The Fine Art of "Guggling"?

10.1k · June 21, 2007

Well, it seems that I was out geocaching on Sunday, with my caching partner. We espied some strange behaviour off in the woods. It appeared that someone was piling sticks over something. After said person returned to the trail, we approached and commented "That should be easy to find." It turned out to be a geocacher whom we knew (and for whose caches we were searching.)

We chatted a bit, got a hint for a cache that we were having problems with, and parted ways.

On our return trip, we checked out what hidden at that location. We signed the virgin log book, discovered the geocoin, and rehid the cache. I figure: Find cache, sign log, get smiley. (Heck, I've even brute forced a cache or two in my day. (And people have brute forced a few of mine.))

Knowing that we had seen the hide (Hey, we could just have snuck back later...), the cache owner returned and rehid the cache elsewhere. (Be that as it may. I certainly would not want to have to refind every cache that I've found that has been moved since.)

The cache owner seems to have taken exception to my claim of FTF.

"Guggling": Being discovered in the act of hiding a cache by a geocacher.

He says that I have not found by the method expected (fourth in a series of caches.)

I say that I found the cache, and signed the log, and that I was the first to find.

Albeit, it had not been published when I found it. And, because I knew where it was, he added another step, and moved it.

So. The question of the day: Was I, or was I not, the FTF on this cache?

2.5k · June 21, 2007

Albeit, it had not been published when I found it. And, because I knew where it was, he added another step, and moved it.

So. The question of the day: Was I, or was I not, the FTF on this cache?

Interesting question! Really, the best I've seen in ages, I'll be watching this thread to see how this one plays out. I do have a question for you, though: If it hadn't yet been published, how do you know he added another step?

In answer to your question from the info so far, my response is "I don't know" ~ I suppose if the owner says it wasn't an official cache until it was listed, then that's that as far as logging it as FTF goes--as far as being FTF to the cache, well that's all in how you count it, isn't it?

Edited June 21, 2007 by Neos2

June 21, 2007

Was I, or was I not, the FTF on this cache?

Yes.

(C'mon! Someone was going to do it!)

1.9k · June 21, 2007

Id say No...Just because it is no longer the same cache in the same location...well maybe the same cache, but not the same location!

It is hidden where you have not found it, and it is listed where you have not found it.

Sure ya found it...But things done changed ...Just my opinion!

1.2k · June 21, 2007

There are only two ways to find a cache:

As a cacher
As a muggle

If you find it as a cacher, then you log it. If you're the first to do so, then you're FTF.

If you can't log it, then you're a muggle...

...so, muggle it!

June 21, 2007

I'm sorry, that is an FTF! I have seen a couple that were signed before they were placed cause the person claiming FTF didn't want to go to the extreme of actually going to the cache location. I think this is BS but, it wasn't my cache.

Nope! You were the first to find it, LISTED OR NOT, you are FTF! (In my mind anyway.) But I think the ultimate answer and the one you probably don't want to hear, is that it ultimately is the choice of the hider.

Doc

1.5k · June 21, 2007

As I understand it, a find on any cache is at the cache owners discretion. Another point might be that it can't be a first to find if it isnt actually an officially published cache yet. I've been on hunts where the cache wasn't published yet but we'd found it as a group but left that FTF honor open to the first person to find it after it was published. It's a tricky argument but in the end I think it falls back to the hider.

Not to compare apples to oranges but, In a drag race, the car that leaves before the green loses.

June 21, 2007

Well, it seems that I was out geocaching on Sunday, with my caching partner. We espied some strange behaviour off in the woods. It appeared that someone was piling sticks over something. After said person returned to the trail, we approached and commented "That should be easy to find." It turned out to be a geocacher whom we knew (and for whose caches we were searching.)

We chatted a bit, got a hint for a cache that we were having problems with, and parted ways.

On our return trip, we checked out what hidden at that location. We signed the virgin log book, discovered the geocoin, and rehid the cache. I figure: Find cache, sign log, get smiley. (Heck, I've even brute forced a cache or two in my day. (And people have brute forced a few of mine.))

