-4fc1-9dc5-0918b658f34e

 

see that junk at the end of the url? it has:

 

? -- HTML for something important to the web server is coming

guid -- the 'name' of the important thingee

= -- just a little old equals sign

bb126f0whatever -- the value of the important thingee

 

Rumors say that these can be decoded. Rumors say that given a guid you can reveal reviewer's notes. You can have a robot try millions of guids. (jeremy's servers love this...)

 

(edited for spelling)

Edited February 7, 2006 by NotThePainter

[+trailpuppy]

Thanks for the info (yikes!). Just what we needed, a new level of cheating.

[+JDandDD]

And some cachers just tell their friends first about a cache so it doesn't have to be guids. And sometimes that's so the cache coords can be checked independently.

 

FTF is important to some and not others. I always like getting one but its not the focus of my caching so the issue isn't that important to me. They 'cheaters' (are they really) may find it first but I still will have my chance to see the location and they can have the FTF.

 

JDandDD

[+Ambrosia]

A lot of us in our area pre-find caches all the time, for various reasons. I just don't consider this FTF at all. I consider whoever found it first legitimately the FTF. If I find a cache before it is published, I will not ever say FTF. I leave that to the next guy.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

A lot of us in our area pre-find caches all the time, for various reasons.

 

What would be the reasons for this?

 

This is strange. I guess it doesn't matter much, but I can't think of why someone would try to "hack" into reviewer notes just to find a cache quicker. Seems kinda silly to me.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Googling Hrpty Hrrs

[+Ambrosia]

A lot of us in our area pre-find caches all the time, for various reasons.

 

What would be the reasons for this?

 

This is strange. I guess it doesn't matter much, but I can't think of why someone would try to "hack" into reviewer notes just to find a cache quicker. Seems kinda silly to me.

 

We're not hacking. Either it was a trip where we were with the hider, and we turn our back while they hide it but then find it afterwards because it seems silly to come back to find it again later, especially if it was a long drive or a long hike. The other would be when the hider asks us to find it to check their coords before they publish it (a mystery or multi).

 

But our area in general doesn't consider these instances to be FTF. We ignore them and allow the next finders to claim that. It's just a local given.

[the james gang]

"I like the competition of pre-finds but good competition requires a level playing field."

 

How is the field not level? Do you not have the same access to the information as everyone else? If you dont know how to retrieve it, dosen't make someone who does a cheater. It makes you (like me) less computer savvy. I have'nt taken the initiative to learn more about the computer because I havent had a need. If you wish to grab FTF's, learn how to extract the info from your computer like the "cheaters" have done.

[+briansnat]

What people forget is that this is only a listing service, one of several. A cache owner is free to publicize a cache in any way he wants, whether its listing it here, somewhere else, publishing it on his own website, telling his friends, placing a newspaper ad, or any combination of these.

 

There is no rule saying he can't list it somewhere else first, then here, or tell his buddies about the cache, then list it here. That is up the the cache owner and its his business.

 

As far as people who are ingenous enough to "hack" the system and figure out where unpublished caches are, more power to them. If its important enough to you, you should try to be as imaginative. But don't be surprised if you wind up getting burned by bad coordinates, caches that aren't there yet and caches that never will be approved. That's the risk that these people take.

 

But our area in general doesn't consider these instances to be FTF. We ignore them and allow the next finders to claim that. It's just a local given.

 

I'm just curious. How can the second person to find a cache be the first to find? Second person there is the second to find, period. I never understood the idea of "awarding" FTFs as if they were trophies. I can see in your case leaving any "FTF" prizes for the next person, as taking it would be cheezy, but the second person there is still the second to find no matter what you call it.

Edited February 7, 2006 by briansnat

[+Prime Suspect]

What are "GUIDS"?

 

Lets look at the URL for one of my caches

 

groundspeakcom/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=bb12b6f0-2b7e-4fc1-9dc5-0918b658f34e

 

see that junk at the end of the url? it has:

 

? -- HTML for something important to the web server is coming

guid -- the 'name' of the important thingee

= -- just a little old equals sign

bb126f0whatever -- the value of the important thingee

 

Rumors say that these can be decoded. Rumors say that given a guid you can reveal reviewer's notes. You can have a robot try millions of guids. (jeremy's servers love this...)

 

(edited for spelling)

 

A GUID (Globally Unique Identifier) can't be "decoded" because there's nothing meaningful encoded in them. They're a conglomeration of manufacturer IDs (ethernet card internal identifiers, for example) and sequences based on, for example, time codes. A GUID is, for all intents and purposes, just a unique random sequence of characters.

