What qualifies as a FTF?

[+NotThePainter]

It seems to me that it is a politeness issue. (Does anybody else remember the Politeness Man cartoon from the late 70s? Great stuff.)

 

Not logging a FTFP when you can only has the affect of making others in the race upset. I don't see the point in doing that. It makes me not want to buy you a beer at the next event and we both lose out in that regard.

 

Paul

[+NotThePainter]

To anyone who feels that logging on-line determines FTF over someone who actually found the cache and signed the logbook first, I am curious what the practice is in your area?

I'm slowing trying to convert our area to seek FTFPs. An FTFP is a first to find on a published cache. It is quite similar to FTF but a cache can, for a multitude of reasons, have finders before it is published.

 

And no, no one in southern NH uses the online log to determine FTFP. For the most part we all try to log as soon as possible but don't sweat it if we can't. For example, a FTFP at Monday morning before work will get logged once you are near a computer. But a Saturday mornng run that just starts a full day of caching is not considered bad form. I mean, come on, you're out in the woods right. That's gotta be more important than sitting in front of your machine.

 

Paul

[+nikcap]

I guess I'm confussed. Ekitt10, you say you don't understand what a FTF is but you are a charter member, .... I find it unbelieveable that with that level of experience that you haven't figured out what an FTF is.

 

....

 

you have also said: "I have absolutely no obsession with FTFs. .... ) that the person who signs the physical log first is FTF, not the person who logs online. So what is the point you are trying to make by starting this thread? There has to be an interesting reason so could you please let us know what it is.

 

You are correct. I am fairly experienced at Geocaching. I've stated my perspective several times in this thread and in another thread that's linked to in the OP.

 

In my area, going back several years. A FTF was qualified as the person who finds the cache and then logs it on-line before anyone else. Simple as that. I hadn't realized that the philosophy of FTF has changed in the last few years. That's all.

Mainly, I was curious to see if that philosophy was still present. The overwhelming answer is NO. Fine.

That doesn't change the way I will hunt for caches one bit. Well, no, that's not true. I will no longer be concerned about logging my finds promptly, as logging on line doesn't influence FTF hounds.

I will take more time to log cache finds in a constructive manner, as I realize these log might help others and others might actually enjoying reading my posts. (Thanks Neos2 for confirming this)

 

I still don't understand what the exact appeal of a FTF is, perhaps that's a topic for another thread. (or someone can Markwell that for me.)

 

I also don't know what the point is of a FTL log and why it's significant.

 

And what the heck is FTFP?

 

Thanks all, I'm finding this conversation fascinating.

[+The Jester]

I'm going have to go with the OP. If you don't log it online you haven't found the cache, you didn't get a smiley and your found count hasn't gone up. Therefore it only makes sense that you must log it online to complete your find. Ergo, FTF is the first person to log it online. I will continue to do my part to show that logging a find online is integral to geocaching by crossing out names I find in the physical logs on my caches that didn't log online.

You mean I can claim this cache as FTF? I'm the first to log it online 13 months after it was placed, but there were three other signatures (see pictures) in the logbook dating back a year. What a crock! There is no requirement to say/log anything online. Yes, it's a big part of the community in sharing the fun, but it IS NOT a requirement.

[+Kacky]

FTF is in the eye of the beholder. If you think you're FTF, you are. If someone else thinks he/she is FTF, they are - even if I don't happen to think so. I am glad it doesn't have a smiley attached to it because it's up to personal interpretation.

[+tozainamboku]

I didn't realize that the logging online aspect of Geocaching was insignificant.

I feel you are deliberately twisting this phrase. Logging online is significant in some ways--but not as a function of claiming FTF.

 

Logging on-line is a vital part of the game overall. Being able to read other people logs before you hunt has enticed many a cacher to a particular spot. It's fantastic to be able to vicariously experience the caches that I will probably never visit--because they are too distant or too difficult for me. It's also a great pleasure to read the logs of those who visit a cache after I do, to see if they had the same experience I did.

 

Seeing the online logs of a particular cache is fun, but it's also useful. For me, being able to have the caches I have visted accounted for automatically is handy, just because I am a science person and I like data. It's also useful (to those who like to hide caches) to have number of visits listed on each cache-- to help determine which types of caches in your area attract the most visitors. It's great that most folks do log electronically, as it gives the folks who come along later an idea of what to expect, when the cache was last found, whether they need to bring along certain items and so forth.

 

I could rave on and on, but the point is the significance of the electronic log has ties to many aspects of the overall geocaching experience, both personal and social--but the online log is not crucial to being able to claim First to Find.