Knowing that we had seen the hide (Hey, we could just have snuck back later...), the cache owner returned and rehid the cache elsewhere. (Be that as it may. I certainly would not want to have to refind every cache that I've found that has been moved since.)

The cache owner seems to have taken exception to my claim of FTF.

"Guggling": Being discovered in the act of hiding a cache by a geocacher.

He says that I have not found by the method expected (fourth in a series of caches.)

I say that I found the cache, and signed the log, and that I was the first to find.

Albeit, it had not been published when I found it. And, because I knew where it was, he added another step, and moved it.

So. The question of the day: Was I, or was I not, the FTF on this cache?

Ummm...I'm going to be a devil's advocate here. My opinion is that since this was a cache that was *fourth* in a *series* of caches....I'd have to say no.

We have a geocache series here. There are (I think) six caches that have partial coordinates for the final "mystery" cache. If that is what this guy was doing...then you didn't fulfill what was required of everyone else to obtain the location of this cache. It was just dumb luck on your part.

However, some people work for their weekly paycheck and others just happen to find an old lady's purse with a weeks pay. Why quibble when luck heads your way?

June 21, 2007

I generally support the view that it's not a cache until published, and that publication is the 'starting gun' for the FTF race. However, I think that accidentally finding a cache prior to it being published is rare enough that an exception could be made. If I was the first to find this cache after it was published, I would quickly concede to you as the FTF as I would never feel right about claiming it myself.

Regardless, there's nothing that says that two different cachers can't both consider themselves FTF. I say add it to your FTF list.

June 21, 2007

Had the cache been published as you found it, I would find it hard to argue against your claim. You state, however, that it was moved prior to publication. Therefore, the cache you found, while still the same container, is not the same hide as published.

It could now be seen as "recycled" cache container. If someone archived a cache and re-hid the container as a new cache, would you get credit for the find just because you'd found the container in its first hiding place?

I've found caches prior to publication (at local events mostly) and a few of these don't make it to be published. I don't get to claim the find. If the hider rehid the container elsewhere and listed it, I'd have to go find it in the new spot to log it.

June 21, 2007

This is too funny adding hilarity to an already humurous situation..... not sure why it's been posted here at all to be voted on..... It's the final to a puzzle mult, as the listing indicates, "This is the final stage of the "Wood You Leaf Me Alone" series (GC13JM1)." The premature FTF would have taken away from those that had actually completed the series and stage puzzles, and, in particular to the FTF that did them as listed. Now, keep in mind that I added a new stage where it had been "Guggled" adding to the challenge. So, before making any judgements, I suggest that the cache first be done, then proclaim if the modifications were just or not. As I let the OP know, I modified the cache before it was published for the benefit of the cache seekers who started from stage 1 and did all stages...... no changes were made after it went live..... have fun with this one....... cheers

Edited June 21, 2007 by CondorTrax

June 21, 2007

To the OP I believe you have met the requirements of "found", however you came to find that log, you did find it's location. Would it be any different if I am out on a hike and "discover" what I think is great hidey hole for a cache only to find that someone has already placed a cache there without the knowledge of the information contained in the posted listing? Would you log that find?

Hey maybe you even developed a new off-shoot of the game, not only will we have the FTF hounds running out in their slippers and jammies at all times of the night "umm no honey, the house isn't on fire, but my phone just rang with a new cache listing not .3 miles away!", but now we can have a new stat; FTG!!!!! I can see it now avid geocachers hiding out in the most likely "good" hide spots left available staking that location out for long periods of time in their slippers and jammies! Just waiting to pounce when that unsuspecting placer feels he has made the most ingenious puzzle hide possible, walking off into the sunset wringing his hands with that evil cackling laugh only to find as soon as his cache is published:

WooooHoooo FTG!!!!!!

TNLN SL before it was actually published TFTC!

Edited June 21, 2007 by CTYankee9

June 21, 2007

So. The question of the day: Was I, or was I not, the FTF on this cache?

