Jump to content

Is This Really A Ftf?


Recommended Posts

They found it first, but it's NOT a legitimate First Find, especially since it was published the DAY AFTER THE LOG.

 

Another wonderful way to pump up the numbers. :rolleyes:

Agreed. And I was wondering how long it would take someone to catch on to the fact that this person logged it before it was even published. That just ain't right.

Link to comment

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...55-7503c3b7c174

 

Personally, I think this is NOT a FTF, based on the fact that the person who claimed it admitted receiving hte coords early from the hider. :rolleyes:

 

She found it first, so its a FTF (FTF stands for First to Find.) The next person to find it will be the second to find.

 

What people forget is that this is simply a listing service. An owner is free to publicize his cache anyway he seems fit. He can list it on another site, give the coords to his friends, put them on his own website, post them on an Internet forum or stick them in a newspaper ad for all it matters. Or he can do any of these THEN list it here if he wants.

 

Now if I were the person finding it pre-publishing, I doubt I'd brag about the FTF though. That does take some gall.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Although I wouldn't do it, I really really wouldn't advertise it. We were put in a situation where we were with someone when they hid a cache. Not only did we not log our find until after it was published. We let someone else get the FTF before we logged our visit. Guess not everyone is as nice as me.

 

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it, don't get smileys for FTF's anyway.

Link to comment

I've seen two situations where FTF was marginally an issue, but not really in my opinion:

 

First, on my third hide I placed it specifically for an "event" (non-GC published) that we have in our area. I checked with the reviewer to see if they could hold off publishing until a certain time of night, but they didn't really like the idea that they would be involved in who got "FTF", which when they mentioned it I went "D'oh!" and just had him publish it. The change was that, the FTF prize was specifically for the group that came later, so I held it for FTF during the event. The actual FTF didn't mind because he's ignored FTF prizes in the past and would have that time too. So there were "two" FTF's, one for the cache publish and one with our group out caching, but everyone had fun :unsure:

 

Second was again this same "event" a month or two later. The reviewer had some questions about the hide, so the hide was not published yet. The group was basically beta testers on the hide, and the logbook was signed "pre-published" find. Once the cache was published, we logged the actual date found at that time, but the true FTF post publish (and yes, he had to change a couple things) was still open. I'm planning on going back and checking the slight differences soon, but will log my visit as a note since I've already "found" the cache, but it's one of my favorites ;)

 

Just my thoughts...basically to me you can claim what you want based on the owners feelings, but at least you found the cache and signed the log :rolleyes:

 

Celticwulf

Link to comment

I don't consider that an "official" FTF. For those that like the rush of going after an FTF, it stinks to have someone post FTF before it was officially published (though I agree what Brian says). Normally the pre-published FTF wasn't posted until later, so while hunting for this cache you think you still have a shot at FTF.

 

What typically happens in this neck of the woods is those finding it prior to it being published (i.e. testers or friends) won't officially log it as FTF. They also typically sign the physical log below the #1 spot.

 

I think it's good caching ettiquete to not claim FTF (or take any FTF prize) until after it's published. Just my thoughts...

 

-al

Edited by Big-AlH
Link to comment

We had a CITO event and had three caches placed by another cacher for the event, and to be permenant after the event. We went out and found the caches before the event to put our event swag in it. We DID NOT even sign the cache's log book. The caches were not published until the day after the event. The day of the event we went back and signed all the logs for those caches, since we had a couple people tag along with us. Of course we didn't claim FTF or even help the individuals with us find the cache. IMO, that is the only honest way to do. Our reviewer never even said anything about being "involved" with whomever got the FTF. IMO, if we place caches for an event, and ask for it to not be published until after the event, than the reviewer should comply.

Link to comment

We do this every once in a while in our area. Either we were on the trip with the hider and left while they hid the cache and then came back to find it, or it's because we're checking the placement for the hider. Either way, our area mutually does not acknowledge this as a "FTF", and the next cacher to find it after publishing gets the bragging rights.

