Tag-a-long Finds on New Caches

[+infiniteMPG]

An ethical GC question. Imagine you're caching with others somewhere miles deep in the wild and you all split up. While split up someone hides a new cache. Later in the day everyone joins back up on the trails somewhere. The owner of the new hide shares the coords of their new cache with the others. They proceed to head out and find the new cache as they are half a day's hike in and not too far from the new cache, and chances are they won't be back for a long time if at all. They either sign the log sheet down at the bottom if at all, and do not enter a log online until after someone else claims the FTF. Since they're not claiming the FTF nor are they logging a find online until after a FTF is logged, even though this cache is not published when they found it, does it make their find any less valid?

 

Like I said, an ethic's question.....

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

An ethical GC question. Imagine you're caching with others somewhere miles deep in the wild and you all split up. While split up someone hides a new cache. Later in the day everyone joins back up on the trails somewhere. The owner of the new hide shares the coords of their new cache with the others. They proceed to head out and find the new cache as they are half a day's hike in and not too far from the new cache, and chances are they won't be back for a long time if at all. They either sign the log sheet down at the bottom if at all, and do not enter a log online until after someone else claims the FTF. Since they're not claiming the FTF nor are they logging a find online until after a FTF is logged, even though this cache is not published when they found it, does it make their find any less valid?

 

Like I said, an ethic's question.....

This scenario sounds perfectly fine ot me. I simply appreciate the fact that they are NOT claiming FTF, and rather, that they are leaving the real FTF for someone else; that all sounds most reasonable and realistic to me.

[+StarBrand]

FTF = First to Find

 

That is always the first person to go out and seek the cache and sign the logbook. Letting someone else claim FTF when they were actually 2nd or 3rd or whatever to go out and find it makes little sense to me. Anyway it should not diminish the experience.

 

I see nothing wrong with giving individuals or groups "advance" notice before publication.

Edited November 5, 2008 by StarBrand

[+hydnsek]

An ethical GC question. Imagine you're caching with others somewhere miles deep in the wild and you all split up. While split up someone hides a new cache. Later in the day everyone joins back up on the trails somewhere. The owner of the new hide shares the coords of their new cache with the others. They proceed to head out and find the new cache as they are half a day's hike in and not too far from the new cache, and chances are they won't be back for a long time if at all. They either sign the log sheet down at the bottom if at all, and do not enter a log online until after someone else claims the FTF. Since they're not claiming the FTF nor are they logging a find online until after a FTF is logged, even though this cache is not published when they found it, does it make their find any less valid?

 

Like I said, an ethic's question.....

This scenario sounds perfectly fine ot me. I simply appreciate the fact that they are NOT claiming FTF, and rather, that they are leaving the real FTF for someone else; that all sounds most reasonable and realistic to me.

Ditto. That's a frequent scenario in my area.

[+Isonzo Karst]

The find is fine.

 

The first to find is gone when they find it, regardless of "claims". Period.

 

Only in make-believe-land is the first to find a cache someone other than the first person who finds the cache, sorry.

[+infiniteMPG]

The find is fine. The first to find is gone when they find it, regardless of "claims". Period. Only in make-believe-land is the first to find a cache someone other than the first person who finds the cache, sorry.

When I hide a cache the last thing I do is walk away from the cache, pop into the find mode on the GPSr, then see if the coords I have lead me back to the cache and I can find it. So if people do this, the owner is actually the first person to find it...

 

Okay, I'm ducking and running... put the bat down....

[+hycam]

The find is fine.

 

The first to find is gone when they find it, regardless of "claims". Period.

 

Only in make-believe-land is the first to find a cache someone other than the first person who finds the cache, sorry.

I must live in make-believe land, then. I think a reasonable definition of first-to-find can include the logical qualifier "once the cache is made public". I believe that better reflects the intent of most cache hiders. Of course, if all you're interested in is the strictly semantic definition, then I'm forced to agree with you.

[+StarBrand]

The find is fine.

 

The first to find is gone when they find it, regardless of "claims". Period.

 

Only in make-believe-land is the first to find a cache someone other than the first person who finds the cache, sorry.

I must live in make-believe land, then. I think a reasonable definition of first-to-find can include the logical qualifier "once the cache is made public". I believe that better reflects the intent of most cache hiders. Of course, if all you're interested in is the strictly semantic definition, then I'm forced to agree with you.