 

I don't understand this. Either the online log is an integral part of finding a cache or it is not. If it is an integral part, then you haven't found the cache until you log it online. Since a person's find count doesn't go up till he or she logs online, logging online must be integral to finding a cache. So it should also be integral to claiming a FTF. However, logging online could be viewed as an addon that allows you, after finding a geocache, to share your experience online. It has no effect as to whether or not you found the cache. This view not only means that FTF is the person who signed the physical log first but it also affects the discussion of caches with additional logging requirements. Yes, you found the cache if you signed the log, but the cache owner may place additional logging requirements for the online log and the reward of a smiley. In my opinion, 90% of the angst in the forums would go away, if people would realize that an online found it log ≠ found the cache.

[+evelbug]

Not to throw fuel on the fire.. (Ok, pretty much ONLY to throw fuel on the fire). Say someone (Cacher #1) finds the physically finds the cache first, signs the log first and the rushes home to log it one online. Meanwhile, another person (cacher #2) pulls up, finds the cache, signs the log, pulls out his cel phone and logs online from there before Cacher #1 can get home. Inside the cache was a prize left by the cache owner intended to go to the person who got FTF.

 

By the disputed argument that FTF requires first online log, is cacher#1 no obligated to track down cacher#2 and either give him or split whith his the prize?

[+briansnat]

In my area, going back several years. A FTF was qualified as the person who finds the cache and then logs it on-line before anyone else. Simple as that. I hadn't realized that the philosophy of FTF has changed in the last few years.

 

I don't know about that Nick. You aren't all that far from me and I never recall that being the case. As far as I've been concerned and most people I know, the FTF is the first person to find the cache. Period.

 

There have been a number of times where I was the second or third person to find a cache, but when I arrived home to log my find there were no logs yet. Because I was the first person to log the cache online, it doesn't change the fact that I was not to first person to find it. Here is a fairly recent example where Stayfloopy (who else?) beat me to a cache, but I logged it first.

Stayfloopy is still the FTF (as he notes in his log) regardless of when he logged it.

 

Mainly, I was curious to see if that philosophy was still present. The overwhelming answer is NO. Fine.

That doesn't change the way I will hunt for caches one bit. Well, no, that's not true. I will no longer be concerned about logging my finds promptly, as logging on line doesn't influence FTF hounds.

 

I think its still important to log your FTFs promptly, not to cement your status as the FTF, but so your fellow geocachers know the cache has been found and don't go out of their way thinking they have a shot at a FTF.

[+Dahaku]

I think all we have to do is look at what FTF stands for- First To Find - 'nuff said.

[+sbell111]

I don't understand this. Either the online log is an integral part of finding a cache or it is not. If it is an integral part, then you haven't found the cache until you log it online. Since a person's find count doesn't go up till he or she logs online, logging online must be integral to finding a cache. So it should also be integral to claiming a FTF. However, logging online could be viewed as an addon that allows you, after finding a geocache, to share your experience online. It has no effect as to whether or not you found the cache. This view not only means that FTF is the person who signed the physical log first but it also affects the discussion of caches with additional logging requirements. Yes, you found the cache if you signed the log, but the cache owner may place additional logging requirements for the online log and the reward of a smiley. In my opinion, 90% of the angst in the forums would go away, if people would realize that an online found it log ≠ found the cache.

Agreed.

[BRTango]

My first to find list is growing with each and every cache I find... I just call it something slightly different than the rest of you: FTFSTLPLAOFTC (First to Find since the last person logged and/or found the cache).

[+Team ChipsNDip]

FTF is in the eye of the beholder. If you think you're FTF, you are. If someone else thinks he/she is FTF, they are - even if I don't happen to think so. I am glad it doesn't have a smiley attached to it because it's up to personal interpretation.

 

Unless you thought you were, and you weren't... see : this find. Oops.

 

As to why FTF are a big deal... just human nature, I guess... why are 100, 200, 500 finds "landmark" events for cachers? We don't see any pins for 691 finds...

[+Chuy!]

 

To anyone who feels that logging on-line determines FTF over someone who actually found the cache and signed the logbook first, I am curious what the practice is in your area?

...

Does anyone know of an area where the practice is clearly who logs on-line first?

Well, there was a time in Central NJ that this was the case.

 

No more than a year ago, I got a scolding from a local FTF hound that I didn't log my find quickly enough to keep him from wasting his time on searching for his own FTF.

 

My response to this was to ignore newly posted caches and wait for him to log them. I figure this worked out good for both of us, he got the FTF uncontested and I was able to find the cache and log it on-line at my leisure.

You wussed out!

