Jump to content

Is this really a FTF?


ArtieD
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

I know this has been hashed a bit, but I'd like some fresh perspectives on this topic...

 

This cache was published yesterday evening and I saw no logs for it...great, I can go for FTF on this one. However, as I read past the reviewer's "published" log, I noticed that someone is claiming a FTF on this.

 

I mean, I'm not one to really care all that much about being FTF or not, but I think that it is poor form to claim a FTF when you undoubtedly either A. was with the cacher that placed the log, or B. was notified of the cache pre-publication.

 

What do you all think?

Edited by Arthur & Trillian
Link to comment

FTF, but not FTFP.

 

I wouldn't spend any time worrying about it. Seems pretty clear that the hider and finder know each other, and since it really doesn't matter, I'd just shrug and move on.

 

Yeah...I know it's not that big of a deal...but to me...just my opinion, of course...it's just a bit shady.

 

Either way, I still get my smiley.

Link to comment

Do you mean that they logged it on a date earlier than the published date?

 

Yes...it was published on Sept. 24 but logged on Sept. 23...the log is actually before the publication note.

Ok. Well, I've done that a few times, but I try and wait until the FTF goes to the cache and logs it online, and then I never actually say I'm FTF. I know that people will say that they were technically FTF, because FTF is FTF, but I don't really feel someone is a FTF unless they are on a level playing field and found the cache after publication just like everyone else.

Link to comment

Ok. Well, I've done that a few times, but I try and wait until the FTF goes to the cache and logs it online, and then I never actually say I'm FTF. I know that people will say that they were technically FTF, because FTF is FTF, but I don't really feel someone is a FTF unless they are on a level playing field and found the cache after publication just like everyone else.

I think that's exactly why NotThePainter coined the phrase FTFP. The term was meant to just acknowledge the difference between the first to actually sign the log, and the first to sign the log after the cache was published without appearing judgemental.

 

The term never really caught on, though.

Link to comment
I think that's exactly why NotThePainter coined the phrase FTFP. The term was meant to just acknowledge the difference between the first to actually sign the log, and the first to sign the log after the cache was published without appearing judgemental.

 

The term never really caught on, though.

 

It hasn't? Drat, I guess I need a new license plate then...

 

a1cccb15-d44f-4603-8a6f-739fe6fe7850.jpg

Link to comment

Around here some hiders list their caches on another site first. Could be (although doubtful) something like that.

 

I wouldn't doubt the only two places on earth that happens are Rochester and Buffalo though. Maybe Germany, but I don't Speckens Deutsche. :laughing: As far as the original post here, not a big deal I guess. The finder seems to be a newbie, and the hider a very casual occasional geocacher.

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

I know this has been hashed a bit, but I'd like some fresh perspectives on this topic...

 

This cache was published yesterday evening and I saw no logs for it...great, I can go for FTF on this one. However, as I read past the reviewer's "published" log, I noticed that someone is claiming a FTF on this.

 

I mean, I'm not one to really care all that much about being FTF or not, but I think that it is poor form to claim a FTF when you undoubtedly either A. was with the cacher that placed the log, or B. was notified of the cache pre-publication.

 

What do you all think?

 

There are other ways to find a cache besides reading the cache listing on GC.com. Read the first log left on this cache . GC.com is just one listing service out there. A hundred people could have found it before it was published here.

 

"only a simple man would think that he is the center of the universe" - unknown :laughing:

Edited by teald024
Link to comment

...What do you all think?

 

Two things.

 

It's potentially a side effect of this site not recognizing two owners for a cache. Only one gets real credit, the other gets stiffed. One solution is to "find the cache" even though they would really rather be listed as an owner.

 

The other, is some people want to give their cache a trial run before listing it to make sure things are in order. While cheap from an FTF standpoint, I think it's valid.

 

In my mind the only real FTF is the first to find after it's published. But that's hard to enforce.

Link to comment

Any chance the FTF erroneously logged the wrong date???

 

Well actually I wonder if by any chance the Reviewer Published it on the wrong day! Not just the finder.

 

I have seen caches published only to be unpublished 10 seconds later while some kinks are worked out but notifications were sent out. I solved a puzzle that way when accidently they put the solution in the cache page and not in the note to the reviewer.

 

I have planted a cache 2 months ago and have yet to let the reviewer see it.

Well actually the cache is not planted but the page is created.