[+StarBrand]

A GUID (Globally Unique Identifier) can't be "decoded" because there's nothing meaningful encoded in them. They're a conglomeration of manufacturer IDs (ethernet card internal identifiers, for example) and sequences based on, for example, time codes. A GUID is, for all intents and purposes, just a unique random sequence of characters.

 

Yes - this is correct - if implemented in the default fashion - these are little more than a random number and not some cloak and dagger encoding of raw data on the listing page. You would need to try trillions and trillions of combinations - not millions to even have a hope of stumbling across one. I am sure server throttling would kill any such attempts.

[+NotThePainter]

How is the field not level? Do you not have the same access to the information as everyone else? If you dont know how to retrieve it, dosen't make someone who does a cheater. It makes you (like me) less computer savvy. I have'nt taken the initiative to learn more about the computer because I havent had a need. If you wish to grab FTF's, learn how to extract the info from your computer like the "cheaters" have done.

 

You make a very good point. I guess that I just play a different game then. I am computer savvy (I sent my first "internet" email in 1978, after @ had been invented but before .com etc had been) but I realize that everyone can do this and I choose not to play that way. To me that sounds like what I do for a living, not what I do for fun.

 

If I were to publish rules for FTF, they would be something like "using information generally available on the web site after the publication time."

 

I love seeing both sides of the debate on this. Thanks everyone!

[+El Diablo]

What are "GUIDS"?

 

Lets look at the URL for one of my caches

 

groundspeakcom/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=bb12b6f0-2b7e-4fc1-9dc5-0918b658f34e

 

see that junk at the end of the url? it has:

 

? -- HTML for something important to the web server is coming

guid -- the 'name' of the important thingee

= -- just a little old equals sign

bb126f0whatever -- the value of the important thingee

 

Rumors say that these can be decoded. Rumors say that given a guid you can reveal reviewer's notes. You can have a robot try millions of guids. (jeremy's servers love this...)

 

(edited for spelling)

 

Was that the URL before publication?

 

El Diablo

[ju66l3r]

A GUID (Globally Unique Identifier) can't be "decoded" because there's nothing meaningful encoded in them. They're a conglomeration of manufacturer IDs (ethernet card internal identifiers, for example) and sequences based on, for example, time codes. A GUID is, for all intents and purposes, just a unique random sequence of characters.

 

Considering that any pair of coordinates on the planet are "Globally Unique" (even by double entendre) and considering that our rules preclude any geocache from being within a specific distance of another set of coordinates...then, instead of a time code, the sequence could be codified directly from the coordinates (and maybe 1 other bit of info about the cache to prevent problems in case of any overlap).

 

It would depend completely on the implementation setup by Jeremy, but I could easily see it being based on the coordinates since they should ultimately be unique (for the most part) for every geocache in the system.

 

To answer the original post:

 

"FTF" isn't anything recognizable by the listing site, so why should they necessarily go out of their way to program safeguards and guarantees against pre-published FTFing?

 

Cache data just isn't that sensitive. If the FTF hunt is that important, then put out a dummy cache and delete any logs from individuals that log it before you put the real cache out. The only issue would be to either publish the cache in a "temp disabled" manner or be quick about placing it once it is published so that the "real" FTF could log the cache.

[+StarBrand]

For those of you with Microsoft Access:

 

add a new field to a new table

set the data type to AutoNumber

Change the length to Replication ID

 

Add records and you will see these random GUIDs

 

I'll bet that is pretty much all Jeremy et all did - only with SQL server.

[+NotThePainter]

"FTF" isn't anything recognizable by the listing site, so why should they necessarily go out of their way to program safeguards and guarantees against pre-published FTFing?

 

Because some paying customers care, that's why.

 

If the FTF hunt is that important, then put out a dummy cache and delete any logs from individuals that log it before you put the real cache out.

 

Hard to do when you place the cache weeks in advance to make sure that footprints in the snow are obscured.

[+sbell111]

...

GUIDs should not be spelunkable. (And no, I don't know how to this, but I've met a cacher who claims to have been able to produce a printout containing reviewer's notes of unpublished caches. For mystery caches, these often have coordinates in them. I've also heard from the same cacher that GUIDs can also be decoded (and on, I don't know how) to reveal coordinate information.

 

There is even the possibility of more holes. One of my recent hides was found pre-publication. I'm not sure how. It was a traditional so the rewiewer's notes didn't have coordinates. I did not put any TBs in it.

