Prefinds - How Can We Stop Them?

[+tands]

We don't track our FTFs overall, we just have to get one every now and then or it feels funny!

 

- T of TandS

[Keystone]

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.

 

To reduce the possibility of a "pre-find," I recommend NOT dropping travel bugs into a cache -- especially multiple travel bugs -- prior to publication.

 

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??

I've been accused of this before. No offense may be intended, but it's pretty offensive. I am quite sure I'd be removed immediately from my volunteer position if I ever did this.

[+Prime Suspect]

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??

How would that work? Before a cache is published, only reviewers and the cache owner can post to a cache page. I think it would be a bit obvious if there were advanced find-logs posted, and they were all from reviewer accounts.

[k_statealan]

Haven't run across this one before...Looked at the page for newest caches in Kansas this morning and came across a list of about 10 caches labeled as "unapproved cache." When I clicked on them, they came up with full cache names/info. Several of them are within a few miles of each other. If I had the time/desire to drive 60 miles one way today I could pick up several FTF/Prefinds. Has anyone else come across this on the new cache by state list?

[Keystone]

Haven't run across this one before...Looked at the page for newest caches in Kansas this morning and came across a list of about 10 caches labeled as "unapproved cache." When I clicked on them, they came up with full cache names/info. Several of them are within a few miles of each other. If I had the time/desire to drive 60 miles one way today I could pick up several FTF/Prefinds. Has anyone else come across this on the new cache by state list?

I looked at the newest caches and saw the same thing; they are listed in the search results as not being published. But, once you open up each cache page, look at the bottom for a "published" log. It's there. This is caused by the webservers not synchronizing promptly with the cache database server. It happens from time to time; usually it is just a couple of minutes delay, but occasionally there is a server burp and today may be one of those days.

[+sbell111]

Except for the issue of dropping TBs in a cache prior to it being listed, has there been any real examples of people being able to get the coords from GC.com prior to the cache page being published? If not, then I don't see the problem.

 

1) If cache owners drop a bug in early, the cache might be found prior to listing. In this case, all cachers have an equal footing, so I don't really see much of an issue.

 

2) Sometimes, cache owners place a cache with a friend in tow and allow the friend to find it at that time, rather then return later. Also, a cacher may ask a friend to beta-test his cache. I don't have a problem with either of these actions. Some would argue that someone else should be able to log it online before the friend so they get FTF. I say 'Who cares?'

 

3) I rather doubt that reviewers are giving their buds the info and then holding up publishing so they can find it. Both actions would be boneheaded and the approver would quickly get kicked.

[+NotThePainter]

Except for the issue of dropping TBs in a cache prior to it being listed, has there been any real examples of people being able to get the coords from GC.com prior to the cache page being published? If not, then I don't see the problem.

 

Yes. It does happen. I was the hider. The pre-finder admitted it to me and I do believe him for various logistical reasons. There were no TBs in the cache. The cache was a traditional so there were no reviewer notes to spelunk.

 

I believe I know how it was done. I'm working out the math now.

 

So yes, it is real. This isn't theory.

 

Paul

[+Ambrosia]

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

 

I'm glad that this works for you. I have a hard enough time without doing some of these caches twice, too much extra energy and time for me, especially if they are far away or are a long hike to get to.

 

I'd feel pretty silly going to a cache, finding it but not signing it, and then later coming back and finding it again and then signing it and claiming it as a find then. I'm afraid that it would mess with my MPD.

[+Kit Fox]

Except for the issue of dropping TBs in a cache prior to it being listed, has there been any real examples of people being able to get the coords from GC.com prior to the cache page being published? If not, then I don't see the problem.

 

Try this, fill out the new cache form, but don't mark it active, then drop off a travel bug. I did this, and a cacher emailed me, and admitted that he made several trips to the area, trying to find the cache, because it had a white Jeep.

[+Ed & Julie]

Except for the issue of dropping TBs in a cache prior to it being listed, has there been any real examples of people being able to get the coords from GC.com prior to the cache page being published? If not, then I don't see the problem.