I would have intentionally started to grab FTFs and not list them right away. There are lots of reasons you may not get to a computer right away to log a cache. Many a time, I will start the day at 5a; grab the FTF caches first, then proceed to cache till noon'ish, and not start logging my finds until I get home.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

I'm all for wanting to see the ftf post in all their glory, but why should it be required? I want those logs on my caches, but why does it matter to anyone else? If I get a post that says the ftf never posted, we're going for a hike to find out who it was and post the recognition ourselves as part of our cache maintenance. FTF for us is who signed the book first. Being lucky, rich or smart enough to have or use technology to post first makes no difference. If that ever becomes an arguement for one of our caches, the first signature counts and any claims to the contrary will be deleted. It's harsh, but credit is for the "First to Find" not to "who went home early and logged it".

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

To anyone who feels that logging on-line determines FTF over someone who actually found the cache and signed the logbook first, I am curious what the practice is in your area?

 

I am familiar with FTF races in a handful of areas, and in all of them the practice is the first to sign the logbook is FTF.

 

Does anyone know of an area where the practice is clearly who logs on-line first?

Through the responses to this thread I've seen some additional areas where 'first to sign the logbook is FTF' is the common practice, but nothing where it is common practice that 'first to log on-line is FTF'.

 

I was assuming that the 'first to log on-line' supporters were so convinced because that is the practice in their areas, but am now not so convinced that practice even exists anywhere.

 

Our area is clearly a 'first to sign the log-book' area, and I'm glad it is.

[+boda]

I don't understand this. Either the online log is an integral part of finding a cache or it is not. If it is an integral part, then you haven't found the cache until you log it online. Since a person's find count doesn't go up till he or she logs online, logging online must be integral to finding a cache. So it should also be integral to claiming a FTF. However, logging online could be viewed as an addon that allows you, after finding a geocache, to share your experience online. It has no effect as to whether or not you found the cache. This view not only means that FTF is the person who signed the physical log first but it also affects the discussion of caches with additional logging requirements. Yes, you found the cache if you signed the log, but the cache owner may place additional logging requirements for the online log and the reward of a smiley. In my opinion, 90% of the angst in the forums would go away, if people would realize that an online found it log ≠ found the cache.

Agreed.

 

Logging the find online is not an integral part of finding the cache. It is an integal part of documenting the finding of the cache.

[+evelbug]

Here's some more fuel for the fire. You can select any date you want when you log a cache. Say a cache was published at night and everyone ran out first thing in the morning to find it. There's nothing stopping you from back dating the online log to the day before and having your log show up first.

 

There's no arguing who's first when your name is on the inside cover or top of the first page of the physical log book.

[+VeryLost]

I thought I was pretty clear on this.

The first person to log the cache on-line after finding it is the FTF.

Ultimately, Geocaching is a technology based game. This means using technology to find the cache and documenting your accomplishment on-line. I don't see how logging on-line can be so insignificant.

 

Eh?

 

The ball point gel pen I sign the paper log with is pretty high tech - not the sort of thing your average person could reproduce in their garage. Does that meet your requirement of using technological means of documenting the find?

 

It's reasonably difficult to fake the signing of the paper log. It's quite easy to falsely click the Found It link on the web site.

 

FTF stands for first to find, not first to log.

[+kennedyd3]

I guess I'm confussed. Ekitt10, you say you don't understand what a FTF is but you are a charter member, have found lots of caches, hosted events, hidden 64 caches, and have over 500 posts in the forums. I find it unbelieveable that with that level of experience that you haven't figured out what an FTF is. Especially when you have posted:

"No more than a year ago, I got a scolding from a local FTF hound that I didn't log my find quickly enough to keep him from wasting his time on searching for his own FTF.

 

My response to this was to ignore newly posted caches and wait for him to log them. I figure this worked out good for both of us, he got the FTF uncontested and I was able to find the cache and log it on-line at my leisure.

That indicates you knew at least a year ago (if not before even though you have also said: "I have absolutely no obsession with FTFs. I don't think I've actually hunted for a FTF in a couple years.") that the person who signs the physical log first is FTF, not the person who logs online. So what is the point you are trying to make by starting this thread? There has to be an interesting reason so could you please let us know what it is.

I am new so probably you guys will think I am pretty naive and stupid. I found out about about GeoCaching about a month ago looking for a GPS. Bought a Garmin GPSmap 60CSx. I am having a ball. But not in so much signing the log sheet and then getting back online. For me it is the journey, not the destination. I am almost sad to find the cache because it is over. I certainly don't care very much who recognizes me or acknowledges me. It means nothing, really. Am I crazy? This is really fun and the people who hide the caches are so clever. Oh, well. See Ya. More caches to download.

[+briansnat]

I am almost sad to find the cache because it is over.

 

Don't worry, there are more .