FTFAP*

AP=After Publication

FTFAPOGC

OGC=on Geocaching.com

[+Isonzo Karst]

I must live in make-believe land, then. I think a reasonable definition of first-to-find can include the logical qualifier "once the cache is made public". I believe that better reflects the intent of most cache hiders. Of course, if all you're interested in is the strictly semantic definition, then I'm forced to agree with you.

 

As a former FTF fanatic, I can say that I found many caches with signatures buried in the log (friends of the cache hider). None of those caches are on my FTF list (which is just a private list I keep). The "once the cache is made public" qualifier just doesn't come close to the joy of an empty log.

 

I think the cache hider needs to understand that the "qualified" FTF just isn't going to please a lot a cachers - though it may please some. Personally, I'd say the FTF is gone. Which is okay.

 

I published some hides on a local board before they came out on GC.com. I got some flack from a cacher who assumed he'd be FTF and found a signed log. GC.com is a listing service; one of many ways to make a cache location public. Owner's option.

[+infiniteMPG]

I published some hides on a local board before they came out on GC.com. I got some flack from a cacher who assumed he'd be FTF and found a signed log. GC.com is a listing service; one of many ways to make a cache location public. Owner's option.

Totally agree and as with many other aspects of GC, there's a lot of wiggle room for owners and seekers to have fun. Catching flack is part of the package, too, unfortunately. I can recall snagging a local FTF and got some flack because my watch battery died a few days earlier and I didn't notice. I wrote a date on the log sheet a couple days before it got posted and that got me a few emails.

[+NotThePainter]

In the absence of any official rules sanctioning body, FTF is what you make of it.

 

I realized this early on in my "first to" days and realized that I enjoyed the "race" part of the hunt, and a race implies a starting time.

 

That's when I stopped hunting FTF and starting hunting FTFP, the P stands for published. Like we saw above, FTFAP is also used, never seen FTFAPOGC, that seems both obvious and unweildy.

 

It is like having different classes of racing, you might have the small engined cars and the big engined cars on the same track at the same time, but more than one trophy is handed out. Works for SCCA.

[Clan Riffster]

In the absence of any official rules sanctioning body, FTF is what you make of it.

Yeah, I agree. If I were part of the crew seeking that cache prior to publication, I would've treated it as a beta test, signing the last page of the logbook as such. Once it was published and found, then I would log my online find. I don't think ethics enters into the picture, as that phrase implies that rules exist. Since there are no set standards for claiming FTF, there cannot, by definition, be any rules broken by the process you described. My decision is simply one based on personal preference, not on any perceived interpretation of non-existent rules.

[+Isonzo Karst]

In the absence of any official rules sanctioning body, FTF is what you make of it.

Yeah, I agree. If I were part of the crew seeking that cache prior to publication, I would've treated it as a beta test, signing the last page of the logbook as such. and left the log unsigned. Once it was published and found, then I would either log my online find per agreement with the owner, or waited until I had the opportunity to return and sign the log (more likely). I don't think ethics enters into the picture, as that phrase implies that rules exist. Since there are no set standards for claiming FTF, there cannot, by definition, be any rules broken by the process you described. My decision is simply one based on personal preference, not on any perceived interpretation of non-existent rules.

 

strikethrough and italics mine. People really really like finding an unsigned log. Why sign it if you're beta testing? You and the owner both know that the beta test worked. You can either log it unsigned (owner's rules) or log it someday when you return and sign it.

[Clan Riffster]

That works too. But being a Scot, I tend to lean toward the lazier solution when possible.

[+KoosKoos]

People really really like finding an unsigned log. Why sign it if you're beta testing? You and the owner both know that the beta test worked. You can either log it unsigned (owner's rules) or log it someday when you return and sign it.

 

If the owner's friends are going to sign the log before it's published, I think the owner should make note of that in the cache description that the FTF has already happened. If I was an FTF fanatic who was rushing out for that empty log, I'd be miffed to find out someone already signed it 2 days before the cache was published.

 

If I was in the group, I wouldn't claim a FTF on that one since we had a "head start" in the FTF race. I'd either go with the no-signing option (with owner's permission) or just not log the find.

[CoyoteRed]

I personally only consider myself MEFF if the log has no other entries than that of the owner's initial one.