I only worry that someone else will hike out 1.5 miles into the woods in an area where there are no trails and a river to cross to plant a cache 528 feet from where I want mine to be!!!

Link to comment

Co-hider or beta tester? Yeah. That's tacky to claim an FTF on.

But there are possibilities, other than cheating. Ya never found a letterbox while geocaching? Maybe a letterboxer found it by accident? I've seen several instances on the fora of people stumbling across archived caches. Hey! It happens.

For a bets-tester or co-hider? Yes. Tacky. For anyone else? Fair game. Found it? Log it! Found it before anyone else? That's an FTF!

Link to comment

Any chance the FTF erroneously logged the wrong date???

 

Well actually I wonder if by any chance the Reviewer Published it on the wrong day! Not just the finder.

 

I have seen caches published only to be unpublished 10 seconds later while some kinks are worked out but notifications were sent out. I solved a puzzle that way when accidently they put the solution in the cache page and not in the note to the reviewer.

No, there is no chance the the Reviewer "published it on the wrong day." No matter what date you put in a published log, it will always revert to the current date. No fair backdating published logs to make the reviewer look like they're faster!

 

In any event, this cache was not retracted and then re-published. The review process was strictly by the books, just a question on the 24th which the cache owner answered promptly, and then the cache was published.

Link to comment

The real FTF is the first to find after it's published. It's supposed to be a fun competition, but following that requires good sportsmanship. Some people have it and some don't. Finally, the better the competition the more rewarding the victory. So how rewarding is winning something with no competition? Zilch. So what's the point of doing that? :rolleyes:

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

I know this has been hashed a bit, but I'd like some fresh perspectives on this topic...

 

This cache was published yesterday evening and I saw no logs for it...great, I can go for FTF on this one. However, as I read past the reviewer's "published" log, I noticed that someone is claiming a FTF on this.

 

I mean, I'm not one to really care all that much about being FTF or not, but I think that it is poor form to claim a FTF when you undoubtedly either A. was with the cacher that placed the log, or B. was notified of the cache pre-publication.

 

What do you all think?

In our area, and also in some regions of Texas and a few other states of which I am aware, it is a somewhat common practice for cache hiders to announce new caches prior to publication via local geocaching forums or via private email. I do not mind this at all.

Link to comment

There are other ways to find a cache besides reading the cache listing on GC.com. Read the first log left on this cache . GC.com is just one listing service out there. A hundred people could have found it before it was published here.

 

"only a simple man would think that he is the center of the universe" - unknown :rolleyes:

In looking at this cache page, I see that it was found before it was hidden (that isn't possible). Maybe that "hidden" date on GC.com should read "date published".

Link to comment
That is the longest "Published" log I've ever seen . . . :rolleyes: Very interesting. I like it. :lol:

 

Around here, the "Beta Testers" have learned, through social pressure, to log their "Found it" after the FTF logs their find.

It's not because of social pressure at all. It's because it's a courtesy to the FTF. <_< Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

I know this has been hashed a bit, but I'd like some fresh perspectives on this topic...

 

This cache was published yesterday evening and I saw no logs for it...great, I can go for FTF on this one. However, as I read past the reviewer's "published" log, I noticed that someone is claiming a FTF on this.

 

I mean, I'm not one to really care all that much about being FTF or not, but I think that it is poor form to claim a FTF when you undoubtedly either A. was with the cacher that placed the log, or B. was notified of the cache pre-publication.

 

What do you all think?

 

There are other ways to find a cache besides reading the cache listing on GC.com. Read the first log left on this cache . GC.com is just one listing service out there. A hundred people could have found it before it was published here.

 

"only a simple man would think that he is the center of the universe" - unknown :rolleyes:

 

I've read that log entry three times and have yet managed to make a connection between that log and something to do with multiple cache listing services. What did I miss? <_<:rolleyes:<_<

Link to comment

I know this has been hashed a bit, but I'd like some fresh perspectives on this topic...

 

This cache was published yesterday evening and I saw no logs for it...great, I can go for FTF on this one. However, as I read past the reviewer's "published" log, I noticed that someone is claiming a FTF on this.

 

I mean, I'm not one to really care all that much about being FTF or not, but I think that it is poor form to claim a FTF when you undoubtedly either A. was with the cacher that placed the log, or B. was notified of the cache pre-publication.

 

What do you all think?

In our area, and also in some regions of Texas and a few other states of which I am aware, it is a somewhat common practice for cache hiders to announce new caches prior to publication via local geocaching forums or via private email. I do not mind this at all.