My take on this is that since the cache had not yet been published, for all intents and purposes it did not yet exist and, as far as I'm concerned, one cannot be FTF on a cache that doesn't exist. One of the pleasures one derives in hiding a cache is following the race for FTF honors and, by claiming the FTF on this cache, you were depriving the cache owner of this simple pleasure. In my opinion, he had every right to move the cache and, come to think of it, I would probably have done the same.

P.S. Okay, so the cache owner in question has clarified the situation a bit but my general opinion on this issue remains the same!

Edited June 21, 2007 by JamGuys

June 21, 2007

I believe it comes down to what the cache owner requires.

Setting out a multi only to be spotted hiding the final cache by another cacher who immediately claims a FTF..... that's harsh.

You might as well go to events and ask other cachers what the final coords were for any multi they found to bypass all that nonsense about going through the adventure the hider intended.

Say, let's go on a nighttime cache but just give me the coords to the final so I don't have to do all the darkness stuff.

Hey, how about borrowing you friend's gps after he completed a couple of puzzle caches and use the breadcrumb trail to backtrack to the cache sites. :lol:

Let's do a virtual cache but get the requirements for the cache from someone else without going to the site.

To log the cache, follow the rules set out by the owner.

I was caching the other day and stumbled on a family getting out of their vehicle with their gps at the same time I was getting out of mine. The cache was within a hundred feet and when their little boy asked me if I wanted to work with them on finding the cache, how could I say no? As they were looking around nearby I helped in them search and one of the kids found the cache. While they were going through the contents I was talking to the dad and looking at my gps thinking wow it was off by about 150 feet. I finally asked the dad what cache it was they were searching for. Not the same on I was. They were on the final stage of a multi that started a little was away and was next on my list after doing the cache I was looking for. When they asked me if I was going to sign in I told them not until I found the other waypoints first. I went and found the stages as intended and then went back to the final. At least I went through what the hider intended.

The reward is the experience received from undertaking the journey following the path intended, not the smilie from a stolen FTF

June 21, 2007

I believe it comes down to what the cache owner requires.

Setting out a multi only to be spotted hiding the final cache by another cacher who immediately claims a FTF..... that's harsh.

You might as well go to events and ask other cachers what the final coords were for any multi they found to bypass all that nonsense about going through the adventure the hider intended.

Say, let's go on a nighttime cache but just give me the coords to the final so I don't have to do all the darkness stuff.

Hey, how about borrowing you friend's gps after he completed a couple of puzzle caches and use the breadcrumb trail to backtrack to the cache sites.

Let's do a virtual cache but get the requirements for the cache from someone else without going to the site.

To log the cache, follow the rules set out by the owner.

I was caching the other day and stumbled on a family getting out of their vehicle with their gps at the same time I was getting out of mine. The cache was within a hundred feet and when their little boy asked me if I wanted to work with them on finding the cache, how could I say no? As they were looking around nearby I helped in them search and one of the kids found the cache. While they were going through the contents I was talking to the dad and looking at my gps thinking wow it was off by about 150 feet. I finally asked the dad what cache it was they were searching for. Not the same on I was. They were on the final stage of a multi that started a little was away and was next on my list after doing the cache I was looking for. When they asked me if I was going to sign in I told them not until I found the other waypoints first. I went and found the stages as intended and then went back to the final. At least I went through what the hider intended.

The reward is the experience received from undertaking the journey following the path intended, not the smilie from a stolen FTF

Wow..finally a voice of reason. For a minute or 600, I was starting to begin to think that cheating was acceptable by some kind of weird justification formula.

June 21, 2007

To log the cache, follow the rules set out by the owner.