...

I'm not convinced that the GUID can be decodes to give any information that would be useful in finding a cache. Until, someone can show that this is being done, why should cachnges be made?

 

"FTF" isn't anything recognizable by the listing site, so why should they necessarily go out of their way to program safeguards and guarantees against pre-published FTFing?

 

Because some paying customers care, that's why.

Again, I'm not convinced that there is a problem.

[+NotThePainter]

I just got of the shower (I do some of my best thinking in the shower or in the car, the mind can free associate) and I've realized the solution to my issue.

 

And yes, it is my issue (others may share the issue but I cannot control others' behavior).

 

One thing that upsets me is that I consider the pre-finders to be "cheating" which is bad for my mental health. A Zen approach is to not be bothered by other people's actions. Yet I am, yet I shouldn't be.

 

I realized that they and I play different games. My mistake was thinking that we are playing the same game.

 

Therefore, I will no longer hunt FTFs.

 

I will hunt FTFAPs. First to Find After Publication.

 

I cannot control their actions, but I can control mine, including naming the game I play. Others may play my game. Others may not even understand the difference between my game and the other similarly named game.

 

I actually feel a lot better now.

 

Groundspeak can and should close the bugs, but they no longer affect me. (And my three recent hides all had notes saying that early logs would be deleted.)

[+sbell111]

Good idea. I'm going to start hunting FTFOIGATI (First To Find Once I Get Around To It).

[+fizzymagic]

A GUID (Globally Unique Identifier) can't be "decoded" because there's nothing meaningful encoded in them. They're a conglomeration of manufacturer IDs (ethernet card internal identifiers, for example) and sequences based on, for example, time codes. A GUID is, for all intents and purposes, just a unique random sequence of characters.

 

While it is certainly true that GUIDs do not contain information about cache locations, they do contain significant useful information, and are anything but random!

Edited February 7, 2006 by fizzymagic

[luckykoi]

Good idea. I'm going to start hunting FTFOIGATI (First To Find Once I Get Around To It).

 

Reminds me of this cache

[+budd-rdc]

Prefinds, eh? Interesting.

 

I also feel much better now, because I've had one or two FTFs without even trying. Even "cheaters" can't plan against luck.

[ju66l3r]

You may want to reconsider your acronym, NotThePainter.

 

First To FAP can have some other connotations.

[+Prime Suspect]

While it is certainly true that GUIDs do not contain information about cache locations, they do contain significant useful information, and are anything but random!

It's in no way "useful" in regards to finding out anything about a cache. GUIDs are used all over the GC site. Every log is identified by a GUID, as is every user, and every cache type.

 

When you're adding data to a database and need a unique identifier, you simply ask for one, and the GUID function returns it. Since no information is passed to the function, nothing meaningful can be coded into it. It's one thing, and one thing only -- a unique identifier.

Want your own GUIDs? Have fun!

[ju66l3r]

It's in no way "useful" in regards to finding out anything about a cache. GUIDs are used all over the GC site. Every log is identified by a GUID, as is every user, and every cache type.

 

When you're adding data to a database and need a unique identifier, you simply ask for one, and the GUID function returns it. Since no information is passed to the function, nothing meaningful can be coded into it. It's one thing, and one thing only -- a unique identifier.

Want your own GUIDs? Have fun!

 

Simply because you *can* make GUIDs without encapsulating any information in them, doesn't mean you *have* to.

 

Therefore, GC.com *could* be including information in the GUIDs (a simple reason for this would be to use 1 bit to determine if it is a log GUID, user GUID, cache GUID, etc).

 

Here's an example of getting incremental GUIDs from a program call.

 

There's also the way they busted the Melissa computer worm creator because V1 GUIDs from Microsoft were based in part on the network card MAC address of the computer creating the MS Word files.

 

It's not completely unbelievable that GC.com GUIDs encode some basic information about a cache or location (as I said, it'd be appropo considering the coordinates of a cache are the original globally unique identifier).

[+The Canning Clan]

I tbhought the only legitemite "found it" counts are those of published caches (on GC.com). Doesn't this rule out the so called prefinds as simply nothing? Although my opinion is that if the cache is not published and the finder does not have express permission from the owner to hunt the cache he is merely a muggle that has happened upon a cache and maybe will make a good respectable geocacher someday.