 

Most people that I know don't like cheaters. That's cheating. <_<

Link to comment

Around here there are many caches that have been found prior to publication.

 

I have found two caches, pre-publishing. One was place by my brother in law that gave me a print out of the cache page prior to it being published.

 

The other one was just a stroke of luck. I was looking in the gallery of a cacher whose caches I had recently found when I saw a picture that I wanted to see closer than the thumbnail. I clicked on the picture and it said I could not view a picture of a cache that was not yet published. Even with just the thumbnail and the name of the unpublished cache I was able to determine where the cache was by having itimate knowledge of the area. It was an area I spent alot of time at as a kid and knew all the little in's and out's of. I went to the area immediately and found the cache without having any coord's. I signed the log as FTF and headed home. The cache was published about 3 hours later and I logged my FTF.

 

I count both of these as a FTF in my book. The first one, I know seems to have been "cheating", but the second one I am proud to say that I found it first, irregardless if it had been published or not.

Link to comment

I know this has been hashed a bit, but I'd like some fresh perspectives on this topic...

 

This cache was published yesterday evening and I saw no logs for it...great, I can go for FTF on this one. However, as I read past the reviewer's "published" log, I noticed that someone is claiming a FTF on this.

 

I mean, I'm not one to really care all that much about being FTF or not, but I think that it is poor form to claim a FTF when you undoubtedly either A. was with the cacher that placed the log, or B. was notified of the cache pre-publication.

 

What do you all think?

In our area, and also in some regions of Texas and a few other states of which I am aware, it is a somewhat common practice for cache hiders to announce new caches prior to publication via local geocaching forums or via private email. I do not mind this at all.

 

That's awesome!

 

I have absolutely no compulsion to be a FTFer. In fact I would rather there be a few successful attempts on a cache before I go for it. The few caches that I attempted shortly after being placed had problems that made them unfindable as listed. I think allowing others in your club, group, or team find your waiting to be published cache is great for quality control!

Link to comment

In light of the possibility that a cache location could be published on other web sites (or even in a regular newspaper for that matter) and the clarification that FTFP is indeed a recognized acronym, I am creating a new acronym which will better clarify where the publication occured: FTFPGC which of course would be "First To Find Published on GeoCaching" or if you like "First To Find Published on Geocaching dot Com" :( Of course the rest of you may wish to add your own along the lines of FTFPN etc. :huh:

Link to comment

In our area, and also in some regions of Texas and a few other states of which I am aware, it is a somewhat common practice for cache hiders to announce new caches prior to publication via local geocaching forums or via private email. I do not mind this at all.

 

Most people that I know don't like cheaters. That's cheating. :(

 

Not in the least.

 

What is happening is some are confusing Geocaching and Geocaching.com. The later is the result of the former, not the other way around.

 

While obviously Geocaching.com has made Geocaching more centralized and therefore more organized, geocaching can take place without it. Hopefully that won't be proven anytime soon.

 

Magellan ran a number of caches a few years ago where they only gave coords to those registered on their site, yet they were logged here (GC.COM) prior to the listing be available to everyone, so there is recognized precedence for this practice.

 

Saying someone is "cheating" finding a cache before others because they were given the coords ahead of time (or some other means) is like saying it is wrong for someone to buy a house until it is listed or go to a restaurant prior to an ad appearing in the paper.

Link to comment

I first coined the term FTFP when I became aware of how one could use dropped TBs in unpublished caches to find the cache before it was published. I thought that that method was crude but I was assured it was possible.

 

I later, with another cacher investigated how the old WAP web service could be used to narrow down "scheduled to be published" caches quite accurately.

 

(A "scheduled to be published" cache is a real cache whose publication date is held, typically at the behest of the hider, usually to coincide with an event. A reviewer, seen here on the forums, assures me that this isn't possibe, but I know what I saw in the WAP interface.)

 

Anyway, that's why I coined the term, it wasn't for "by brother-in-law placed it" or "published elsewhere first" type caches. It was for 2 ways I know of to game the system. At first I was pretty upset by it, but I later realized that the guy doing it was just playing a different game than I was, we just called our games by the same name. So I changed the name of my game.

 

Being upset by the actions of others is a sure path to angst. I prefer to be happy.

Link to comment

Riddle me this Batman:

 

I'm on the scout, looking for a good place to hide my last in a series of micros. I find the perfect spot and low and behold there is a cache already hidden there. I check my trusty database and nope, nothing published here. Check the website, nope, it's not published. I open up the cache. Blank. So I sign it, FTF and the date.