Edited by Ambrosia
Link to comment

I'd say it's a legit ftf. The logbook was blank and they were there first.

 

Giving out coords while waiting to be published isn't untold of. I've given out coords prepost a number of times, usually in our local forums or via email.

Link to comment

I'm confused. The owner of the cache is listed as krickysue. However, your name is TheManInStripes. This would seem to be the business of the cache owner, which apparently is not you.

 

Perhaps your time would be better spent checking your neighbor's car tire pressure. Or perhaps making a list of people who wear white after Labor Day. :lol:

Link to comment

It does look a little strange, but I don't think the cachers in Valdez, Alaska, (pop. ~4000, more than 50 caches) are going to get worked up about it. They have a small, but vibrant caching community down there (up there for most folks reading this) and everybody knows everybody. Dennifer's "keys" were a TB needed to find her "Valdez Secret Lockbox Cache." The TB had gone missing last fall, rendering the lockbox cache undoable. They resurfaced via Andrew's Cache, and now it's game back on. Also, remember that first to look for may also be first to discover bad coordinates. This was Krickysue's first cache hide, so she might have also been worried about bad coordinates and asked a caching friend to check them.

 

I'm traveling to Valdez for business tomorrow and will slip in some caching. I saw Andrew's Cache post and had thoughts of a FTF for myself since I've picked up several FTFs during past Valdez business trips. I'm not the least bit bothered by what happened with this cache. Was the FTF before publishing unusual? Yes. Do I see that becoming a trend? No. Are the Valdez cachers continuing to have fun playing the game? Yes!!!

 

Edit: I'm also pretty sure that with the opening of this thread that an "early FTF" won't happen again in Valdez. Let's give those folks a bit of the benefit of the doubt. Valdez is 300 miles by road from Anchorage and 360 miles from Fairbanks. They don't have the benefit of interacting with the "Outside" community very often. I'm certain no ill will was meant by anyone toward anyone in this situation. As for "pumping up the numbers," I'm not real worried about a cacher with fewer than 100 finds playing in an area with fewer than sixty caches and in a state with less than 900 caches. There are plenty of other threads about the logging practices of folks with more finds than Alaska has caches.

 

Let's cache on, nothing much to see here!

Edited by Ladybug Kids
Link to comment

I'm going to have to agree with those that don't think this is right. FTF is meaningless, if you're the only one who has been told where it is.....

I'm taking this as a general question, without taking into consideration any local dynamics, of which I have no knowledge.

Link to comment

Pre-publication finds used to bother me, they used to bother me a lot. This is really a silly thing to be bothered by but it upset me.

 

When I eventually realized why it upset me, it really changed the way I viewed the FTF race. You see, what bothered me was that the others were cheating, which is kinda odd because they were basically good people, not the kind that would cheat.

 

When I realized that they were playing a different game than I was I was calm again. It came down to naming the game. FTF, in my opinion, has no rules. None. Use the WAP bug, track TBs, pass the reviewer a Benjamin (just kidding folks...). No rules.

 

The game that I play i call FTFP, First to Find Published. I mentioned this before on the forums, I do wish it would catch on.

 

I think we are starting to see a common thread in the forums (single logs, signing the outside of the containers, record runs, FTF legitimacy and so on). It is pretty clear that Groundspeak doesn't care to make rules pronouncements. Some group from the geocaching community should.

 

Paul

Link to comment

Pre-publication finds used to bother me, they used to bother me a lot. This is really a silly thing to be bothered by but it upset me.

 

When I eventually realized why it upset me, it really changed the way I viewed the FTF race. You see, what bothered me was that the others were cheating, which is kinda odd because they were basically good people, not the kind that would cheat.

 

When I realized that they were playing a different game than I was I was calm again. It came down to naming the game. FTF, in my opinion, has no rules. None. Use the WAP bug, track TBs, pass the reviewer a Benjamin (just kidding folks...). No rules.