[+briansnat]

An ethical GC question. Imagine you're caching with others somewhere miles deep in the wild and you all split up. While split up someone hides a new cache. Later in the day everyone joins back up on the trails somewhere. The owner of the new hide shares the coords of their new cache with the others. They proceed to head out and find the new cache as they are half a day's hike in and not too far from the new cache, and chances are they won't be back for a long time if at all. They either sign the log sheet down at the bottom if at all, and do not enter a log online until after someone else claims the FTF. Since they're not claiming the FTF nor are they logging a find online until after a FTF is logged, even though this cache is not published when they found it, does it make their find any less valid?

 

Like I said, an ethic's question.....

 

Its no less valid. And whether they claim FTF or not, they would still be the FTF. Next person to find it would be the second to find.

[janx]

strikethrough and italics mine. People really really like finding an unsigned log. Why sign it if you're beta testing? You and the owner both know that the beta test worked. You can either log it unsigned (owner's rules) or log it someday when you return and sign it.

 

if they find it, log it online, but don't sign it, people will complain because there's always some busybody backtracking paper logs they find with online logs, just to whine about other people.

 

In the OP's scenario, the friends hunted the cache when given the coords by the hider. They found it. Yes, they were technically first to find, though they wanted to reserve the prizes AND the logs to someone from GC.com.

 

They could have signed the log, took the swag, AND signed online.

 

They also could have signed the top of the log that they tested the cache to ensure the FTF would find a good cache.

 

In the end, since this is an open hobby, y'all should be happy there was a cache to find, with stuff in it, and they didn't crap in it.

[+infiniteMPG]

I wasn't as concerned about who claims the FTF as I was about the ethical nature of finding a cache before it's published. I think GC has enuff flexibility and wiggle room to let people play as they see fit, and with things like the FTF claim, that's up to the cachers and occasionally the owners. With cache stats programs you could claim a FTF on every cache you've ever found and it would show that in your profile as fact, even though it's not. Stats like FTF's are your own personal thing because there is no way for the GC database to know anything beyond who logged a find first and we all know the FTF isn't always the first to log a find.

 

And sometimes when people find a cache, they hide it back differently, or maintenance causes it to be moved or the camo to be changed, all these would another "flavor" of FTF (FTF in new location, FTF since the camo was changed, FTF since the magnet fell off and it was stuck up in the tree....). If you could compile cache stats from profiles you'd probably find a ton of caches that have several different people claiming FTF's on but if it makes them happier and they have more fun, then go for it!

[Dj Storm]

If I'm the hider, I won't hide a cache while hiking with friends. This way I avoid delaying them while hiding the cache, also I avoid having to deny them a quick find.

 

If I'm the friend tagging along, i wont seek the cache, even if invited, but will travel back for the find once the cache gets published. If the hider insists, I might go find it, sign on page zero (the page containing $cache_name, hidden on $date, hidden by $hider, beta tested by $me), and log online as a note; will never log a find it in this case.

 

If I'm a seeker, won't claim a FTF; I'm slightly annoyed when I see a cache placed on the 16th, found on the 16th, published on the 19th. If the cache was placed in 2006 and published in 2008, with several finds during this time, then I would conclude that the cache was previously published on another site, and don't have any problem with that.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

FTF = First to Find

 

That is always the first person to go out and seek the cache and sign the logbook. Letting someone else claim FTF when they were actually 2nd or 3rd or whatever to go out and find it makes little sense to me. Anyway it should not diminish the experience.

 

I see nothing wrong with giving individuals or groups "advance" notice before publication.

 

I agree. Geocaching.com is a listing site. They don't own your caches and you're not required to list them here. If you hide a cache and someone finds it first, they're FTF.

Edited November 6, 2008 by fox-and-the-hound

[+sbell111]

The find is fine. The first to find is gone when they find it, regardless of "claims". Period. Only in make-believe-land is the first to find a cache someone other than the first person who finds the cache, sorry.

When I hide a cache the last thing I do is walk away from the cache, pop into the find mode on the GPSr, then see if the coords I have lead me back to the cache and I can find it. So if people do this, the owner is actually the first person to find it...

 

Okay, I'm ducking and running... put the bat down....

Are you afraid of this little guy?

To the thread's topic:

 

They didn't see you hide it, so there is nothing wrong with their logging a find.