 

Try this, fill out the new cache form, but don't mark it active, then drop off a travel bug. I did this, and a cacher emailed me, and admitted that he made several trips to the area, trying to find the cache, because it had a white Jeep.

 

Now that's mean...and funny as heck!

[+Mudfrog]

I'm not computer savvy at all so this may not even be realistic but,

 

My first inclination was that a "prefinder" might somehow have access to another geocacher's account. Is it possible that he/she somehow obtained (hacked) other cacher's passwords and then used them to look at their prepublished caches?

[+NotThePainter]

My first inclination was that a "prefinder" might somehow have access to another geocacher's account. Is it possible that he/she somehow obtained (hacked) other cacher's passwords and then used them to look at their prepublished caches?

 

That is one possibility but in my case I extremely doubt it. I also understand the theory of how do it using a bug in the wap interface to Groundspeak. Some cachers that I've spoken with doubt that there is sufficient precision in that bug to work, but I think the algorithm can be tweaked to make the problem solvable.

 

Note, there is also strong evidence of other methods, since the wap interface bug will only reveal traditional (or multi) coordinates. There have been reports of puzzle cache coordinates being revealed by exposing the reviewer's notes.

 

If approved but held caches were not listed in the wap interface, and if TBs that were dropped in unpublished caches did not generated watched emails, this would close 2 known bugs. I don't have any independent verification of the reviewer notes bug, so obviously I can't speak to a solution.

[+solid-rock-seekers]

My first inclination was that a "prefinder" might somehow have access to another geocacher's account. Is it possible that he/she somehow obtained (hacked) other cacher's passwords and then used them to look at their prepublished caches?

 

Clearly, breaking into another account (reviewer or cache owner) would be one way to get a look at prepublished caches. However, I don't think that's the kind of circumstance that NotThePainter is referring to.

 

My speculation is that the prefinds to which NotThePainter refers have been exploting some sort of bug that allows a creative computer-savvy cacher to view at least the coordinates of a cache prior to publication.

[+Team DAJJ]

I've known of a couple pre-finds in our area. In one case, after a cacher used a phone-a-friend for help, the friend told them of his "yet to be approved cache" in the same area as the other cachers were in. He supplied the coords, and the other cachers found it before it was published. They signed the log book on page 10 or 12 (or some page other than the first couple) and didn't date it. Then after the cache had been found and logged a few times on GC.com, they logged their find.

The cacher who claimed the FTF never knew that the cache had been found the night before.

 

[+M-T-P]

I looked at the newest caches and saw the same thing; they are listed in the search results as not being published. But, once you open up each cache page, look at the bottom for a "published" log. It's there. This is caused by the webservers not synchronizing promptly with the cache database server. It happens from time to time; usually it is just a couple of minutes delay, but occasionally there is a server burp and today may be one of those days.

 

I experienced the same thing (server burp) several months ago. My on-screen PQ showed "unapproved cache", but when I click the link I got the full cache page and coordinates. This was before the "Published" logs came about, so I couldn't use that to verify that the cache had already been approved. I guess that means I can claim a new category of find - Server Burp FTF!

[salmoned]

I don't have any independent verification of the reviewer notes bug, so obviously I can't speak to a solution.

 

Just the possibility of spelunking the reviewer notes has caused me to withdraw my $20 offer for the first to e-mail me with the location of the first hide for my cache, "Nereus' Nickname". Can/will anyone 'verify' this type of pre-find?

[+Sagefox]

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.

 

This doesn't work for me at all. When a container geocache is placed it then exists. The first person to find and open the container is the FTF. The container is a physical object, the finder is a physical being (could even be a monkey - I'm sure that's happend in Costa Rica). It should not matter how they found it, or whether or not they signed the container log, or if they posted to the web site, or if they are a lucky muggle. First is first.

 

From the finders point of view, If they get to a cache, and see evidence that someone else has been there, then they would know that they are not the first one to find it. I can't imagine feeling comfortable about claiming to be first in that situation. And I would dearly love to be second finder behind a monkey in Costa Rica - that would make a great log entry.