I was caching the other day and stumbled on a family getting out of their vehicle with their gps at the same time I was getting out of mine. The cache was within a hundred feet and when their little boy asked me if I wanted to work with them on finding the cache, how could I say no? As they were looking around nearby I helped in them search and one of the kids found the cache. While they were going through the contents I was talking to the dad and looking at my gps thinking wow it was off by about 150 feet. I finally asked the dad what cache it was they were searching for. Not the same on I was. They were on the final stage of a multi that started a little was away and was next on my list after doing the cache I was looking for. When they asked me if I was going to sign in I told them not until I found the other waypoints first. I went and found the stages as intended and then went back to the final. At least I went through what the hider intended.

Ok..I'm going to give an example of why I think the OP is cheating and why I think that you are honorable. There is a cache that has been on my list for a LONG time. Ultimate 80's Music Cache. I know where it is. I know where every stage is. However, I won't claim it until I've done it myself. There was a group of us one day who went out and some knew the answers, some had already found it, some didn't care one way or the other. By the "three musketeer" rule..everyone claims a find. Not me. I'm a "huckle-buckle". If you look through the logs, you'll find that I refused to log a "smily" until I've actually done it on my own. I don't hold anything against any of those folks...but for a cache that someone has placed a LOT of time into...you just don't claim anything without first doing some work.

(I'll get that darn smily someday Alan.

7.2k · June 21, 2007

I'd say that no, the OP is not FTF on the cache that was published. While true he did find a cache, it wasn't the one that was published.

June 21, 2007

I was sitting on the fence before, but based on the cache owners explanation, I'd say the OP is NOT the FTF.

18.9k · June 21, 2007

I'd say that no, the OP is not FTF on the cache that was published. While true he did find a cache, it wasn't the one that was published.

I agree.

June 21, 2007

In my mind it's a question of personal ethics. A few days ago I was circling a cache in a local park when a maintenance man drove up and pointed out the container out before I could stop him. I said "Well thanks for ruining this find for me!" He looked sort of funny and drove away. I can't bring myself to log the find since I was shown the actual location, and I would have the same feelings if I stumbled onto somebody hiding a cache. For me it's the hunt and the mystery of it all, and I very much appreciate someone taking the time and trouble to hide a cache for me to find. Take that away and I might as well stay home and watch Leave It To Beaver re-runs.

3.9k · June 21, 2007

This seems to be a mixture of other questions.

Can you log a cache as Found if you were there while it was hidden? If two people hide a cache together it wouldn't matter if the second person (the non-owner) is actually helping hide it or if they're along for the ride. They know where the cache is without having to search for it.

Can you log a cache on this web site that is not listed here? If you log two finds on a cache because you've found a "bonus" cache that the owner wants to give you credit for, you'll find a lot of folks will object to it. They'll suggest that if a cache isn't listed with it's own page, and hasn't gone through the approval process, it doesn't count as being a gc.com listed cache. The one you found wasn't listed on this site at the time, and was later moved and changed enough to where it would have been a completely different find anyway.

So, you signed a log on a cache that 1) you saw being hidden and 2) was never listed on this site, and you want to know if you can log a FTF for it on a cache page on this site?

It's up to the owner, but it would be deleted on any cache I'd hidden if you tried it.

June 21, 2007

...Now, keep in mind that I added a new stage where it had been "Guggled" adding to the challenge...

...As I let the OP know, I modified the cache before it was published for the benefit of the cache seekers who started from stage 1 and did all stages...... no changes were made after it went live.....

So the FTF in question was for a cache that wasn't even the final in the series, it was stage that was changed prior to submission for approval? Then why is the OP claiming FTF on the final? It sounds like he just found one of the first three stages.

If you choose to circumvent the intended spirit of the cache to log a find, you lose part of the adventure. If you attempt to claim a FTF prior to completion of the placement and approval process, you risk the "find" being meaningless because things change during that time. We all know that.

In this case the OP seems to have stumbled on a work in progress. If it's that important to him to have another FTF notch on his bedpost, regardless of its integrity, let him have it. But at least claim it for the correct listing.

The CO can always designate an official and unofficial FTF on the cache listing.

Edited June 21, 2007 by Resolution

38.2k · June 21, 2007

he question of the day: Was I, or was I not, the FTF on this cache?