[+Kabuthunk]

Not to throw fuel on the fire.. (Ok, pretty much ONLY to throw fuel on the fire). Say someone (Cacher #1) finds the physically finds the cache first, signs the log first and the rushes home to log it one online. Meanwhile, another person (cacher #2) pulls up, finds the cache, signs the log, pulls out his cel phone and logs online from there before Cacher #1 can get home. Inside the cache was a prize left by the cache owner intended to go to the person who got FTF.

 

By the disputed argument that FTF requires first online log, is cacher#1 no obligated to track down cacher#2 and either give him or split whith his the prize?

 

YES! I made the point earlier, but people seem to be ignoring it.

 

There's another kinda view on this too. Most caches nowadays have a "FTF Certificate" inside of them. I say 'whomever holds the FTF Certificate is the FTF'.

 

A cache should have a FTF prize. If you are holding said aformentioned prize, then you were the first to find it. It's impossible to dispute when a physical object indicating FTF is actually, physically held in a person's hands. What's that? Someone thinks you're not FTF? BAM! FTF PRIZE'D/CERTIFICATED! Argument over. They fail.

 

And don't get into the whole "well, what if someone gave him the prize" idiocy. If a veteran gives you their "purple heart" to hold onto and look at, does that mean you were wounded in the army?

Edited October 4, 2006 by Kabuthunk

[+QuesterMark]

 

Well... yes, but it would be unfair to advertise yourself as the "first to find" if you found it because the owner gave you the coordinates. Of COURSE you're first to find, you're the only one so far that knows it exists!

 

So the general convention is that such beta-testers do NOT claim FTF. They could, but it would be tacky.

 

I'm curious, in your philosophy, what happens if I am first to find the cache but someone else finds it second but is first to log the find online? Are neither of us "first to find" then? ... and then what becomes of the third finder who does find the cache and log it online?

 

Gotta chip in:

Sitting here at my desk, for myself, I define FTF as,

"The first person to sign the log on a geocache after that geocache has been officially published."

As I thought about it, I amended it to be,

"First person to sign the log in a geocache after that geocache has officially been submitted for review to be published."

 

But I know that if I happen to find a cache by accident (it could happen), and I'm the first to sign the log, I'm gonna call FTF. No matter whether it's been submitted for approval or not.

 

The one time I ever thought I could get FTF, I was actually third. I was bummed. Since then I kinda hope I'll blunder into an FTF, but since I'm not a big fan of disappointment, and since I get my share of disappointment when I have a DNF, I don't actively hunt FTFs.

 

I do get a bit of pleasure from fixing them. Like when a ziploc is torn. I carry 6 or 7 different sizes of ziplocs in my cachepack just in case....and spare film containers. And spare log sheets. Heck, there's one that I'm thinking of replacing the whole cache, just because the owner hasn't fixed it in months, and it's not disabled either. But I digress...

[+Kabuthunk]

I have only one FTF (and it was both online AND in the log, so noone can even complain about that part ), and I've found a pseudo-way to get it:

 

And I think I found out the method by which to get FTF's. Wait for a day that's cold, rainy, miserable, cold, rainy, cold, drizzly, cold, cold, rainy, cold, and miserable... hope that a cache is published that's JUST far enough out of town that people won't go anyway... and suck up the cold rain and go anyway!

 

And come to think of it... I even took a picture of the FTF certificate in FRONT of my online log

[+QuesterMark]

There's another kinda view on this too. Most caches nowadays have a "FTF Certificate" inside of them. I say 'whomever holds the FTF Certificate is the FTF'.

 

"Most"?

 

I've only placed two so far. They were both micros, so, just because I felt like it, I put a where's george dollar in each and requested that FTF take it and spend it, but to log it in wheresgeorge.com. I had an ulterior motive with the wg$. I wanted to have some hits on my wheresgeorge account. The caches had different people for FTF. Each took the dollar, but one did NOT log it into wheresgeorge. But I digress...

 

Other than an FTF PRIZE, I didn't put any kind of certificate in there. And I don't plan to, though I do plan to continue with the prizes. I just like the idea, and the Golden Rule applies.

[+QuesterMark]

 

I am new so probably you guys will think I am pretty naive and stupid. I found out about about GeoCaching about a month ago looking for a GPS. Bought a Garmin GPSmap 60CSx. I am having a ball. But not in so much signing the log sheet and then getting back online. For me it is the journey, not the destination. I am almost sad to find the cache because it is over. I certainly don't care very much who recognizes me or acknowledges me. It means nothing, really. Am I crazy? This is really fun and the people who hide the caches are so clever. Oh, well. See Ya. More caches to download.

 

You're not naive or stupid. You're playing the game and having fun. You -get- it.