[+NotThePainter]

Just the possibility of spelunking the reviewer notes has caused me to withdraw my $20 offer for the first to e-mail me with the location of the first hide for my cache, "Nereus' Nickname". Can/will anyone 'verify' this type of pre-find?

 

I just tried some basic hacks and I was unable to access reviewer logs that I shouldn't have been able to. I still believe that the person who reported this to me was correct, but it is possible that the hole has been fixed by now.

 

I've also talked over my WAP theory, that cacher doesn't believe that there is enough precision. I disagree so, growl..., I guess I'll have to do the math, and as Barbie once said, "Gee, Math is hard!"

 

Note, there maybe enough precision to follow snow tracks. Out here it is common to place caches and ask that they be held for a week or two for more snow to fall.

[+Hemlock]

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.

This is one of the most offensive posts I have ever seen on these forums

 

Everyone I've talked to here in NorCal has no issue with a reviewer going for FTF after the cache is published but I would never, ever, even consider finding it before it's published. Nor would I tell anyone about it. After all, if cachers have an Insta-Notify set up, they know about the cache within a few seconds of publication anyways, so I have no real advantage.

 

Heck, I showed up at a cache within 12 minutes of publication last week, and 8 cachers were already there had signed the log, replaced the cache, and they stood around and watched me search for it. Then we all went to dinner together

 

That said, there have been a handful of times I've physically visited the general area of a cache before publication, because there were some serious questions about property ownership or proximity, but I didn't bother to actually find the cache or log it.

 

I do remember a particular time that a cache had several finders before publication, but when I asked one of them about it, he said the owner called him and gave out the coords. Geocaching.com is just a listing service, and not the only way to publicize a cache

Edited February 10, 2006 by Hemlock

[+Bill & Tammy]

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.

 

This doesn't work for me at all. When a container geocache is placed it then exists. The first person to find and open the container is the FTF. The container is a physical object, the finder is a physical being (could even be a monkey - I'm sure that's happend in Costa Rica). It should not matter how they found it, or whether or not they signed the container log, or if they posted to the web site, or if they are a lucky muggle. First is first.

 

From the finders point of view, If they get to a cache, and see evidence that someone else has been there, then they would know that they are not the first one to find it. I can't imagine feeling comfortable about claiming to be first in that situation. And I would dearly love to be second finder behind a monkey in Costa Rica - that would make a great log entry.

 

Perhaps it would help to think of it in this way then.... we consider a geocache a "game piece", some even have that very word written on the outside of it. A geocache that isn't published I don't consider "in play" yet. Sure a monkey or anyone for that matter could find it before it is published. That doesn't mean he or they have entered into the game officially, just like catching a foul at a baseball game doesn't make you major league baseball player. Many sports or games have actions associated with them that announce the commencement of game play... a whistle by an official, a vocal command etc, etc. Simply putting out a geocache doesn't enter it into play, the announcement by publishing it does... it says "I have been hidden at the following coordinates, come find me".

 

The distinction in this game that separates it from others, letterboxing for example is that published coordinates are the integral and necessary component, even encoded coordinates as in a puzzle cache. Seeking and finding a cache that hasn't been entered into game play is like attempting to score unopposed by another team who hasn't taken the field or notified that the game has begun. Certainly there maybe the field, the ball, the spectators and indeed everything that is required to play has been put into place, but without an announcement that says to all players involved that the game has officially begun, it hasn't really begun yet.

 

Listen, I would love to claim to be an early founder of this pursuit by the act of placing those psuedo caches of mine back in '86 by claiming I somehow knew geocaching as we know it would exist someday and would publish the coordinates when the technology became available that created it, but I didn't an those weren't really geocaches. But, by your way of thinking those were geocaches simply being placed, but they weren't. Again, what made Dave Ulmer's first geocache a geocache is that he published the coordinates thus saying come find me.