 

The game that I play i call FTFP, First to Find Published. I mentioned this before on the forums, I do wish it would catch on.

 

I think we are starting to see a common thread in the forums (single logs, signing the outside of the containers, record runs, FTF legitimacy and so on). It is pretty clear that Groundspeak doesn't care to make rules pronouncements. Some group from the geocaching community should.

 

Paul

Um, why would Groundspeak wanna make rules about FTF? Why would anybody? This is just getting weird. :lol:

Link to comment
The game that I play i call FTFP, First to Find Published. I mentioned this before on the forums, I do wish it would catch on.

 

Maybe it can be called FTFAPOGC or first to find after publishing on Geocaching.com. Would people who think these "pre finds" are wrong be upset if the cache was published on Terracache for a year, then listed here? Imagine the eager FTF heading out after the cache to find a logbook with a number of entries in it already, going back months. Would those pre finders be cheaters? Same thing if the owner decided to give out the coords to friends, then publish it here. They aren't cheating because its really nobody else's beeswax how the owner choses to promote his cache.

Link to comment

I'm surprised that the sort of "ethical caching" code that has been promoted in other threads doesn't seem to be getting the same support here. To some people, going for a FTF gives the same sort of adreneline rush that, say, finding a lot of caches in one day does. Not everybody cares, but some do. And for those that do, why shouldn't it be a level playing field? Claiming a FTF when nobody else has even been told it's there would not fly in my neck of the woods.

Link to comment

I've done it and others have done it - even some people I know of with 5 digit find numbers. Around here we call it beta testing. IN fact I gave the coordinates to a cache we placed out on an out of the way road to some geocachers that we passed going the other way just so they wouldn't have to go back to the god forsaken place again. We have a few people people that count the number of FTF's and use it as as their Banner "I found it first I'm better than you!" throw it in others faces and wait online till the next new cache comes up (log reads got to the cache site at 3:37AM nothing but dogs barking and darkness but I found it first! Yea for me!!!!). I like getting an FTF in that case just to mess up their count.

 

As for us we like finding them first but isn't the fun about Geocaching finding the cache whether you are first or 50th.

 

let the roasting begin <_<

Edited by fresgo
Link to comment

Please slow down.

You like getting a FTF, or having a beta-tester get the FTF, specifically in order to frustrate your fellow local cacher, whose only intent in having a FTF is to prove that they're better than you?

 

I obviously need a break from the forums. I get to go caching Thursday! Yipee!

Link to comment
Claiming a FTF when nobody else has even been told it's there would not fly in my neck of the woods.

 

Not sure what you mean by "claiming" a FTF. You can only be a FTF. Nobody can award or claim the distinction, they earn it by being the first person to find the cache. How the owner chose to give the person the coordinates is irrelevant. That you say it "wouldn't fly in your neck of the woods" shows that people in your neck of the woods don't fully understand that this is simply a listing site and just one of many ways that cache owners can promote their caches.

 

Its not unethical, or cheating, its the nature of the sport. Just because Geocaching.com is the most popular way for owners to advertize their caches, it doesn't mean it has to be the only way.

Link to comment

Dang, Briansnat, I said I'd go away, but it's kind of compelling to see where a discussion you are involved in goes.

 

Guess I'm thinking of what one other cacher referred to as "Gentleman's Rules". It would seem ridiculous to me if I gave the coordinates of my new caches to my local geo-friend, and he claimed FTF on all of them. Well, he pretty much does, anyway, but he gets the coordinates the same time everybody else does.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I can't seem to separate this from some of the other questionable practices that have been discussed at length in the forums lately. Not sure how I managed to make my neck of the woods sound backwards, either. That's just me, not my local pals!

Link to comment

Briansnat is right.

Many caches in my neck of the woods are listed on an alternate site.

Usualy that other site is faster to list. The FTF hounds watch that site to get the co-ords first.

It happens all the time, the listing on GC.com showes up at 6:02 pm and the FTF log on GC.com hits at 6:06pm.

