Is this find valid?

[+emmett]

.

 

I have a tough puzzle cache that was scheduled to be published in a few weeks. It’s a 4.5 difficulty because of the puzzle component and other requirements inherent to its setup. It was part of a series of thirteen caches that had been publicized in advance so people would know they were coming.

 

I did not want anyone to DNF if they solved the tough puzzle so I initially set it up with stages close to the trail in pretty typical spots, with each stage providing coords to the next.

 

However, I was concerned that someone could possibly sleuth their way to one of the stages without solving the puzzle so I was considering a change of the micro sheets that would require knowledge of the puzzle solution in order to determine where the next stage was hidden. I solicited the help of another cacher to examine my setup.

 

While this was ongoing and the cache was still unpublished, someone visited the woods in which these thirteen caches had been placed, hoping for an advance find(s), and he found stage three of the tough puzzle cache and then easily advanced to the final.

 

So here is the question – does this qualify as a find?

 

Pro – There is a signature in the log book, period.

 

Con – It was not published and was still under construction so to speak. I have since changed the contents of each micro. Had he found stage three with the revised contents, he would not have been able to advance to the final two stages and it is doubtful he would have stumbled on either.

 

I should note, he returned later and found two of the other unpublished caches. I’m not questioning either of those FTFs since I was not contemplating a change in setup for either.

 

By contrast, in my mind, the puzzle cache was not done, even though the physical pieces were already out there. In fact, the cache he found is not what others will be faced with when it is published.

 

By the way, there is no dispute between us. I’m just questioning what is proper and I'm curious what others would do in my situation. I suspect there will be a mix of views on this, but I’m just curious if there is a prevailing sentiment.

 

.

[+Toby's Gang]

.

 

I have a tough puzzle cache that was scheduled to be published in a few weeks. It's a 4.5 difficulty because of the puzzle component and other requirements inherent to its setup. It was part of a series of thirteen caches that had been publicized in advance so people would know they were coming.

 

I did not want anyone to DNF if they solved the tough puzzle so I initially set it up with stages close to the trail in pretty typical spots, with each stage providing coords to the next.

 

However, I was concerned that someone could possibly sleuth their way to one of the stages without solving the puzzle so I was considering a change of the micro sheets that would require knowledge of the puzzle solution in order to determine where the next stage was hidden. I solicited the help of another cacher to examine my setup.

 

While this was ongoing and the cache was still unpublished, someone visited the woods in which these thirteen caches had been placed, hoping for an advance find(s), and he found stage three of the tough puzzle cache and then easily advanced to the final.

 

So here is the question – does this qualify as a find?

 

Pro – There is a signature in the log book, period.

 

Con – It was not published and was still under construction so to speak. I have since changed the contents of each micro. Had he found stage three with the revised contents, he would not have been able to advance to the final two stages and it is doubtful he would have stumbled on either.

 

I should note, he returned later and found two of the other unpublished caches. I'm not questioning either of those FTFs since I was not contemplating a change in setup for either.

 

By contrast, in my mind, the puzzle cache was not done, even though the physical pieces were already out there. In fact, the cache he found is not what others will be faced with when it is published.

 

By the way, there is no dispute between us. I'm just questioning what is proper and I'm curious what others would do in my situation. I suspect there will be a mix of views on this, but I'm just curious if there is a prevailing sentiment.

 

.

I think it comes down to the fact that the cache was not published. You cannot find a cache that is theoretically not there yet; to do so would take the "first to find" away from a legitimate finder.

 

Now as I’m writing this, I’m thinking of how we in our area will log a cache as a “beta tester”, meaning if we are with another cacher that hides a cache, we will log our name on the sheet. In doing this though, we sign at that bottom of the sheet and DO NOT claim first to find.

 

If the cacher in question had stumbled upon any one of the stages and figured out the final, then I would say that is a legitimate find. Much in the same way as a muggle finding a cache and signing the log and is invited to do so by the stash notes we place in a cache.

 

What it all comes down to though is what you, the cache owner, wants to do. I think In the grand scheme of things, and to maintain friendships and such, let the finder have his smilie. Your cache was found which is why they're placed in the first place, he found a cache...everyone's happy.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Toby's Gang

[+Moose Mob]

The cache owner has the final say.

[+emmett]

The cache owner has the final say.

 

I understand this. My question is what say you?

[+Cardinal Red]

You wanted advance publicity. Why, it isn't necessary.

 

Someone was tempted to look, and you left a loophole. Your bad.

 

They tracked it down and signed the log. That's a find (in my opinion).

[+TrailGators]

You wanted advance publicity. Why, it isn't necessary.

 

Someone was tempted to look, and you left a loophole. Your bad.

 

They tracked it down and signed the log. That's a find (in my opinion).

I agree. Live and learn. It's just one cache.

[+emmett]

.

 

Thanks for the feedback.

 

The advance publicity was used just to give folks who don't normally have an opportunity for an FTF a little notice that a bulk release was pending. I figured thirteen caches in one conservation area was worth a heads up.

 

And yes, I am mad at myself. If only it was the first dumb thing I've done ....

 

.

[+Chuy!]

It's a find for the cacher 'cause he/she did find and signed the log. Of course, as others have noted, you can delete the find if you want to, but, to avoid a potential confrontation, I wouldn't do that.

 

But, if you offered an FTF prize, I would not award it to him/her 'cause the cache was not available to everyone on an equal basis. Just because you publicized it (on the forums I presume), does not mean everyone had a equal chance to find the cache 'cause not everyone reads the forums. The legitimate start is when the cache is published as a cache on the website.

[+ShowStop]

I've stumbled upon a few caches by accident. Still counts as a find in my book if I was able to sign the log book.

[+TheCollector]

let them count it as a find but not a FTF when King Boreas goes out on one of his cache placement runs he usually goes with someone else they get the cache to go find it after he goes out and places it they are first one to sign the log but not the first to find cause they found it before it was published. Next time if you announce a big series just say in your announcement that if anyone goes for the caches they will not be able to either claim a find or

FTF or whatever to help with this problem. hope this helps.