The above statement is my opinion...not to be construed as policy

[+Geo Froggy]

I tbhought the only legitemite "found it" counts are those of published caches (on GC.com). Doesn't this rule out the so called prefinds as simply nothing? Although my opinion is that if the cache is not published and the finder does not have express permission from the owner to hunt the cache he is merely a muggle that has happened upon a cache and maybe will make a good respectable geocacher someday.

The above statement is my opinion...not to be construed as policy

 

I hadn't thought of this, but it is true, if it isn't published you can't count it as a find, IMHO.

 

Jackie

[+briansnat]

I tbhought the only legitemite "found it" counts are those of published caches (on GC.com). Doesn't this rule out the so called prefinds as simply nothing? Although my opinion is that if the cache is not published and the finder does not have express permission from the owner to hunt the cache he is merely a muggle that has happened upon a cache and maybe will make a good respectable geocacher someday.

The above statement is my opinion...not to be construed as policy

 

If a "muggle" happens on a cache and chooses to join this website and log it as a find, the common wisdom is that it's OK. Also, its quite common in some areas to log finds here for caches not listed on this site.

Edited February 7, 2006 by briansnat

[+StarBrand]

Simply because you *can* make GUIDs without encapsulating any information in them, doesn't mean you *have* to.

 

Therefore, GC.com *could* be including information in the GUIDs (a simple reason for this would be to use 1 bit to determine if it is a log GUID, user GUID, cache GUID, etc).

 

I suppose all good conspricy theories need this type of suspicion. (sigh) [there are those that believe your credit card info is encoded on magnetic strips for hotel key cards too - plausible I suppose but not very likely]

 

Most of us database managers - simply use them as a unique identifier for each record. No need to encode information when the rest of the record simply holds it. Unless, of course, you need to believe in cloak and dagger theories....

[+cudlecub]

We found one over the weekend that was logged prior to the reviewer publishing it? The cache was found and published on the very same day. I didn't realize posting a find prior to publishing was possible. But it was shown like that on my pq as well as 3 other's pq. Upon returning home, it had changed to a find following posting with the same date. The log didn't indicate an edite log.

[+Prime Suspect]

Simply because you *can* make GUIDs without encapsulating any information in them, doesn't mean you *have* to.

 

Therefore, GC.com *could* be including information in the GUIDs (a simple reason for this would be to use 1 bit to determine if it is a log GUID, user GUID, cache GUID, etc).

 

Here's an example of getting incremental GUIDs from a program call.

 

There's also the way they busted the Melissa computer worm creator because V1 GUIDs from Microsoft were based in part on the network card MAC address of the computer creating the MS Word files.

 

It's not completely unbelievable that GC.com GUIDs encode some basic information about a cache or location (as I said, it'd be appropo considering the coordinates of a cache are the original globally unique identifier).

 

A perfect example of Truthiness.

 

Incorporating coordinates into a GUID would not only be pointless, but go against its purpose of generating a unique ID. Different caches can have the same coordinates. Reasons for that should be obvious if you think about it.

 

And yes, GUIDs do have unique equipment identifiers embedded in them. I mentioned that in my original post (remember?). That's the only way they can work. The "G" in GUID stands for "Globally". That means a GUID string generated by a computer should never be created again, not only by the originating computer, but by any computer, anywhere. Since it would be impossible for all computers to share information about what GUIDs they've generated with each other, it was decided that each computer would have its very own unique identification string. This string is created from things like, as I earlier said, ethernet cards ID numbers and the like. If you combine the individual computer's unique string, with time codes and internal GUID counters (things that, unlike coordinates, don't repeat), any computer can then generate a GUID string that can be considered with a good deal of confidence, to be globally unique and will never be reproduced.

[ju66l3r]

Great, so you can do it both ways and one way is simpler, but the other way has hearsay evidence to the contrary.

 

That leaves an onus for someone to decode a mystery cache's coordinates from the GUID or Jeremy to point out how he simply uses the default GUID command without any input.

[+Ambrosia]

We found one over the weekend that was logged prior to the reviewer publishing it? The cache was found and published on the very same day. I didn't realize posting a find prior to publishing was possible. But it was shown like that on my pq as well as 3 other's pq. Upon returning home, it had changed to a find following posting with the same date. The log didn't indicate an edite log.

 

This is one way that is good for seperating the FTF from the pre-finder. If they are honest about the day that they find it, most of the time their find will be posted before the listing date. I have done this several times, and then people can clearly see that I found it before it was listed, therefore I was pre-viewing the cache.