No big deal, those of us who want to be FTF all know this. That is what I meant by "Level your own playing field."

Link to comment
Maybe it can be called FTFAPOGC or first to find after publishing on Geocaching.com.
Cumbersome name, but yes. That is the game I play. I'm glad you were able to name it even more precisely. Naming is very important.

 

If another cacher finds the cache on another site. I don't consider myself to be in competition with him. Yes, competiton. This is a race. I judge my own performance by the set of rules that I have set out. I enjoy it more when there are others playing by the same rules.

 

Paul

Link to comment

Notthepainter, You have leveled your playing field.

You are in competition with those who play the way you do.

 

Bumblins, I'm happy for you.

That is what I meant, no disrespect intended.

 

It is not possible to be in an FTF race with every Geocacher in the world.

As long as those in your area are on the same page all is good.

 

Edit to say sorry for messing up your handle Bumblingbs.

Edited by gof1
Link to comment
Guess I'm thinking of what one other cacher referred to as "Gentleman's Rules". It would seem ridiculous to me if I gave the coordinates of my new caches to my local geo-friend, and he claimed FTF on all of them. Well, he pretty much does, anyway, but he gets the coordinates the same time everybody else does.

 

Well let me qualify my statement. If a cache owner only intends to publish his caches on GC.COM and always gives a geo-friend the coordinates just so he can get a jump on the locals, I'd say that is pretty low. And if that geo-freind brags, gloats or otherwise brings his FTFs to the attention of the locals, I'd say he is a cheeseball of the first order.

 

Still, its the owner's cache and he is free to do whatever he wants with it (until it is listed here, in which case it must conform to the guidelines).

Link to comment
Guess I'm thinking of what one other cacher referred to as "Gentleman's Rules". It would seem ridiculous to me if I gave the coordinates of my new caches to my local geo-friend, and he claimed FTF on all of them. Well, he pretty much does, anyway, but he gets the coordinates the same time everybody else does.

 

Well let me qualify my statement. If a cache owner only intends to publish his caches on GC.COM and always gives a geo-friend the coordinates just so he can get a jump on the locals, I'd say that is pretty low. And if that geo-freind brags, gloats or otherwise brings his FTFs to the attention of the locals, I'd say he is a cheeseball of the first order.

 

Still, its the owner's cache and he is free to do whatever he wants with it (until it is listed here, in which case it must conform to the guidelines).

 

Well, yes, I think that was along the lines of the original question. The FTF was given the coordinates to a cache by the cache owner, who they knew, and they "claimed" FTF. There was no gloating, but nonetheless, the coordinates were available only to one person.

 

The alternate listing question is out of my realm of knowledge. Although I'm a GC girl, I have several caches listed with another service; only because of problems fitting into the guidelines here. Mostly the .1 mile rule. I have not seen any caches there that are the same as caches here, and their site asks that you not duplicate in that manner. So, I'm feeling a bit naive, and maybe not understanding the big picture. At any rate, thank you for the respectful discussion.

Link to comment

I think it has been mentioned that the cache and cachers in question are in a remote area and are a tight knitted little group. I say let them work it out amongst themselves.

 

As a side note, isn't it nice to have a discussion in the forums without all the head butting?

Link to comment

Please slow down.

You like getting a FTF, or having a beta-tester get the FTF, specifically in order to frustrate your fellow local cacher, whose only intent in having a FTF is to prove that they're better than you?

 

I obviously need a break from the forums. I get to go caching Thursday! Yipee!

 

I hope you "claim" a First To Find

Link to comment

I am fairly new to geocaching and have to admit that my family and I are on a FTF kick. I'm sure I will tire of it, but right now it gives me immense joy. I have to say that I enjoy a challenging FTF a whole lot more than a parking lot micro. The micro FTF is more speed, where others help me develop my hunting skills.