 

Another issue perhaps maybe this: I, like I imagine many others actually place the physical cache and record the coordinates before I submit them for review. However, the reviewer may potentially see some problem with it and for whatever reason deny publishing it and I as a responsible player would then remove it. By that sequence of events the cache was never officially entered into play and therefore anyone that did happen to find it could not record the find publicly for the knowledge of the other players. If we legitimized every cache just simply because it was placed and not in someway scrutinized it could potentially make for some pretty dangerous renegade caches.

 

Well, anyway that is my theory for what makes a geocache a geocache, take it for what it's worth.

Edited February 10, 2006 by Bill & Tammy

[+Lil Devil]

Many sports or games have actions associated with them that announce the commencement of game play... a whistle by an official, a vocal command etc, etc. Simply putting out a geocache doesn't enter it into play, the announcement by publishing it does... it says "I have been hidden at the following coordinates, come find me".

I agreed with you up to this point. Geocaching.com is not the only way to list a cache. On the drive home from hiding it, the hider might have called his friend and gave him the coords. That, in effect, is publishing it. It may not be published for everyone to see, but it is published.

 

the reviewer may potentially see some problem with it and for whatever reason deny publishing it and I as a responsible player would then remove it. By that sequence of events the cache was never officially entered into play and therefore anyone that did happen to find it could not record the find publicly for the knowledge of the other players. If we legitimized every cache just simply because it was placed and not in someway scrutinized it could potentially make for some pretty dangerous renegade caches.

We already have this problem. There is I think 6 different listing sites on the web now. And then there is countless personal web pages. The listing guidelines here are pretty tight compared to some of the others. Just because a reviewer here denies to list it doesn't mean it won't be listed on roguecaching.com.

 

Then, what if a month later that older cache that was blocking the new one gets archived for whatever reason. Now the new one can be listed here, but it's already been listed over there for a month. Do you think those that already found it based on the other listing are going to go find it again before logging a find here? I wouldn't.

 

There is no prize for the most finds or even the most FTFs. Why put so much worry into who finds it first or who "cheats" to find it?

[+AtoZ]

This argument is up there with "I hate micros" Why does it matter. I have had FTF because the owner wanted me to. But in the long run does it matter???????

cheers

[+ghazkull]

Perhaps it would help to think of it in this way then.... we consider a geocache a "game piece", some even have that very word written on the outside of it. A geocache that isn't published I don't consider "in play" yet. Many sports or games have actions associated with them that announce the commencement of game play... a whistle by an official, a vocal command etc, etc. Simply putting out a geocache doesn't enter it into play, the announcement by publishing it does... it says "I have been hidden at the following coordinates, come find me".

 

Too much rules lawyering for. First of all GC.com is not the only cache listing site.

There are people who list their caches on pages that instantly publish the cache, people who publish their caches on GC.com later, or not at all. Or they just tell their friends early, who cares. So when is the cache

'officially published'?

As I sayd, too much rules lawyering. For me this is about getting outside and having fun.

 

The distinction in this game that separates it from others, letterboxing for example is that published coordinates are the integral and necessary component, even encoded coordinates as in a puzzle cache. Seeking and finding a cache that hasn't been entered into game play is like attempting to score unopposed by another team who hasn't taken the field or notified that the game has begun. Certainly there maybe the field, the ball, the spectators and indeed everything that is required to play has been put into place, but without an announcement that says to all players involved that the game has officially begun, it hasn't really begun yet.

 

Geocaching just isn't a game like any other game, your analogies just don't work.

[+NotThePainter]

Geocaching just isn't a game like any other game, your analogies just don't work.

 

I disagree. The way to see it, yes, it isn't like it at all. The problem arise because some people do see it that way. Getting the "published" email is exactly like the starter's pistol.

 

The path to stress free caching is to ignore other's behavior. Odd for the original poster to say that, huh? I've come to that realization while watching this thread progress.

 

I know the rules of the game I play. I am no longer concerned about the rules of the game the others play. I still see a potential problem in that, and this is a guess, many of the game players play by the same set of rules that I use and they feel stress when others appear to be using those rules but in fact are not.