[+Team Perks]

I rarely cache in the vicinity of my home, so the bulk of my finds are many miles away. I've had a small chunk of FTF's on caches that were hundreds of miles from my house and my computer. I tend to find a lot of caches at a time while I'm away for the weekend, so when I get home I have a lot of logging to do (including reviewing my notes, editing/uploading photos, etc.). Consequently, it can be days or a week or more before I get my log online.

 

That doesn't negate the fact that I got to the cache, and that I got there first.

 

With that said, though, I don't get what all the fuss is about. Sure, it's fun to try to get there first, especially if it's a far-flung cache that has been out for a long time. But I don't brag about being FTF (I don't even acknowledge it in my online logs anymore), and I most certainly don't keep a running tally of my FTFs like some people do.

[+jerandjana]

I agree with everybody on the First to Find. We had our FFTF and drove the 30 minutes back to our house and by that time somebody had logged "Not first to find but first to log" Who freakin cares?? I don't even think there should be a FTL. If you want there to be no confusion, it's enough to say STF and leave it at that. Congratulations, your second to find, good job. But if you are stuck up about it and a bad sport, I think that's when people put FTL...... There are plenty of First to Logs that we had but of course we didn't say that in our log because it's irrelevant and obvious. I think FTL should be done away with? Anybody else agree?

[+rjb43nh]

jerandjana-"We had our FFTF and drove the 30 minutes back to our house and by that time somebody had logged "Not first to find but first to log" Who freakin cares??"

It's not uncommon for cachers in our area to point out that even though they were first to log on line that they were not the FTF. They are just trying to be clear and give credit where credit is due-to the FTF. I don't see this as anything other than a courtesy.

[+Aquacache]

jerandjana-"We had our FFTF and drove the 30 minutes back to our house and by that time somebody had logged "Not first to find but first to log" Who freakin cares??"

It's not uncommon for cachers in our area to point out that even though they were first to log on line that they were not the FTF. They are just trying to be clear and give credit where credit is due-to the FTF. I don't see this as anything other than a courtesy.

I personally (out of courtesy) won't log an STF until after the FTF has had time to log their find. There have been times I've had to wait until the next day to log my find just to let the FTF also be FTL. I know that it doesn't mean anything and most people don't do this, but it's just something that I do.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

jerandjana-"We had our FFTF and drove the 30 minutes back to our house and by that time somebody had logged "Not first to find but first to log" Who freakin cares??"

It's not uncommon for cachers in our area to point out that even though they were first to log on line that they were not the FTF. They are just trying to be clear and give credit where credit is due-to the FTF. I don't see this as anything other than a courtesy.

I agree, I don't think FTL is important either, but by logging it at least they're acknowledging that they are not FTF. Anyone reading the log will know to scroll up to see the true FTF (assuming they care).

[+jerandjana]

OK two things~ rjb43nh. Don't you think if you put STF that would be enough said? Why do people have to gloat that they logged it first?

and..

Aquacache~ that's very nice of you to wait for them to log it. We never have done that if the situation arose but now that I think of it, we'll probably do that too.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

I personally (out of courtesy) won't log an STF until after the FTF has had time to log their find. There have been times I've had to wait until the next day to log my find just to let the FTF also be FTL. I know that it doesn't mean anything and most people don't do this, but it's just something that I do.

 

That's good of you. We do the same, but if we have to wait too long we'll log it first and acknowledge the true FTF in our log.

[+Kacky]

 

Eh?

 

The ball point gel pen I sign the paper log with is pretty high tech - not the sort of thing your average person could reproduce in their garage. Does that meet your requirement of using technological means of documenting the find?

 

It's reasonably difficult to fake the signing of the paper log. It's quite easy to falsely click the Found It link on the web site.

 

FTF stands for first to find, not first to log.

Amen, unless you want to sneak into my house and hide my computer so I have to do a find on it before I can log in.

Edited October 5, 2006 by Kacky

[+rjb43nh]

jerandjana-"rjb43nh. Don't you think if you put STF that would be enough said? Why do people have to gloat that they logged it first?"

Geez, I never said anything about gloating when logging first-that just isn't the case. There are many reasons the FTF couldn't log first, from being on vacation, to just getting home late. Some cachers do many caches in a day and may wait for the weekend to log all their finds on line. It is an unrealistic expectation to wait for the FTF to log on line. By logging the cache you've found, whether you were 2nd, 3rd, whatever, it lets others know that the cache has been found, that you're giving credit to the FTFer, and others who haven't found the cache don't have to hurry out in the hopes of an FTF. Like I said before, I don't see this as anything other than a courtesy. There have been event caches where the 20th cacher was FTL, not a problem for anyone else involved and no gloating.