 

This weekend we had a CITO event and had new permanent caches that weren't posted until after the event, which was done mostly to encourage people to come to the event check in to find out more about what we were doing. I claimed a FTF, as most of the cachers who would have been my competition had the exact same opportunity to get it. Since the caches weren't posted until after the event, they each had a good number of finds before publishing, which seems okay by me.

 

As a side note, today I had two FTF's which were shared with another cacher/group. They were both challenging ones - the first I didn't find until the 3rd visit and the other cacher was leaving and came back to look again with me; the second started with the sun up and 3 caching teams searching and ended with the sun down and only 2 of the teams, although I spotted it, I thought it appropriate to share FTF since my hubbie would have probably made me give up if our friends hadn't wanted to keep looking too - lots of ticks and prickly vines! FTF is just another way to play the game and as with most of the ways it is up to the cache owner and cache logger on how that cache is "counted"

Edited by HooTunes
Link to comment
... the second started with the sun up and 3 caching teams searching and ended with the sun down and only 2 of the teams, although I spotted it, I thought it appropriate to share FTF...

 

How do you share a FTF? The second group of people to find it cannot possibly be the first to find. I really don't get this idea of awarding FTFs, particularly to people who are not the first to find a cache.

Link to comment
... the second started with the sun up and 3 caching teams searching and ended with the sun down and only 2 of the teams, although I spotted it, I thought it appropriate to share FTF...

 

How do you share a FTF? The second group of people to find it cannot possibly be the first to find. I really don't get this idea of awarding FTFs, particularly to people who are not the first to find a cache.

 

Well, you do make co-FTF sound kind of silly. Technically, of course, it can't be done. It's kind of a case of going a bit out of bounds of the rules, but on the nice side--they were all hunting together, and the true FTF offered co-status as a gesture of camaraderie. Most people don't mind rule bending or breaking when it's done in the spirit of friendship, as opposed to the nose-thumbing or pump-up-your-own-numbers vein.

 

Again, I didn't realize that I was operating by regional standards, but FTF on a cache that has not been published for all to see is simply not considered appropriate here. Also, I'm somewhat familiar with Navicaching, and have caches listed with Terracaching, but I have yet to see duplicate cache listings with this site. I suppose if that were common around here, the ones eager to have FTF would learn where to look for earliest cache publication, and it would even out the playing field again. I live in a pretty small pond, though, and the competition for FTF is hardly cut-throat.

Link to comment

Let me add this about co-FTF.

 

My rules for myself, only. Normally, if I was at ground zero looking for a cache, and there was another cacher there looking as well, and they found it first, I would not claim FTF, even if they offered.

 

On the other hand, I went on an 18 mile roundtrip hike with a friend to find a mountain cache. We agreed in advance to share FTF, regardless of who found it. For both of us, it was a tough hike that pushed our abilities, and after spending hours together on the trail, we didn't want to turn against each other in a FTF competition.

 

Turns out we only got within 1/4 mile of the cache, it was snowed in and too dangerous to get to. If we had gotten there, and she had found it first, I probably wouldn't have claimed FTF anyway, but somehow the idea of sharing it took the pressure off, and pressure was not what we were looking for. To have one of us go all that way and be a "winner" and one a "loser" was unpalatable. Actually, it was a wonderful hike with gorgeous views and good company, and, while it was a disappointment at the time, I don't much mind that we didn't find the cache at all.

Link to comment

I always find the hard core FTF battle to be a little amusing. Don't get me wrong, I've got a few FTFs that I am proud of. The reason I am proud of them is directly related to the usefulness of FTFs, in my opinion. You see, the only thing that makes a FTF special, in my opinion, is that the cache is an unknown. The coords may be way off, the ratings may be totally wrong, etc. The FTF takes the risk to test out the cache. If they find it, they can report back regarding any potential problems. Based on this reasoning, I could seriously care less if someone offers the info to a friend prior to the cache's posting on GC.com. If the friend finds it first he's obviously the FTFer. Of course, if he brags about that fact when he was the only one eligible to find it, he's an idiot.

Link to comment

I personally don't put too much weight on FTF but then again I don't have one and it would be cool.