 

Paul

[+Glenn]

This argument is up there with "I hate micros" Why does it matter. I have had FTF because the owner wanted me to. But in the long run does it matter???????

cheers

 

The OPs consern is that through a bug in the system someone, unknown to the owner, can find his cache while it is awaiting review and before it is published. That is a much different issue than the owner of a cache giving someone the coords inviting someone to find their unpublished cache.

 

Another consern was that with access to unplublished caches it may be possible to see reviewer notes, which on mystery/unknown caches commonly show solution to puzzles and final coords. Allowing someone to go directly to the cache without solving the puzzle.

 

However, so far no one has shown to the forums that there is any such bug.

[+briansnat]

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.

 

 

A reviewer would not stay a reviewer for long if he was found to be doing that. It would be an abuse of their position.

 

There are many ways for someone to find a cache pre-publishing and they don't need a tip from the reviewer.

[+NotThePainter]

However, so far no one has shown to the forums that there is any such bug.

 

There is certainly such a bug. (hmmm, re-reading your post I'm not sure which possibility you are talking about). Let me reiterate it:

 

Pre-finds without travel bugs do most certainly happen on traditional caches without travel bugs. I have unequivocal proof of this. I was the hider, I hand distributed the cache pages at an event (this was a real cache, launched at the event via printouts, delayed launched on the servers later that evening) then almost immediatly drove to the cache site. The pre-finder had at most 10 minutes on me and trust me, this hide would take more than 10 minutes to find, especially in the dark. He also admitted the pre-find to me.

 

Now, was this done via the wap interface or guid spelunking or some other method? I don't know. I've run some experiments on guids and they seem solid but I didn't try very hard. The wap interface has a provable bug in it but it is unclear of the precision is enough to get you to the final. I suspect it is. The wap bug would let you get traditionals but not puzzle caches. The pre-finds here have either been on traditionals or caches (trad or puzzle) that had TBs in them. (And we all know by now that TBs are trackable into the unknown.)

 

I only have rumors of guid spelunking and I've not seen first hand evidence of it.

 

Paul

[+Packanack]

Possibility of reviewer tipping off friends presupposes that reviewers have friends. I don't even know who the reviewer is for my area other than by the name. I am sure there are probably a couple of people who know who it is, but I suspect that the reviewers are unknown to almost all cachers. It is like a closely guarded secret.

More likely scenario is that the hider has E Mailed friends about his new cache. I even did that once by accident, because I was discussing some new hides with another cacher and I told him where I was going to hide and he went and found it without the coords. I have also discussed areas of hides that I thought good where the other cacher has then agreed and hidden there. I know I won't get to that one in a year, but I knew exactly where it was going. Sometimes our enthusiasm for a new placement or find gets the better of us.

[+NotThePainter]

More likely scenario is that the hider has E Mailed friends about his new cache.

 

In one of the cases I was the hider. In another 2 cases, the hider was quite upset.

[+Bill & Tammy]

 

Too much rules lawyering for. First of all GC.com is not the only cache listing site.

There are people who list their caches on pages that instantly publish the cache, people who publish their caches on GC.com later, or not at all. Or they just tell their friends early, who cares. So when is the cache

'officially published'?

As I sayd, too much rules lawyering. For me this is about getting outside and having fun.

 

The distinction in this game that separates it from others, letterboxing for example is that published coordinates are the integral and necessary component, even encoded coordinates as in a puzzle cache. Seeking and finding a cache that hasn't been entered into game play is like attempting to score unopposed by another team who hasn't taken the field or notified that the game has begun. Certainly there maybe the field, the ball, the spectators and indeed everything that is required to play has been put into place, but without an announcement that says to all players involved that the game has officially begun, it hasn't really begun yet.

 

Geocaching just isn't a game like any other game, your analogies just don't work.