 

I have a good number of FTFs and it doesn't bother me one bit that someone else has logged a cache on line first when I was FTF, it happens all the time. There are many people in my area who try to beat others to new caches, and a few cachers have most of their FTFs in the middle of the night and don't get to log right away. It is nothing more than a good natured game, I haven't seen anyone brag or gloat about FTL.

[CoyoteRed]

First to find is just that. Logging online has nothing to do with how many caches you've found.

[+GreyingJay]

It is nothing more than a good natured game

 

I suspect too many people forget this.

[+HBmamaG]

I had a bit of a FTF problem on one of my own caches, but I am staying out of it...they worked it out themselves. Read the logs here. The Den II

[+nikcap]

I've learned a good number things about the FTF phenomena. Obviously, I was basing my information on old information, mainly learned before the whole FTF craze began. This opinion was also learned from a cacher who was on the extreme side, and now, to the best of my knowledge not longer plays geocaching.

That being said, there is a local FTF hound who does find caches with a Wireless enabled Treo, just so he could log the cache immediately after he found it.

 

I find it interesting how many people are hung up about the publish time of the cache. Some how, most people think that this levels the playing field. Perhaps, but with instant notifications only available to premium members, and a many people pointed out, they are not always near a computer, it seems the field is still a little tilted. I would think a better benchmark of the FTF achievement, would be a set start time that people can start looking for a cache. Not every one can take a long lunch at work, or come in late or leave early on short notice.

 

What does bother me is the seemed acceptance by most respondents to this thread that such activities as "cheating" on a multi or puzzle cache, and entering a park illegally after hours is OK behavior in the quest of a FTF.

 

I also find the concept of the FTF certificate and FTF prizes interesting. I guess that's not popular in my area. Personally, I've never intentionally left a prize specifically for the FTF. (Well, maybe a TB.) I find this concept cute. Sure, it's a little pathetic, but it's stuff like this that bring the community together. Perhaps I will start leaving blue ribbons for FTF's

[+GreyingJay]

(1) I would think a better benchmark of the FTF achievement, would be a set start time that people can start looking for a cache. Not every one can take a long lunch at work, or come in late or leave early on short notice.

 

(2) What does bother me is the seemed acceptance by most respondents to this thread that such activities as "cheating" on a multi or puzzle cache, and entering a park illegally after hours is OK behavior in the quest of a FTF.

 

(3) I also find the concept of the FTF certificate and FTF prizes interesting.

 

(1) That's what I like about weekend event caches such as our upcoming Go And Get Em 9 event. Friday, 6:00pm, a pile of new caches just published. Ready, set, go!!! (Of course, this does lead to a lot of group FTFs)

 

(2) Don't lump those two in together! I see nothing wrong with "cheating" on a multi or puzzle, or stumbling across a cache completely by accident. We have a group of cachers that meets at an ungodly hour on Saturday mornings (well, ok, 7:00am, but that's still prime sleep time as far as I'm concerned) to geocache together. Frequently they attack puzzles where one particularly brainy or math-inclined person will solve the puzzle, and the whole "geomob" will find the cache. Is that considered cheating for the other 5-6 people who didn't solve the puzzle? I say no.

 

There's a cache in our area which is kind of a puzzle, but the catch is that you need to contact lots of other local cachers to "trade digits" much like trading baseball cards in order to find the final cache coordinates. It was not found often, especially over the years as cachers who own digits have moved away or stopped caching. However, recently due to some reviewing accident, another, easy traditional cache was placed IN THE SAME TREE. People started logging both once they realized what was going on. The owner of the digit-trading cache had every right to be upset that his cache concept was no longer being followed, but he wasn't -- he embraced the new finders and even wrote notes congratulating them on their find, through whatever methods they used.

 

HOWEVER, I do not condone illegal activity (such as entering a park after hours). The end does justify the means, but only WITHIN the rules of Geocaching (i.e. there is no rule that says a multi MUST be found by first visiting all stages -- unless it is an ALR imposed by the hider).

 

(3) The FTF certificate would certainly resolve all these debates about who's on first (and what's on second?). Whoever owns the FTF prize was FTF. Problem solved.

[quaffin1]

I'm new to caching, but what if someone starts another website

say worldgeocaching.com, this site takes off and becomes top dog.

People start posting their caches to worldgc.com and not gc.com.

WHo would be FTF?

Just my 2 cents.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

I'm new to caching, but what if someone starts another website

say worldgeocaching.com, this site takes off and becomes top dog.

People start posting their caches to worldgc.com and not gc.com.

WHo would be FTF?

Just my 2 cents.

First to sign the physical log.

[+nikcap]

.... there is no rule that says a multi MUST be found by first visiting all stages --

 

That's the silliest thing I've heard.