 

To the 'FTF' side topic:

 

As shown in this thread, 'FTF' means different things to different people. Since it isn't a formal part of the game, I could care less whether or not the firt person who finds the cache after it's being posted on GC.com considers themselves as having 'earned' a FTF, or not. Further, I could care less if the first twenty people who find it notes it in their personal journals (or online logs) as 'FTF!'.

 

As a cache owner, I only care about whether or not they actually found it, not the order in which they did or whether they are claiming some make believe 'prize' to increment their personal stats.

 

As a cache finder, I am only concerned with my logs, not anyone elses. If I were to be the first person to find the cache after it was listed on GC.com, I would consider it a FTF. If I kept a count of caches that I had been FTF on, that cache find would increment the count.

Edited November 7, 2008 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

A couple posts reminded me of one other thing.

 

Imagine a scenario where a cacher archives one of his caches, moves the box to a new location and lists it as a new cache on GC.com. If I find the 'new' cache before anyone else, I am going to consider that a FTF, even though the log book may already have a hundred signatures from the cache's previous placement. A pristine logbook is not a requirement of 'FTF', for me.

 

Similarly, if a cache is listed on some other public geocaching site (or a private site) or even just as a letterbox and then is listed on GC.com, I would consider it a FTF if I were to find it before anyone else after it was listed on GC.com.

 

FTF, to me, is the first person to find that cache using it's listing on GC.com.

[AZcachemeister]

I'm sure someone has said that it's between the cache owner and his companions.

If someone comes along for the FTF, and feel it's been spoiled by the other signatures in the book, it's too bad.

 

That being said, I have signed logbooks for caches I helped hide, but only to add my comments and thank the owner for having me along. In the same fashion, others have signed logs in caches I have hidden, but not one of them has claimed a find for it.

[+infiniteMPG]

FTF, to me, is the first person to find that cache using it's listing on GC.com.

Good way to put it. That also puts merit to someone "test" seeking the cache or hiking with the owner and finding it before it's listed are fine, but the FTF is the first person to find it from the published listing on GC's site. Other people may of found it but in a nutshell it sounds like a good middle ground definition is as you stated, the "official" FTF is the person that finds the cache first using the information posted on the GC website.

 

As far as the bat.... cute lil' guy!!! The "bat" I was worried about would also be flying thru the air but not using any wings...

[+Ladybug Kids]

I recently hid a backcountry cache while hiking with two other cachers. They took a snack/drink break and I moved on down the trail and placed an ammo can. I provided them with the coordinates once they caught up with me, they found the cache, and signed the log sheet in a way to leave FTF after publishing rights for the next finder and left the FTF prize in the cache. The cache has since been found again and there doesn't appear to be any FTF angst in the logs. Everything was above board...I stated on the cache page that the other two cachers did the beta test, they logged the cache with the date they found it as soon as it published so future finders would know they woudn't find a blank log book, and the first finder after publishing was happy to have been brought to the area.

 

Burning Daylight - Victor Borge Lite

 

I've done the same thing for several other of our back country hides when traveling with a group and never has a subsequent finder complained about not finding a blank log book. As to who was the "true" FTF, it really hasn't mattered...people where happy to find a cache in a cool spot, period. Afterall, caching is about about location.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Ladybug Kids

[+briansnat]

I wasn't as concerned about who claims the FTF as I was about the ethical nature of finding a cache before it's published.

 

There is nothing unethical about it at all. It's the owner's cache and it's really nobody else's business how, when and where he chooses to advertise the coordinates.

[+NanCycle]

I like the idea of the companions signing as "beta testers" and having that mentioned on the cache page.

In any event, if there is a FTF prize, I don't think the cache owner's companions should take that--unless that was the owner's intention.

Edited November 7, 2008 by DoubleBent

[+infiniteMPG]

Everything was above board...I stated on the cache page that the other two cachers did the beta test, they logged the cache with the date they found it as soon as it published so future finders would know they woudn't find a blank log book, and the first finder after publishing was happy to have been brought to the area.

I agree with everything you stated except not totally with the logging on line. Not that I mind that except there are a few problems with that. One, the dates on their finds would be prior to the date of publishing so not sure how GC website would handle that, and secondly, stat's programs like Cache Stats scans thru all your finds to see what finds you were the first person to log a find on on and assumes you were the FTF. You can edit this but for someone with hundreds or thousands of finds, that would be a royal pain. At the most I'd put a note log on the cache saying what you did and then post the find the day after the FTF logged it.

