How does a FTF or log get posted.....

[+arabstar1982]

How does a FTF log or other found it log get posted BEFORE the cache published log is posted? I have seen this on a few caches, and although this may seem like such a simple or obvious question for more experienced users of Geocaching.com, I am curious. I don't really care, just a curiousity thing and yes, I know, curiousity has killed the cat, but inquiring minds want to know how these things work like this Is it because the FTF cacher has inside information, or is there a lag in the published logs, etc. thanks for the advance in clarifying this, and again, I know its a very simple possibly dumb question to ask.

 

Deanna

[+plumbrokeacres]

I've noticed the past little while that FTf's here are showing before the publish even on the same day.

sometimes people have inside knowledge, sometimes they see a fellow cacher nearby where there is no cache and come back to look after they have left and get lucky.

some just happen to be in the right place at the right time and notice something not quite right and discover a unpublished cache (happened to me once)

[+briansnat]

Sometimes friends give the coordinate to friends before the cache is published. Sometimes people with the an aptitude for being a detective are able to figure out where a cache is before it is published (usually if there is a TB in it when it is submitted).

[+Chrysalides]

Sometimes the site just has hiccups. Fairly often, I think. I've posted notes AFTER I see the "published" log, a couple of hours AFTER I received the new cache notification e-mail, but it appears before the log.

 

Sometimes you just read too much into things

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

How does a FTF log or other found it log get posted BEFORE the cache published log is posted? I have seen this on a few caches, and although this may seem like such a simple or obvious question for more experienced users of Geocaching.com, I am curious. I don't really care, just a curiousity thing and yes, I know, curiousity has killed the cat, but inquiring minds want to know how these things work like this Is it because the FTF cacher has inside information, or is there a lag in the published logs, etc. thanks for the advance in clarifying this, and again, I know its a very simple possibly dumb question to ask.

 

Deanna

There can be many ways. On one that I had, I was given the coordinates by the hider before it was published. I went to the park with them, but after that I was on my own...all the help I got was...them laughing at me while I looked. Sometimes this is done as a way to get the coordinates and the hide checked for quality.

 

Another way is accidentally. The finder could have been looking for a place to hide one, and found one already in place. You'll likely find plenty of "Other Things" while you're out Caching. Letterboxes, Caches from other sites Etc.

 

If a TB is listed as being dropped in a Cache, someone who sees the log can sometimes figure out (from things like the TBs distance, and the name of the Cache) a general area to look. For example, if you see a log that says XXXX TB was dropped into a cache called "Boyd Park" you can do some research and figure out things like...Boyd Park is only 3 acres, and half of it is off limits due to existing Caches, and half of the remaining area is in the pond, so the Cache must be in the remaining area, of which 80 percent is the soccer field, so the cache must be over in that 1/4 acre of trees over in the corner(I know, my calculations don't add up, it's just an example).

 

Other things...

 

Finds can be back dated when the log is written, either accidentally on purposely. If you're logging several finds in a row, the date will automatically stay set the same as the last log you wrote, so if you don't change it, it can look like a log before published. You can also do that on purpose.

[+arabstar1982]

Thanks for the info guys! I figured that sometimes it was friends giving friends coordinates, and that a possible glitch or lag could have caused it, but I also was curious about it. Thanks for clearing that up!

 

Deanna

[+jeffbouldin]

Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh! I know! I know! An occult hand reached down.......Right Vinny?

[jholly]

How does a FTF log or other found it log get posted BEFORE the cache published log is posted? I have seen this on a few caches, and although this may seem like such a simple or obvious question for more experienced users of Geocaching.com, I am curious. I don't really care, just a curiousity thing and yes, I know, curiousity has killed the cat, but inquiring minds want to know how these things work like this Is it because the FTF cacher has inside information, or is there a lag in the published logs, etc. thanks for the advance in clarifying this, and again, I know its a very simple possibly dumb question to ask.

 

Deanna

 

It is an artifact of the recent changes to how finds are listed on your account page. It looks like the find logs were posted BEFORE the publish log, but actually they are posted AFTER the published log. The definitive answer can be found by examining the log ID's in a .gpx file. A recent one I FTF'ed (GC1NRQM), we note the published log is log ID 64878033, my log id is 64883032. Since log ID's are sequential and monotonically increasing you can see the published log was recorded before my FTF log. There is a bug drop note before the published log, log ID 64873569, clearly this was logged before the cache was published. If the logs would have a visible timestamp and sorted on date and timestamp the confusion would not exist.

 

I will return you to the regularly scheduled program of idle speculation.

 

Jim

 

PS. Nobody gave me any prior warning or other information. I got it by looking at recently published logs. I did not see any occult hands in the vicinity while I was signing the log book.

Edited March 24, 2009 by jholly

[+Chrysalides]

It is an artifact of the recent changes to how finds are listed on your account page. It looks like the find logs were posted BEFORE the publish log, but actually they are posted AFTER the published log.

 

PS. Nobody gave me any prior warning or other information. I got it by looking at recently published logs. I did not see any occult hands in the vicinity while I was signing the log book.

Ah, that explains what I observed recently. Very curious behavior. You'd think the "published" would come before anything else on that same date. Or just sort by the log ID. Oh well, no big deal. Next site update, probably.