 

(I go on to hide mine somewhere else)

 

3 days later that cache gets published. I have never met the owner and no prior knowledge of the location.

 

is FTF supposed to be a race of cachers in theirs cars to see who can get to a location first (after their email notification) or is it who managed to find the cache first? Seems to me, folks who are all wound up on it being published or not should take up drag racing or something.

Link to comment

Riddle me this Batman:

 

I'm on the scout, looking for a good place to hide my last in a series of micros. I find the perfect spot and low and behold there is a cache already hidden there. I check my trusty database and nope, nothing published here. Check the website, nope, it's not published. I open up the cache. Blank. So I sign it, FTF and the date.

 

(I go on to hide mine somewhere else)

 

3 days later that cache gets published. I have never met the owner and no prior knowledge of the location.

 

is FTF supposed to be a race of cachers in theirs cars to see who can get to a location first (after their email notification) or is it who managed to find the cache first? Seems to me, folks who are all wound up on it being published or not should take up drag racing or something.

Link to comment

This happened to me once. I was given a heads up to a cache went out and found it and then logged it that I found it on the paper. I do not consider it as a FTF because of the fact that I had a heads up on it, and it would not be fair to the cacher who went out the first day of the listing to look for it. A few days later when It was published, that same Question popped up as to weather or not the actual FTF ( in my opinion ) was the first or not. I emailed him and told him that he was and it would not be fair if I claimed it because I had advanced knowledge of it. after about the 3rd cache, I listed on the cache page that I found it with no mention of being the first to find.

Link to comment

Any chance the FTF erroneously logged the wrong date???

 

Well actually I wonder if by any chance the Reviewer Published it on the wrong day! Not just the finder.

 

I have seen caches published only to be unpublished 10 seconds later while some kinks are worked out but notifications were sent out. I solved a puzzle that way when accidently they put the solution in the cache page and not in the note to the reviewer.

No, there is no chance the the Reviewer "published it on the wrong day." No matter what date you put in a published log, it will always revert to the current date. No fair backdating published logs to make the reviewer look like they're faster!

 

In any event, this cache was not retracted and then re-published. The review process was strictly by the books, just a question on the 24th which the cache owner answered promptly, and then the cache was published.

I've seen the FTF (and sometimes more logs) that predate the Publish log by a day quite a bit around here. I've also noticed that the time on one of the servers seems to be off by twelve hours. So someone logging the cache an hour after publication could show up as the day before.

Link to comment

I'm in the "first to sign the log" group. Muggles can log a find after stumbling across a cache. They didn't use the publishing site. I figure that means the cache doesn't have to be published in order to be a legitimate find.

 

I'd probably cut beta testers some slack as they are probably doing more work than those who come after.

 

Those who claim FTF because they were with the hider at the time are cheesy, though, IMHO. They didn't find it per se as they never had the opportunity to not know where it is.

Link to comment

I know of several caches that were put out for an event...giving attendees a days advantage to find these caches...before being turned over to the greater caching community. Could this be the case here?

 

That pretty much happened in our area a year or two ago. We attendees of an event were the only ones that knew of the caches and so were the only ones that could go for them at the time. While it was fun finding them with the group, i certainly didn't try to claim FTFs on any of them. I didn't then and i still don't see any point in setting out caches like this.

 

IMO,,, A good honest fun FTF can only happen when everyone has the same chance of getting it. :D

Link to comment

That is the longest "Published" log I've ever seen . . . :D Very interesting. I like it. :D

 

Not me! I suppose a reviewer could send me an email with their ideas on how they think a cache should be hidden and what they think should be in the cache page description, but those shouldn't be posted on the page itself. :D

Link to comment

My opinion: If the cache hider says it is-it is regardless of what any subsequent finder thinks or says.

 

Slightly off topic- On Tuesday I went 38 days after a cache was published to claim a FTF on a difficulty 5 cache.

I discovered that the logbook was written in by the true FTF 3 days after the cache was published.

The person who wrote in the logbook has never logged a cache online under the name shown in the logbook.

I know there are reasons why people don't log online, but not even registering?

I found one earlier this summer that was found by Dave Ulmer last year. He apparently doesn't log his.

 

FTF honors can be gifted by the cache hider so that they can get the opinion of another cacher they know and respect.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...