[+altosaxplayer]

I have had problems with people FTF'ing their way to caches before the post date. We actually ran into something of the sort this weekend while on a cache run. We were looking at the past logs for one cache. Come to find out, we were getting ready to be STF. But, the FTF'er (a very avid, shove you out of his way, 325 FTF's, guy) was FTF. A DAY BEFORE the cache was listed! The reviewer "Published" not was on the 29th. The FTF was on the 28th! What is up with this stuff? All of my FTF's were gotten AFTER the cache was listed, so no cheating here.

[+Bill & Tammy]

Putting aside all the stuff about Globally Unique Identifiers this subject touches on a bit of an interesting philosophical question and Briansnat eluded to it earlier in discussing the various venues of publishing. For the sake of argument I would like to submit that if someone finds a "cache" before it is published, what they actually found was not even a geocache but a box of trinkets and a notebook, but certainly not a geocache.

 

To understand this we must go back and look at what is held as the "first geocache" which was as many of you already know, Dave Ulmer's famous geostash. The unique thing that made this a geocache was that he recorded the coordinates and published them on the internet in the public domain. Had he not published the coordinates it would have been simply some items left in the woods for somebody to stumble across or locate from word of mouth by whatever navigation means necessary. The unique thing about it and what was never done previously is that the existence and location by coordinates were made available to whoever wished to seek it out and had the technology to do so. There are many examples of similiar things being done previously that weren't geocaches by this definition including letterboxes and wilderness survival provision stashes. I even placed some "caches" in 1986, but because I didn't have the means to report and publish the coordinates and because of Selective Availibility they certainly can't be termed "geocaches".

 

So, applying this to the question the FTF question, by this definition if an individual finds a cache, signs the log etc, before the cache is published in some manner, they didn't really find a geocache. It is a geocache when it is published, otherwise we would have to rethink the way we define a geocache and who invented it thus revising history and the way we define the game.

Edited February 8, 2006 by Bill & Tammy

[+WaldenRun]

Not that I have ever used any of this, but GUIDs have not always been around. While they are now used in most places in the code, you should still be able to find areas where the old-style lookups are used. Those lookups tended to be based on adding one (1) to the ID of the last created item of that type.

 

Take log IDs for example. When using the site, you will usually see "?GUID=xyz" in the URL. However, "?LID=n" will also return a log entry. If n is latest log in the database, the next log will be n+1. So, a bot could TRY looking at each log as it is created. Rumor has it that this would also show you reviewer logs. That hole may have been closed.

 

In the OLD days, you could look at newly created caches quite easily using this technique. Fixing that was one of the first defenses made against FTF hackers.

 

I dare say the war is still being fought!

 

-WR

[+Ambrosia]

Putting aside all the stuff about Globally Unique Identifiers this subject touches on a bit of an interesting philosophical question and Briansnat eluded to it earlier in discussing the various venues of publishing. For the sake of argument I would like to submit that if someone finds a "cache" before it is published, what they actually found was not even a geocache but a box of trinkets and a notebook, but certainly not a geocache.

 

To understand this we must go back and look at what is held as the "first geocache" which was as many of you already know, Dave Ulmer's famous geostash. The unique thing that made this a geocache was that he recorded the coordinates and published them on the internet in the public domain. Had he not published the coordinates it would have been simply some items left in the woods for somebody to stumble across or locate from word of mouth by whatever navigation means necessary. The unique thing about it and what was never done previously is that the existence and location by coordinates were made available to whoever wished to seek it out and had the technology to do so. There are many examples of similiar things being done previously that weren't geocaches by this definition including letterboxes and wilderness survival provision stashes. I even placed some "caches" in 1986, but because I didn't have the means to report and publish the coordinates and because of Selective Availibility they certainly can't be termed "geocaches".

 

So, applying this to the question the FTF question, by this definition if an individual finds a cache, signs the log etc, before the cache is published in some manner, they didn't really find a geocache. It is a geocache when it is published, otherwise we would have to rethink the way we define a geocache and who invented it thus revising history and the way we define the game.

 

 

If a person who's never heard of geocaching is going for a walk and stumbles on a geocache by accident, are they now a geocacher?

 

[CoyoteRed]

I suppose next folks will be alluding to if it's not published on geocaching.com then it's not a cache.

 

Sheesh.

 

[+Bill & Tammy]

I suppose next folks will be alluding to if it's not published on geocaching.com then it's not a cache.

 

Sheesh.

 

 

No, what I am saying is the public in some manner must be "invited" to come seek it and its' location made known. Otherwise it could be considered off-limits private property just like if someone were to start rummaging through another's bag at the beach while they were otherwise occupied. They certainly weren't invited to do so by the bag's owner and might even be arrested.