 

But that's just MHO and all of these come to the same conclusion, FTF is in the eye of the logger 'n owner...

[+Ladybug Kids]

I agree with everything you stated except not totally with the logging on line. Not that I mind that except there are a few problems with that. One, the dates on their finds would be prior to the date of publishing so not sure how GC website would handle that

One can post a log or note for any date in the past, but cannot postdate a log or note. You can see how it works by clicking on the link in my earlier post.

 

secondly, stat's programs like Cache Stats scans thru all your finds to see what finds you were the first person to log a find on on and assumes you were the FTF.

Logging the find before the published date doesn't change this problem. There are many cases where the first to log is not the first to find. Personally, if I was second, third or more to find, I hold off on logging the find until the FTF logs it. Sometimes someone else ends up being first to log anyway, tripping up some of the caching stats programs. Also, many of our events feature caches placed for the event attendees that are published the next day and the attendees log the cache the same date as the event after the cache publishes.

 

But that's just MHO and all of these come to the same conclusion, FTF is in the eye of the logger 'n owner

And, from my perspective and experience, folks don't seem to be as concerned about the FTF on a backcountry cache that might get five or fewer visits per year versus an urban cache that will get slammed with a couple dozen hits the day it's published. Mayhaps because of more "competition?" Edited November 8, 2008 by Ladybug Kids

[+roundnround we go]

Yeah, I agree. If I were part of the crew seeking that cache prior to publication, I would've treated it as a beta test, signing the last page of the logbook as such. Once it was published and found, then I would log my online find.

Lets say you attend an event and the event host hands out a list of unpublished caches to everyone in attendance to go out and find the day of the event. Then the day after the event they are published. Does that make everyone who found the caches the day of the event a Beta tester? In the opinions of some that I have read on here none of those cachers qualify as the FTF'er since the cache was not published yet. My opinion is FTF is FTF published or not. Once the log has been signed it's a done deal.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I agree with everything you stated except not totally with the logging on line. Not that I mind that except there are a few problems with that. One, the dates on their finds would be prior to the date of publishing so not sure how GC website would handle that, and secondly, stat's programs like Cache Stats scans thru all your finds to see what finds you were the first person to log a find on on and assumes you were the FTF. You can edit this but for someone with hundreds or thousands of finds, that would be a royal pain. At the most I'd put a note log on the cache saying what you did and then post the find the day after the FTF logged it.

 

Dude, you're deep into make believe-land here. You're saying the guys with the FTF should deliberately misdate their find so someone else, who finds a cache with a signed log, can "claim" FTF? (or some stats program can "assign" FTF)? Either the first finders found the cache and signed the log or they didn't.

 

You came in asking if it's ethical for them to log the find - I believe you've gotten 100% agreement that YES, it's a find. But now you and some others want to say it isn't "really" a find - so that a second "FTF" can be gifted? Yeah, I understand that you're thinking that the cachers with the coords on the trail, pre-publication, aren't "really" FTF, because they didn't participate in some larger race for the cache; but they really did find it, sign it and they got there first.

 

I'm not opposed to FTFPPGC (first to find post publication on GC.com) - but if you're calling it FTF, then you're referencing First to Find.

 

When the log is signed the FTF is GONE. The courteous thing to do is note that in the cache write up. Learned by me the hard way.

 

The "modified FTF" can be applied to any find of any cache. Heck, every time I find a cache, it's the first time I've found it!* whee, they're all FTF!!!!!

 

 

* I was once caching in the state forest north of my home with a geo-buddy. We went out after a new hide, and on the return, he mentioned that his gps was showing another hide. I didn't have it, so I figured I'd already found it, but we went so he could get it. Neither of us remembered the darn thing, and it was a bit of a hunt for that ammo can. We were looking through the log to see if I'd already signed it. Turned out we BOTH had! Anyway, having hunted it from coords, with no previous memory of the darn thing, surely I could enter your make-believe world and log not just a find (my second) but a FTF! after all, I'd no

memory of it, and what's a little thing like "the log is signed" got to do with FTF? Apparently, not much.

Edited November 9, 2008 by Isonzo Karst