 

FTF rules are not part of GC.com guidelines, so the interpretation of what a FTF is, is open for discussion. Multis on the other hand are types of GC.cm caches that have a defined process you need to follow to find. It's listed as a multi, that implies that the are multiple stages that need to be found before the cache can be claimed as a find.

 

Why you would think otherwise boggles my mind.

[+ThePropers]

.... there is no rule that says a multi MUST be found by first visiting all stages --

 

That's the silliest thing I've heard.

 

FTF rules are not part of GC.com guidelines, so the interpretation of what a FTF is, is open for discussion. Multis on the other hand are types of GC.cm caches that have a defined process you need to follow to find. It's listed as a multi, that implies that the are multiple stages that need to be found before the cache can be claimed as a find.

 

Why you would think otherwise boggles my mind.

 

I would probably disagree there. There have been a few occassions where people around here, myself included, could not find a stage so we "brute forced" (looked in obvious spots around the park where a stage might be hidden) the cache and found one of the other stages to continue. We still counted it as a find.

 

As for everything else, I think it's pretty plain around here that the first to find is the first person to sign the physical log. To think otherewise boggles my mind.

[+briansnat]

.... there is no rule that says a multi MUST be found by first visiting all stages --

 

That's the silliest thing I've heard.

 

FTF rules are not part of GC.com guidelines, so the interpretation of what a FTF is, is open for discussion. Multis on the other hand are types of GC.cm caches that have a defined process you need to follow to find. It's listed as a multi, that implies that the are multiple stages that need to be found before the cache can be claimed as a find.

 

Why you would think otherwise boggles my mind.

 

Sorry to part company with you on this. If someone were to accidently stumble on the final stage of my multi cache without finding all the other stages, I would certainly consider that to be a legit find.

 

And if someone can figure out how to find a multi without finding each stage (short of getting the final coords from a previous finder), more power to him. I was down in your stomping grounds and found a multi that was missing a stage by making an educated guess as to where the next stage would be. I found the final and signed the book, so that's legit in my eyes. Most of the subsequent finds on that cache also skipped that stage.

 

What does bother me is the seemed acceptance by most respondents to this thread that such activities as "cheating" on a multi or puzzle cache, and entering a park illegally after hours is OK behavior in the quest of a FTF. sad.gif

 

I don't see many peple defending illegal activity in order to get a FTF. What they are saying is that even if its done illegally it doesn't change the fact that the person is the FTF . An FTF is not something to be awarded or taken away. Its the simple act of finding a cache first.

 

Some how, most people think that this levels the playing field. Perhaps, but with instant notifications only available to premium members, and a many people pointed out, they are not always near a computer, it seems the field is still a little tilted. I would think a better benchmark of the FTF achievement, would be a set start time that people can start looking for a cache. Not every one can take a long lunch at work, or come in late or leave early on short notice

 

I don't see why the playing field needs to be leveled. Even if there is an official start time, it may not be convenient for many people. The fact is that if FTFs are a priority in your life you will get plenty of them.

[+nikcap]

.... there is no rule that says a multi MUST be found by first visiting all stages --

...

FTF rules are not part of GC.com guidelines, so the interpretation of what a FTF is, is open for discussion. Multis on the other hand are types of GC.cm caches that have a defined process you need to follow to find. It's listed as a multi, that implies that the are multiple stages that need to be found before the cache can be claimed as a find.

...

 

Sorry to part company with you on this. If someone were to accidently stumble on the final stage of my multi cache without finding all the other stages, I would certainly consider that to be a legit find.

 

And if someone can figure out how to find a multi without finding each stage (short of getting the final coords from a previous finder), more power to him. I was down in your stomping grounds and found a multi that was missing a stage by making an educated guess as to where the next stage would be. I found the final and signed the book, so that's legit in my eyes. Most of the subsequent finds on that cache also skipped that stage.

 

It's not that the finder can't or shouldn't log a FIND. But seriously, it the CO placed a cache that required you to find each stage, shouldn't the cache seeker respect the hiders wishes? I don't know, it just seems that there is a right way to do things and a butchered way to do things.

There are a couple locals that are purest about finding cache. They must find every stage and also go about finding the cache the way the owner intended. (i.e. taking the long hike instead of cutting through private property or paddling to a cache, or finding ALL stages of a multi or solving the puzzle) I really admire these cachers.

There are others that bend the rules, skip stages or brute force a puzzle cache because they know the cache is within 1/4 mile of the parking. That's fine, but if integrity is an issue, I have my suspicions.

 

What does bother me is ... such activities as "cheating" on a multi or puzzle cache, and entering a park illegally after hours is OK behavior in the quest of a FTF.