I guess you were FTF on that cache, but on the one that was eventually listed.

3.2k · June 21, 2007

Since you saw the cache being hidden I would liken this to the case where someone goes along with the cache hider when they are hiding the cache. In that situation the person can't possibly be the FTF (although some still claim to be ) since they didn't "find" the cache. If you had gone with the cache hider when he was hiding the thing would you have tried to claim to be FTF?

June 21, 2007

You signed the log first and replaced the cache. Sounds like a straight forward FTF to me.

June 21, 2007

Yeap, id say an FTF. The hider should have just left the cache there once you had found it. They should have been more careful to see if anyone was about before making an UPS..

June 21, 2007

Man - sure opens up many questions in many areas of caching.

- As I understand it, to get to this cache you need to go to three other caches that will lead you to it.

- At one point, this was the 4th and final cache in a series. It is now the 4th stage of the series.

- Each and every stage is a cache with a log.

IMHO:

- It is a find on the stage 4 cache (whether FTF or not). Yeah, it was not found in the conventional way, but it was found, and the log signed. If I were the cache owner, I would not have thrown out the log, but it is the CO decision - not mine - and I support that.

- The cache owner changed the overall series before it was published. He/she can do that - cool move.

- If Harry Dolphin wants to go find the rest of the caches in the series and log them - great.

- If Harry Dolpin wants to find the final stage and log it - great.

This would be even more interesting if it was an LPC in a park and HD went in after hours, and drilled a hole in the tree to find the cache while making political statements. Maybe someone will start some threads to cover those situations.

June 21, 2007

This would be even more interesting if it was an LPC in a park and HD went in after hours, and drilled a hole in the tree to find the cache while making political statements. Maybe someone will start some threads to cover those situations.

June 21, 2007

I would not claim a FTF on a cache I saw someone hide. You should do whatever you think is right. The cache owner has every right to deny you this FTF IMO.

24.7k · June 21, 2007

...The cache owner seems to have taken exception to my claim of FTF.

"Guggling": Being discovered in the act of hiding a cache by a geocacher.

He says that I have not found by the method expected (fourth in a series of caches.)

I say that I found the cache, and signed the log, and that I was the first to find.

Albeit, it had not been published when I found it. And, because I knew where it was, he added another step, and moved it.

So. The question of the day: Was I, or was I not, the FTF on this cache?

You were FTF. The same as if a muggle had happened on it.

You may have very well short circuted the entire cache experience intended and you may not get to claim the FTF prize etc. since that's determined by the owner.

Think of it this way. You were the FTF of the box. You may not have been the first qualifying FTF since that had a higher bar. When I deal with bidders it's not always the low bid. It's the lowest qualifying bid that wins.

June 21, 2007

How can you claim to FIND a cache when you knew where it was because you saw the owner hide it.

There was nothing to FIND because you knew excatly where it was!

7.3k · June 21, 2007

Everything else aside, I have a totally different view than the cache hider. If someone happened along while I was placing a cache, I would think that it was such an unique experience, that I would be tickled for them to log it with the story. That's part of what is great about geocaching, fortuitous meetings and interesting stories.

June 22, 2007

It's kinda like studying hard for an exam, and then finding out the top scorer was a dude who stumbled onto a copy of the teacher's answer sheet.....who then had the moxie to claim to the world he got the best score....

7.3k · June 22, 2007

You know, a person can find a cache and then log it later without claiming FTF. I think people are getting a bit wrapped up in that.

June 22, 2007

It's kinda like studying hard for an exam, and then finding out the top scorer was a dude who stumbled onto a copy of the teacher's answer sheet.....who then had the moxie to claim to the world he got the best score....

With all due respect; no, it isn't.

If someone happened along while I was placing a cache, I would think that it was such an unique experience, that I would be tickled for them to log it with the story. That's part of what is great about geocaching, fortuitous meetings and interesting stories.

Ambrosia - good posts.