 

In fact if you review any or all my arguments I never once indicated in any way that Groundspeak was the only publishing venue as has been inferred a couple of times, as most are aware it is not. Dave Ulmer published the first one on a Usenet newsgroup. Publishing a cache on Groundspeak doesn't inheritably make it a geocache by the use of this specific venue alone, but the fact remains it must be published in some way. The venue doesn't really matter. The coordinates that the cache can be found at must be publicized in some way whether very limited to a couple of friends or the broad audience that Groundspeak reaches.

 

I have seen several published geocaches that are placed on private property, some even in the placer's front yard, there may be even some on porches. I found a geocache at the back entrance to a business once. Just because I see an ammo can sitting on somebody's front porch doesn't make it fair game that I should invite myself up there and poke around in it looking for trinkets and a log book. In fact in my part of the country this could very well get you shot if you are mistaken. What made the caches viable that I spoke about before is that they were published in some way as geocaches and therefore the invitation was open to engage with them as a game piece. How do I determine between a geocache that was "placed" as some have argued against what I could mistake for one and is in actuality private property? I know with a published geocache with some degree of confidence that I have been allowed access to the cache by it being published.

[+stormcloud]

I check geocaching.com for new forums and caches searchs more often than i check my e-mail. You can say that i have a mild addiction to the game. If some one has a prefind no matter how they found it then its thier find. Am i disappointed you bet, but it comes down to what i tell the kids i work with, and my own kids. You have to look yourself in the mirror and like who you see.

 

What you are talking about is moral judgements. I guess it comes down to its a game, and then it comes down to how do you define goodsportsmanship within the games structure. I think as a communitee of cachers that the game etiqite is fairly well defined with the rules. But you can never legislate morality or your personal beliefs.

 

Is there a way to hack the system, probably as no system is 100 precent secure. If they are hacking the system, its illegal and this is an isssue that GC.com needs to deal with. I have proviided personal informatin to GC with the understanding that it is secure and can only be used by them.

 

In all the discussion i notice that Jeremy has not jumped in the reassure us or confirm or deny the issue.

[+ghazkull]

Just because I see an ammo can sitting on somebody's front porch doesn't make it fair game that I should invite myself up there and poke around in it looking for trinkets and a log book. What made the caches viable that I spoke about before is that they were published in some way as geocaches and therefore the invitation was open to engage with them as a game piece.

 

Yepp, but caches on private property are not the normal everyday cache.

If you go for a walk in the woods, and happen to stumble over a tupperware container with a geocache label, what would you do?

By your definition it is no cache, because you did not know about it, right?

Well, I know I would sign the log, and be happy that I found a cache that I didn't know was there.

[+angevine]

I know that many people find this a non-issue; but, frankly, it would break my heart if I created a cache and someone "found" it before it went live.

 

I'd probably stop geocaching altogether.

 

For me, part of the joy of creating a cache is the excitement and anticipation of watching it go live, waiting to see when someone will follow the directions, waiting for that first log. All of that would disappear with a pre-find.

 

Personally, I think it's a rotten thing to do to soemone who has gone to the trouble to create a cache for your caching pleasure – it's a slap in the face, saying I don't give a d*** what you want, I'm going to go ahead and do what *I* want, to take what isn't mine.

 

I know that there are different ways of geocaching. But this is a real good way to discourage people from playing.

 

Jeannette (angevine)

[+Sagefox]

 

Perhaps it would help to think of it in this way then.... we consider a geocache a "game piece"...

 

...Well, anyway that is my theory for what makes a geocache a geocache, take it for what it's worth.

 

I can follow your entire complex argument and I do understand it. But its only one definition of FTF and not one that I agree with. Most importantly, though, I don't think any specific variation presented here or anywhere else can be considered the "correct" way unless everyone, or substantially everyone agreed. And that, of course, would be impossible to measure.

 

It is still a curiosity to me that geocachers like to take something that should be simple and make it complicated. I prefer the KISS system (second S refers to humans in general and no one in particular). A simple definition need only include:

 

First one who opens the box is first.