 

As for why you don't see any occult hands, I quote Terry Pratchett from Good Omens:

 

"It was for the same reason that people in Trafalgar Square can't see England."

[+Geovius]

Some persons are using know flaws on gc.com to get unpublished cache coordinates and after that they go to get FBA.

[+Lil Devil]

I think the real problem is the site is showing the logs in reverse order within each day.

[+Scubasonic]

Sometimes the site just has hiccups. Fairly often, I think. I've posted notes AFTER I see the "published" log, a couple of hours AFTER I received the new cache notification e-mail, but it appears before the log.

 

Sometimes you just read too much into things

 

I have got several FTFs this way, one time in particular the site was having trouble and it seemed odd that new caches were not popping up so I went back to the home page and started a search by my zip code, and low and behold I found about 3 new caches that were not found yet, and obviously the notifications had not gone out otherwise I would have received them so I rushed out and grabbed them. Sure enough about 3 hrs later after I had got them I received the notification. So those glitches do happen sometimes.

 

Scubasonic

[Dj Storm]

Two other situations:

 

1. Event cache, found by attendees, later published on GC; the attendees who found the cache, log it, backdating their log to the event date - a few days before the publishing date.

2. Cache that was listed on another site, now crosslisted on GC. Finders may log their found here, in this case the finds may be several months or even years before the publishing date. Look at the difference between "date placed" and "date published".

Edited March 25, 2009 by Dj Storm

[+Allanon]

Two other situations:

 

1. Event cache, found by attendees, later published on GC; the attendees who found the cache, log it, backdating their log to the event date - a few days before the publishing date.

2. Cache that was listed on another site, now crosslisted on GC. Finders may log their found here, in this case the finds may be several months or even years before the publishing date. Look at the difference between "date placed" and "date published".

I've never heard of an event cache being published after the event has taken place.

 

Do you have an example?

[+9Key]

I think the real problem is the site is showing the logs in reverse order within each day.

Ditto. There must be something out of whack in a order by statement.

[+Lil Devil]

I just did some detailed analysis and determined that I was partially wrong, but 9key was right. There is certainly something out of whack

 

I looked at the source code of a few cache pages. In the source is the ID number of each log entry. These IDs are assigned sequentially as the logs are entered. As an aside, there are over 65 million logs in the system!

 

Anyways, here are some snippets of source code from a couple of cache pages:

March 24 by <a name="65693572" Found

March 24 by <a name="65659864" Found

March 24 by <a name="65611574" Found

 

March 23 by <a name="65579143" Published

March 23 by <a name="65596125" Found

March 23 by <a name="65594005" Found

March 23 by <a name="65584720" Note

March 23 by <a name="65583036" Found

May 23, 2008 by <a name="45495011" Found

May 23, 2008 by <a name="45458898" Found

May 23, 2008 by <a name="45397962" Found

May 23, 2008 by <a name="45148569" Found

 

May 15, 2008 by <a name="44565771" Published

May 15, 2008 by <a name="44570318" Found

May 15, 2008 by <a name="44568293" Found

May 15, 2008 by <a name="44564922" Note

Looking closely at those ID numbers, they are all in correct sequential order, with the oldest at the bottom, with the exception of the published log which is always listed first within the date. The same thing was observed on 3 other cache pages not shown here.

 

I think what was intended was to always show the published log as the first log, but the logic is wrong and it's being shown as the last log within the first day.

 

Hopefully with this analysis the developers can identify the problem code and correct it.

[jholly]

I just did some detailed analysis and determined that I was partially wrong, but 9key was right. There is certainly something out of whack

 

I looked at the source code of a few cache pages. In the source is the ID number of each log entry. These IDs are assigned sequentially as the logs are entered. As an aside, there are over 65 million logs in the system!

 

Anyways, here are some snippets of source code from a couple of cache pages:

March 24 by <a name="65693572" Found

March 24 by <a name="65659864" Found

March 24 by <a name="65611574" Found

 

March 23 by <a name="65579143" Published

March 23 by <a name="65596125" Found

March 23 by <a name="65594005" Found

March 23 by <a name="65584720" Note

March 23 by <a name="65583036" Found

May 23, 2008 by <a name="45495011" Found

May 23, 2008 by <a name="45458898" Found

May 23, 2008 by <a name="45397962" Found

May 23, 2008 by <a name="45148569" Found

 

May 15, 2008 by <a name="44565771" Published

May 15, 2008 by <a name="44570318" Found

May 15, 2008 by <a name="44568293" Found

May 15, 2008 by <a name="44564922" Note

Looking closely at those ID numbers, they are all in correct sequential order, with the oldest at the bottom, with the exception of the published log which is always listed first within the date. The same thing was observed on 3 other cache pages not shown here.

 

I think what was intended was to always show the published log as the first log, but the logic is wrong and it's being shown as the last log within the first day.

 

Hopefully with this analysis the developers can identify the problem code and correct it.

 

Thank you for verifying what I already said in post #8. This happened when the logs on the user account page were put into milestone order instead of the original oldest on the bottom and newest on the top for a given date. Folks were upset with the display, it was fixed and now the cache page logs are screwed up. Maybe it will get fixed and maybe it won't. Doesn't bother me any way. I know when I sign a blank logbook I was FTF and that is all that I care about.

 

Jim