4.5k · June 22, 2007

Yours is a unique and pretty cool situation but I would not even try to claim that as a find, much less a FTF. Two reasons in my book. First off, you didn't find the cache since you saw the owner hiding it and knew exactly where it was. Second, and this is just my way of looking at it,, is that it wasn't published yet and therfore not legitimately loggable at the time.

Myself, i would go back and find it after it was published on GC.com, in the new spot that i didn't actually see it being hidden in.

7.2k · June 22, 2007

Sounds like some folks would claim FTF on a cache sitting on the dude's tailgate.

June 22, 2007

I'd say no. The cache wasn't published, so it wasn't really a geocache. It was just a container in the woods. While you may have technically found something, it wasn't it the spirit of the games of seeing it posted, using a gps, and locating the cache. Obviously, there is a lot of disagreement on this one though, so to each their own.

June 22, 2007

Myself, i would go back and find it after it was published on GC.com, in the new spot that i didn't actually see it being hidden in.

Well, that's not likely since the finder (HD) has gone to the effort of adding this cache along with a bunch of other CondorTrax caches to a Bookmark List entitled "Caches On My Ignore List".

http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/4eb988...02e7ec8ab03.jpg

He saw the CO hide the cache, snook back later to "find" it and claimed an FTF 3 days before the cache was published. Not exactly in the intended spirit of the sport. I wonder why his caching partner (AB) never logged the find.

Edited June 22, 2007 by GerIRL

38.2k · June 22, 2007

I'd say no. The cache wasn't published, so it wasn't really a geocache. It was just a container in the woods...

Where is it written that a geocache has to be published anywhere? A geocache is simply a container in the woods referenced by coordinates. If I call my friends up and give them the coordinates of an unpublished cache and they search for it, they are still geocaching.

4.5k · June 22, 2007

I'd say no. The cache wasn't published, so it wasn't really a geocache. It was just a container in the woods...

Where is it written that a geocache has to be published anywhere? A geocache is simply a container in the woods referenced by coordinates. If I call my friends up and give them the coordinates of an unpublished cache and they search for it, they are still geocaching.

Geocache is a generic term used and can cover alot of things. Terracaches and navicaches are geocaches too but it's not right to log them here at GC.com. Since this cache was found, well it actually wasn't, before it was published, then it was not yet one that i think should be logged here on the site.

I can see that this could be a minor problem for HD if the owner hadn't moved it, but since the owner did, then probably the best thing to do would be for HD to just go back and find it like everyone else.

June 22, 2007

I'd say no. The cache wasn't published, so it wasn't really a geocache. It was just a container in the woods...

Where is it written that a geocache has to be published anywhere? A geocache is simply a container in the woods referenced by coordinates. If I call my friends up and give them the coordinates of an unpublished cache and they search for it, they are still geocaching.

But there's a difference between you hiding a cache and then giving your friends a set of coordinates, and them watching you out in the field hiding your cache . . .

June 22, 2007

This has been an interesting discussion; lively and with varied points of view. I appreciate the input and perspectives. I'd like to possibly add some closure and perspective as the CO. I've met Harry Dolphin and his partner on a few occassions, have enjoyed their caches and communications. They put together some fun and challenging puzzles.

I was suprised that he took such offense to my modifying the cache before it had even been published. Especially since both he and his partner indicated they would wait until the cache had gone live and do the stages.

Keep in mind that my intention for modifying the series was to reward the true finder with a legitimate find and FTF. Unfortunately, HD did not do the series and see what went into creating it and setting it up. As many of you have experienced, doing a multi stage puzzle is an enjoyable challenge.

Seeing that you're the FTF on these stages is exhilirating and adds to the fun as you're getting closer to the final. What a dissapointment it would be to see that your efforts and excitement were marred by an accidental find.

Note that all of this was done as I was completing the placing of the series. Nothing had gone live. In fact it would take an additional 3 days and 2 site visits before it was posted. HD and I sent a few notes back and forth before this forum was posted and I let him know I thought the whole incident was hilarious. It brough back the quote from Casablanca, paraphrased "....Of all the 'cache' joints, in all the towns, in all the world, they walk into mine...".