 

If you follow the logical conclusion to seeking unpublished caches what would stop you from getting in somebody's trunk becuase you knew an ammo can that was being prepared for a hide was there to sign a log for FTF? Or for that matter their garage even? It becomes a cache when it is PUBLISHED and an invitation is issued to seek it.

Edited February 8, 2006 by Bill & Tammy

[+Glenn]

Not that I have ever used any of this, but GUIDs have not always been around. While they are now used in most places in the code, you should still be able to find areas where the old-style lookups are used. Those lookups tended to be based on adding one (1) to the ID of the last created item of that type.

 

Take log IDs for example. When using the site, you will usually see "?GUID=xyz" in the URL. However, "?LID=n" will also return a log entry. If n is latest log in the database, the next log will be n+1. So, a bot could TRY looking at each log as it is created. Rumor has it that this would also show you reviewer logs. That hole may have been closed.

 

In the OLD days, you could look at newly created caches quite easily using this technique. Fixing that was one of the first defenses made against FTF hackers.

 

I dare say the war is still being fought!

 

-WR

 

?ID=n was and still is used for caches. But if a cache isn't yet published it doesn't display. For example,

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=343556 displays GCTA9C and

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=343558 displays GCTA9E.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=343557 is between the two and should display GCTA9D but all you get a server error.

 

So unpublished caches can only be viewed by the owner and admins. At least by using this method.

[+EScout]

That's the risk that these people take.

 

The other risk that Pre-finders face is having their log deleted by me if it is my cache.

[+GeoSchmodie]

Although I have not experienced any "pre-finds," I have experienced delay in updating on different servers.

 

Example: While chatting on the phone with Catch friends, I see a new cache pop up on the website. While reviewing the cache info, my cache buddy informs me it has not popped up for her. We meet we cache and return home and it still hasn't popped up! Caching buddy logs on my computer and then watches to see when the cache pops up for her. By the next morning it shows up with yesterdays date and our logs???

 

is the issue server vs. server, member vs. non-member, High speed vs. Dial up??

 

There are many factors that we have tried to pin this on and come up with it being one of the mysteries of the game.

 

Love to be a FTF'er but just out to have fun.

[+MtnGoat50]

Last September I hid a new cache containing a Moun10Bike Coin. Within about 10 minutes of logging the coin into the cache I recieved an email from another cacher with the exact published coordinatess, asking if they were correct.

He indicated that he was several hundred miles away and not interested in hunting the cache only in seeing if he was right. I had coordinated when the cache would publish with the reviewer and knew it would come out in a few minutes so I emailed him back with confimation and asked how he figured it out. He would only say that there was a bug on the site and he would notify gc.com.

 

I have no clue how this happened but it is, or was, possible.

[+Torry]

Try setting a "fake cache" out but DO NOT ACTIVATE IT for a few days. Then go collect it, put in the "real" cache, check the "fake" log and the page and then activate the cache.

 

Delete all the 'finds' recorded before the page was activated and keep track of the names. ... See how often they pop up in similar situations.

[CoyoteRed]

It becomes a cache when it is PUBLISHED and an invitation is issued to seek it.

 

It becomes a seekable cache when it placed.

 

Personally, I don't see "pre-finds" as a problem. I don't see a bug in the software that allows knowledgeable folks to see a cache before it is published as a problem unless someone was using it to get around the review process.

 

I really don't see this as an issue.

[+ghazkull]

I really wonder why so many state, that they will delete logs of finders that found the cache before it was activated on GC.com?

Why do you hide the cache?

I want my caches to be found. I hide the box, and whoever stumbles over it can log it.

I don't care how he got the coordinates, the cache is there to be found.

And yes, it is a cache from the moment I hide it.

[+tands]

We and other cachers in our are often 'prefind' eachothers' caches to confirm that the hide works and the coordinates are good. But we never sign the log or claim FTF when doing this. We alway wait for a couple of finders to log it, then we go back and 'refind' the cache and sign the log. We feel that just because we're helping the finder it doesn't justify claiming the FTF.

 

We get all our FTF's the hard way... Hitting the refresh button on the new caches page 50 times a day and heading out at 10pm in a storm is the usual technique.

 

- T of TandS

[+The Canning Clan]

Is it possible that reviewers are releasing caches to friends prior to release??? No offence intended to any reviewers of course but seems logical to me.

BTW is there an actual way to track your FTF's??