I don't see many peple defending illegal activity in order to get a FTF. What they are saying is that even if its done illegally it doesn't change the fact that the person is the FTF . An FTF is not something to be awarded or taken away. Its the simple act of finding a cache first.

 

I agree. But you have to admit that there are people that that will do anything for a FTF.

To each his own I guess.

 

Some how, most people think that this levels the playing field. Perhaps, but with instant notifications only available to premium members, and a many people pointed out, they are not always near a computer, it seems the field is still a little tilted. I would think a better benchmark of the FTF achievement, would be a set start time that people can start looking for a cache. Not every one can take a long lunch at work, or come in late or leave early on short notice

 

I don't see why the playing field needs to be leveled. Even if there is an official start time, it may not be convenient for many people. The fact is that if FTFs are a priority in your life you will get plenty of them.

 

Again, truth be told. I'm realling indifferent to the whole FTF phenomina.

This whole conversation started based on a believe that was given to me by our favorite flying muscian several years ago when I was slow to log a FTF. It was again noted to me by another local FTF hound that if I logged my FTF in a timely manner, he "wouldn't have his time" going out looking for that perticular cache.

 

Anyway, I am 100% convinced that a FTF is the first person to sign the logbook after it has been published.

It doesn't matter how you got there, or who you pushed over or what rules you bent to get there, as long as your name went into the book first. That is the rule.

 

What are legitmate FTF criterias:.

 

Trilaterlating TBs to find a cache before it's published?

 

Skipping Multi Stages and finding the final? (What about multiple logbooks in multi stages?)

 

Brute force finding a puzzle cache?

 

Finding a cache before it's list on GC.com based on information from another website, or CO invitation?

 

Accidentally stumbling upon a cache before it's listed on GC.com or any other site?

 

Going out with the CO, waiting back 300 ft and looking the other way while the CO hides the cache, and then going to find it after it's placed?

 

Seeking a cache minutes after it's been published, but you do not sign the logbook, but actually saw the ammo-box but did not retrieve it because a rattle snake was coiled around it?

 

 

 

 

Again, thanks everyone for the conversation. While I'm a about 90% indifferent to the FTF rules, please don't see me a trolling, play devil's advocate maybe, but the reality is that I find the conversation very interesting.

[+tozainamboku]

I have a multi cache which involves a significant hike. In setting up this cache I used an old archived cache that was left by its owner when he moved out of state as one of the waypoints. The FTFers on this cache found the first waypoint and then went off in search of WP #2. But they went down the wrong trail (the cache is unintentionally set up to provide a bit of misdirection and several others have made the same mistake). By the time they realized their error, they decide just to keep exploring what was a new trail for them. Eventually they got to a familiar place and remembered the old cache they had once found there. They decide to check on the old cache and found the coordinates for the final of my multi inside. So they went back they way they came and found the final container. They got a find and FTF on my cache. In spite of having skipped WP #2 which is particularly devious.

Edited October 23, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+Wayfinders]

Interesting topic. I have to admit I like going after FTF’s. I think I may have 5 or so, I don’t keep a tally. It’s more of a neener-neener-neener to all the others I know are on my heels. This is all in good spirit mind you, and everyone gets a grin when they get to read the (online) log, or at least that’s the idea. My stance on the first one who signs the logbook is this: It is the best possible evidence of who was really there first. Let me offer an example from a different situation all together that may help make my point.

I was involved with a court case regarding a street that was used by the public for years, but never legally taken over by the Municipality as a public right-of-way. Although we have access to, and used modern technology in arguing the case (Aerial Photography, high tech instrumentation, CAD mapping, sub-centimeter GPS observations and the like) the Judges opinion was mostly based on an old atlas I have……..published in 1873….which showed this particular cartway as a public road. This was considered, above all, to be the hardest physical evidence. So in the end, the resulting decision was based on original hard copy evidence of the roads existence. In the above, somewhere is my point.

[+briansnat]

Again, truth be told. I'm realling indifferent to the whole FTF phenomina.

This whole conversation started based on a believe that was given to me by our favorite flying muscian several years ago when I was slow to log a FTF.

 

Never trust a flying musician

Edited October 23, 2006 by briansnat

[+Renegade Knight]

In my opinion, 'FTF' means that you found the cache, signed the log, and met whatever requirements enumerated on the cache page before anyone else. It does not mean that you logged your find on-line first.

 

Agreed.

 

There are some who failing to be FTF, hurry home to be First To Log. I think it's funny, but at the same time it's another way to participate in caching.

 

Edit: You can be FTF if you find the cache and don't sign the log book but then your find is like the points on who's line is it. It just doesn't matter.

Edited October 23, 2006 by Renegade Knight