Imagine my surprise then to see that HD has taken my caches he has yet to find and added them to a public Bookmark entitled "My Ignore List". In the spirit of geocaching many things happen. He did stumble upon my final and we all laughed at the incident. He did not have the benefit of knowing the work in the background (although I let him know it would be unfair without doing the series) and would have taken away from the true seekers. This was not a simple multi stage trek through the woods.

As the CO I have the right and obligation to modify a cache as I see fit prior to it going live. If I feel that the spirit, intention, enjoyment of the cache would be compromised then my standard for modifying it is based on the overall caching community's enjoyment of the experience rather than the impact of a single cacher who found it by luck.

Nothing was denied HD as he logs on the cache listing (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=06459e11-c0b7-45a6-abc7-196d7ead5ddc). It's dismaying to me that HD feels this way and hope he understands the changes I made were intended as I've suggested above and nothing directed specifically at him. The additional stage was added to reward the true seekers.

I extend an invitation to HD and others to go thru the cache series and then communicate their experience.

18.9k · June 22, 2007

I ran into a fellow Geocacher the other day buying some Lock-n-Locks that were in the discount bin at Wal-Mart. He told me that he intended to use these as geocachers in the near future.

I thought of this thread.

Maybe I should have dropped a signed log in each of them to claim FTF. They had not reached thier ultimate destination and published coordintes yet - but they were Geocaches.......

True story - that change anybody's mind??

2.7k · June 22, 2007

I'd say no. The cache wasn't published, so it wasn't really a geocache. It was just a container in the woods...

Where is it written that a geocache has to be published anywhere? A geocache is simply a container in the woods referenced by coordinates. If I call my friends up and give them the coordinates of an unpublished cache and they search for it, they are still geocaching.

Every unattended container isn't a geocache. If it was then Groundspeak would in a lot of trouble for littering. Neither are all containers in the woods referenced by coordinates a geocache. It only becomes a geocache once it is listed on the geocaching website. The same container in the woods could be submitted to a letter boxing website making it a letter box, or the navicache website making it a navicache or the teracache website make it a teracache.

I don't know the distance that this cache was relocated before it was listed. But when a cache is relocated a significant enough distance from the original location, even though the cache itself isn't changed, to make it a different finding experience it is typical that the original cache page is archived and a new listing is made.

The answer has to come from the cache owner. Was the cache moved a significant enough distance that the owner would have archived the cache instead of just updating the cache page with new coordinates. If the owner says that they would have archived the cache and relisted then the "pre-finder" was FTF on a cahce that was never listed anywhere. Congratulations on your FTF but unfortunately you have no place to log your find. If the owner would have updated the coordinates on the cache page then the "pre-finder" happened to made a very lucky discovery and I congratulate him on the FTF log entry for that geocache.

June 22, 2007

This has been an interesting discussion; lively and with varied points of view. I appreciate the input and perspectives. I'd like to possibly add some closure and perspective as the CO. I've met Harry Dolphin and his partner on a few occassions, have enjoyed their caches and communications. They put together some fun and challenging puzzles.

I was suprised that he took such offense to my modifying the cache before it had even been published. Especially since both he and his partner indicated they would wait until the cache had gone live and do the stages.

Keep in mind that my intention for modifying the series was to reward the true finder with a legitimate find and FTF. Unfortunately, HD did not do the series and see what went into creating it and setting it up. As many of you have experienced, doing a multi stage puzzle is an enjoyable challenge.

Seeing that you're the FTF on these stages is exhilirating and adds to the fun as you're getting closer to the final. What a dissapointment it would be to see that your efforts and excitement were marred by an accidental find.

Note that all of this was done as I was completing the placing of the series. Nothing had gone live. In fact it would take an additional 3 days and 2 site visits before it was posted. HD and I sent a few notes back and forth before this forum was posted and I let him know I thought the whole incident was hilarious. It brough back the quote from Casablanca, paraphrased "....Of all the 'cache' joints, in all the towns, in all the world, they walk into mine...".