 

Some other known conditions:

 

Sometimes a muggle is ftf;

Sometimes people get advanced notice and find & open the container first;

Some people race out to get ftf within minutes of a public listing and get there first;

Some people do what some others have called cheating but none-the-less are first to open the cache;

Anyone who follows any of the above is physically the second one to find the cache;

 

The OP's concern is that some people get advance information, leaving others at a disadvantage. Even though it might seem like we are straying off topic I think discussing the definition or various definitions of FTF is pertinent to that question in that some people appear to consider themselves rightful FTF if they follow someone who they believe had an inappropriate advantage. That might be a solution for the OP. But then agian...

[+briansnat]

I know that many people find this a non-issue; but, frankly, it would break my heart if I created a cache and someone "found" it before it went live.

 

I'd probably stop geocaching altogether.

 

For me, part of the joy of creating a cache is the excitement and anticipation of watching it go live, waiting to see when someone will follow the directions, waiting for that first log. All of that would disappear with a pre-find.

 

Personally, I think it's a rotten thing to do to soemone who has gone to the trouble to create a cache for your caching pleasure – it's a slap in the face, saying I don't give a d*** what you want, I'm going to go ahead and do what *I* want, to take what isn't mine.

 

I know that there are different ways of geocaching. But this is a real good way to discourage people from playing.

 

Jeannette (angevine)

 

I don't think its a rotten thing to do. I place my caches to be found and I really don't care how someone finds out about them (short of breaking into my house and hacking into my PC). Its not a slap in the face or an insult to me. Actually I look at it as a compliment, that so many people are so eager to find my cache.

 

...but it comes down to what i tell the kids i work with, and my own kids. You have to look yourself in the mirror and like who you see.

 

What you are talking about is moral judgements. I guess it comes down to its a game, and then it comes down to how do you define goodsportsmanship within the games structure. I think as a communitee of cachers that the game etiqite is fairly well defined with the rules. But you can never legislate morality or your personal beliefs.

 

This presupposes there is something possibly immoral about pre finds. There is nothing immoral whatsoever about my giving out the coordinates of my cache to friends before it is published. Likewise, there nothing immoral about their finding it. Its my cache and my business how I want to let people know about it.

 

The point of this sport is to find caches. Because some geocachers chose to participate in a sub game called FTF, that is of no consequence to me.

[+NotThePainter]

The OP's concern is that some people get advance information, leaving others at a disadvantage. Even though it might seem like we are straying off topic I think discussing the definition or various definitions of FTF is pertinent to that question in that some people appear to consider themselves rightful FTF if they follow someone who they believe had an inappropriate advantage. That might be a solution for the OP. But then agian...

 

I posted about my solution several days back. It is exactly as you described above. I no longer hunt FTF. I hunt FTFP - First To Find Published. But more importantly is the recognition that there are different games we play. The pre-finders are certainly cheating by my rules, but I'm not upset (anymore), you see because they are not playing my game. They are playing a different game and I am very comfortable with that. (Note, if you're not, that's ok, your actions don't affect me.)

[+ghazkull]

I know that many people find this a non-issue; but, frankly, it would break my heart if I created a cache and someone "found" it before it went live.

 

I'd probably stop geocaching altogether.

 

For me, part of the joy of creating a cache is the excitement and anticipation of watching it go live, waiting to see when someone will follow the directions, waiting for that first log. All of that would disappear with a pre-find.

 

Personally, I think it's a rotten thing to do to soemone who has gone to the trouble to create a cache for your caching pleasure – it's a slap in the face, saying I don't give a d*** what you want, I'm going to go ahead and do what *I* want, to take what isn't mine.

 

I know that there are different ways of geocaching. But this is a real good way to discourage people from playing.

 

Jeannette (angevine)

 

I don't think its a rotten thing to do. I place my caches to be found and I really don't care how someone finds out about them (short of breaking into my house and hacking into my PC). Its not a slap in the face or an insult to me. Actually I look at it as a compliment, that so many people are so eager to find my cache.

 

What he says. You do hide the cache, so that someone else has fun finding it, right?

I don't care when someone finds a cache, I hide it so it can be found!

If you don't want someone to find the cache, then just don't hide it, and put it in your closet.