I just enjoy the personal challenge. FTF is more a matter of timing; when you get the posting, when you have time to hunt and proximity.

 

I think that the log should not be placed into the cache until its published. If you want to "test" the site first do it without the log so there is no question. I hate when people get placed into contraversy.

 

It also sound like this this is a young student so I would go overboard here.

 

My mistake not a child at all but and adult with children.

Edited by ssamuels
Link to comment

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...55-7503c3b7c174

 

Personally, I think this is NOT a FTF, based on the fact that the person who claimed it admitted receiving hte coords early from the hider. :anibad:

I would not call it a First to Find. It might be called a FTFBL First to Find Before Listed.

I would even send the person and e-mail and I would also sent and e-mail to the cacher that hid the cache

Link to comment

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...55-7503c3b7c174

 

Personally, I think this is NOT a FTF, based on the fact that the person who claimed it admitted receiving the coords early from the hider. :anibad:

Such practices as giving out cache listings or coordinates prior to publication on a listing service are very common in some areas, and in fact, many folks regularly share such information via their local state geocaching society forums, and also share such info with geo friends, etc. I see nothing wrong with it. The only drawback is one for the finder, wherein they cannot log the find until the cache has been published on geocaching.com (or some other listing site.)

 

Of course, it is easy for me to write what I did above, because I am not an FTF addict! I attach very little importance to FTFs!

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team
Link to comment
... the second started with the sun up and 3 caching teams searching and ended with the sun down and only 2 of the teams, although I spotted it, I thought it appropriate to share FTF...

 

How do you share a FTF? The second group of people to find it cannot possibly be the first to find. I really don't get this idea of awarding FTFs, particularly to people who are not the first to find a cache.

 

Well, you do make co-FTF sound kind of silly. Technically, of course, it can't be done. It's kind of a case of going a bit out of bounds of the rules, but on the nice side--they were all hunting together, and the true FTF offered co-status as a gesture of camaraderie. Most people don't mind rule bending or breaking when it's done in the spirit of friendship, as opposed to the nose-thumbing or pump-up-your-own-numbers vein.

 

Well, we were all searching together and my friend was practically next to me. In our logs, we did note who actually spotted it, but it seemed that both teams had put in the same effort, I just happened to come at the spot from the right angle first. I particularly thought that since the 3rd team gave up and the other team did not that it was appropriate to share. Also consider that we are both a team of cachers (each a family), so it is always a team claiming a FTF even though only one member actually found it first. I guess I look at it that at this particular time, we were working as a team, it just happened to be made of two GC teams. Now, over the weekend, we were at an event and there were often multiple groups searching for the same cache at the same time. For this, I would not expect to share a FTF. I think it just depends on the situation and whether the people are actually sharing the search or just searching at the same time as whether to share. It may be silly, but to an outsider, isn't running around in the bushes with an electronic device trying to find a "hidden treasure" a little silly?

Link to comment

A lot of good points of view here. Let me offer the following scenario:

 

"Hey Z, We have cachers in-town that have loads of free time (retired, unemployed, or something like that) that race to be FTF on every cache. They get their first, sign the log, and claim the FTF. Although irritating, I have no problem with that - they were there first. On the flip side, our local group recognizes our cachers milestones and put out special commemorative caches for them (usually at 1000, 2000, etc). We do that so they can hit thier milestone with thier commemorative cache - as a tribute to thier hard work. IMHO, nothing is worse than a FTF hound grabbing a cache meant for someone else. The rest of us understand and offer the courtesy of letting them find it first, and to date it has not been a problem. But I sure would give coordinates early based on this type of cache (but this type only) to offset the FTF hogs that are out there. What do you think?"

 

I advised I was ok in giving out the coords early in this instance only, and advised maybe having an event to celebrate the milestone and presenting the coords to them (only) at the meeting, then publishing the cache after the meeting. That way they get their milestone cache, and the FTF hounds can claim "FTF" after it publishes. Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...