Imagine my surprise then to see that HD has taken my caches he has yet to find and added them to a public Bookmark entitled "My Ignore List". In the spirit of geocaching many things happen. He did stumble upon my final and we all laughed at the incident. He did not have the benefit of knowing the work in the background (although I let him know it would be unfair without doing the series) and would have taken away from the true seekers. This was not a simple multi stage trek through the woods.

As the CO I have the right and obligation to modify a cache as I see fit prior to it going live. If I feel that the spirit, intention, enjoyment of the cache would be compromised then my standard for modifying it is based on the overall caching community's enjoyment of the experience rather than the impact of a single cacher who found it by luck.

Nothing was denied HD as he logs on the cache listing (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=06459e11-c0b7-45a6-abc7-196d7ead5ddc). It's dismaying to me that HD feels this way and hope he understands the changes I made were intended as I've suggested above and nothing directed specifically at him. The additional stage was added to reward the true seekers.

I extend an invitation to HD and others to go thru the cache series and then communicate their experience.

It would seem HD is a rather large bad sport.

7.3k · June 22, 2007

Seeing that you're the FTF on these stages is exhilirating and adds to the fun as you're getting closer to the final. What a dissapointment it would be to see that your efforts and excitement were marred by an accidental find.

It's all in the mind.

Thank you for the well thought out, informative post. If that's the case, it's too bad such a silly little thing has gotten blown out of proportion like this.

June 22, 2007

I have to admit that I didn't read through the entire thread before posting my reply. I must say, I am too eager to reply than to read through everyone's comments. Here is my 2 cents:

A cache is not officially a cache until it is published. Before it is published and approved, by say, Pofe, then it is just junk in the woods. Yes, HarryDolphin, you did find something hidden in the woods, but it wasn't a cache yet.

What consitutes a cache? Something hidden. Something that is designated by a waypoint, thus coordinates placed on geocaching.com and then made available for cachers to seek out and find.

This was something hidden that you found, but was not designated by a waypoint when you found it. Until a cache is designated on the website, it is not available for cachers to officially seek out. Until the cache owner feels that the cache is perfect and ready to go, he/she has the inevitable right to move or modify the cache. Or perhaps, make it a mystery cache or a final stage of a multi or whatnot.

Please allow me to give you an example of how disobeying these guidelines could play out for negative benefit:

I hide a cache with someone else, say roxytrend (My caching partner). I hide it, she signs the log book as FTF, then I post on geocaching.com for other cachers to find. Is this fair? I don't think it would be.

What happened in your circumstance, Harry, is quite similar to that example.

Don't get me wrong, I've done a cache or few of yours, read your postings on Groundspeak, and do respect you as a cacher. But I have to say I disagree with you here.

June 22, 2007

I've done quite a few of CondorTrax's multis and there's usually a lot involved. There's a thrill to his hides that makes them very worthwhile and entertaining. I wasn't sure that he was the hider in question when I first read the thread, but after seeing that this was one of his caches, I said to myself, "Wow...HD's gonna skip one of Condor's famous/fabulous multis and go right for the final! These are just my thoughts, take it or leave it, it won't bother me, but Condor hides some spectacular caches. Go through the stages and at the very least give him the courtesy of finding his caches as they should be; especially with all the effort he puts into setting them up.

7.3k · June 22, 2007

I really think that this thread should be read in it's entirety before people post their opinions. There have been a few lately that make me think...."hm....if they had read the entire thing, they wouldn't be saying that". And if they did read it and said that, then I think that their reading retention skills could use some help.

Also, to let people know who don't, there was a thread here recently that discusses situations like logging a cache that you helped hide, etc. (of course the thread roamed to related issues). That may help with the comments in this thread that are along those lines. Linky

- edited for spelling and grammar.

Edited June 22, 2007 by Ambrosia

The Fine Art of "Guggling"?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment