FTF Before Publication

[+CCWelch]

I have been seeing more and more first to finds on caches before the admin publishes it. How is that happening? I am a Premium member and by the time I get notification of the cache someone has already found it and the log is in before the admins published post.

I don't think GC.com should allow caches to be found before they are published except in the case of special commemorative caches like for other cachers birthdays or find # whatever, then only the person it is for should be able to log it before it is published.

 

OK, I will get off my soapbox now!

[+jtbrady01]

was the cache published after an event? Seen it before where event participants were given first dibs at getting a cache and then it was published a couple days later.

[+Y2KOTA]

I've seen the FTF before the admin publishes it lately. Its not what you think it looks like. Its somehow just show up like that. Just the last few weeks it been happening from what I remember.

[+sbell111]

... I am a Premium member and by the time I get notification of the cache someone has already found it and the log is in before the admins published post. ...

Just because the found log resides lower on the page than the reviewer log does not mean that the found log was entered first.

[+CCWelch]

This actually has been going on about a month and no they were not from an event. Sometimes it is up to 24 hours before publication.

[+Firefighter Skippy]

Perhaps the hider gave the doords to a friend to "test find" the cache. I've also seen where folks watch for drops of coins/tbs into new caches and are able to get teh coords but no other info.

[+gof1]

Has this topic come up in the rotation already? Heck, the last thread isn't even cold yet.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I don't think GC.com should allow caches to be found before they are published except in the case of special commemorative caches like for other cachers birthdays or find # whatever, then only the person it is for should be able to log it before it is published.

 

OK, I will get off my soapbox now!

 

It is the cache owner who determines such things. GC is just a listing service.

Breathe deeply. Repeat after me: Oh, well.

Now, go and have some fun. That's waht it's really all about.

[Mr.Yuck]

This actually has been going on about a month and no they were not from an event. Sometimes it is up to 24 hours before publication.

 

As Firefighter Skippy said, the cache owners are probably giving out the coordinates ahead of time to their homeboys. Not necessarily to "test" the cache, but just because they can.

 

Or sometimes, people can get really wacky, be watching all the travel bugs in the area, and if the cache owner drops them into the cache before publication, they can get a pretty good fix on the cache location, within a couple hundred feet.

 

But it's probably the first one.

Edited April 25, 2009 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+Gimpy13]

I was wondering the same thing - how do they log before it's posted? Then it happened to me. I got my first FTF a week or so ago. It went like this:

 

I got a text message on my cell phone at 1115pm.

I checked the website and confirmed the text message- the cache had been posted and the log said "published" and that was the only entry.

I left my house at 1130pm.

I signed the log at about 1150pm.

I got home and entered by log online about 1215am.

My log showed up below the reviewer's published log.

 

I had no prior knowledge of this cache or anything in it. I have no explanation - I can only say there wasn't anything other than a straight find and log involved.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...bb-260c6e81bb30

[+briansnat]

I don't think GC.com should allow caches to be found before they are published except in the case of special commemorative caches like for other cachers birthdays or find # whatever, then only the person it is for should be able to log it before it is published.

 

This is just a listing service. It isn't geocaching.com's, or anybody else's business how, when, where and to whom the cache owner releases his coordinates

[+Loony Lori]

That happens all the time. I cache in Illinois and Northern Wisconsin and it's true in both areas it's ALWAYS the same people that get FTF. I think something fishy goes on....and no one will ever tell you how that happens. MUMS the word for those FTFinders.

 

How do you get a text message sent to your phone for new caches?

Edited April 25, 2009 by Loony Lori

[+Gimpy13]

How do you get a text message sent to your phone for new caches?

It's under "member features" for premium members. This is a link http://www.geocaching.com/notify/

- I have mine set up to send me a message for any new notification within a 15 mile radius of my home coordinates.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

The order of logs was changed with the previous site update. Logs for a single day seem to be in chronological order with oldest one first. So, a cache published log will precede find/DNF logs on the same day. That's why your find log appears to be preceding the Published log.

[+TheMacMan]

yeah i believe i started this very same thread less than 2 weeks ago. it got pretty heated for a minute or two.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...p;#entry3902414

 

 

Just remember there's no rule against it. FTF hounds are out there, and some of them will pretty much do whatever they can to get it. "Fair" is not in the rules when it comes to things like this. Don't take it to hard. It's just the way some people play it.

[+PJPeters]

Tucked into the latest site update (21 Apr 09):

...

Release:

...1536: Unpublished Printer friendly pages

Closed loophole which allowed viewing of an unpublished cache page using the print friendly view

...

 

So apparently, there was a backdoor, if you could figure out how to use it. We had the problem here for a bit, too.

 

There are other methods. For example, if a cache owner drops a bug before publishing, and a local cacher is watching it, they can find the general area.

 

And it could be just as easy as talking with a friend.

[+Wooden Cyclist]

There must be another explenation. I have just recently started placing my first hides. Being new I was interested in every developement on my caches, so I watched the posts closely. On GC1QBYY I saw the reviewer publish the cache. Then I watched as the cacher posts came in. The second post, by Mo Jolove showed up later that day, but appears first in the listing. Must be some kind of wrinkle in the way the posts are placed on the list.

[the3gmen]

This type of thing is exactly why FTF means so little to me. I used to try for them but now I rarely check out the webpage when my phone gets the new cache notification.

[+chadli]

I have noticed that too... only usually the FTF is published by a reviewer. Is that legal? Can a reviewer get the ftf THEN publish it for everyone else? Just doesn't seem fair...

[+gof1]

I have noticed that too... only usually the FTF is published by a reviewer. Is that legal? Can a reviewer get the ftf THEN publish it for everyone else? Just doesn't seem fair...

 

Um, have an example?

[jholly]

There must be another explenation. I have just recently started placing my first hides. Being new I was interested in every developement on my caches, so I watched the posts closely. On GC1QBYY I saw the reviewer publish the cache. Then I watched as the cacher posts came in. The second post, by Mo Jolove showed up later that day, but appears first in the listing. Must be some kind of wrinkle in the way the posts are placed on the list.

 

This type of thing is exactly why FTF means so little to me. I used to try for them but now I rarely check out the webpage when my phone gets the new cache notification.

 

I have noticed that too... only usually the FTF is published by a reviewer. Is that legal? Can a reviewer get the ftf THEN publish it for everyone else? Just doesn't seem fair..

 

It APPEARS that the logs were posted before the publish log, but in fact they were entered AFTER the publish log. If you download the .gpx of the cache in question and look at the LogID's you will see that the log ID's for the FTF and other cachers have higher Log ID numbers than the publish log. Log ID's are unique, issued in increasing order, so you can determine the order of the logging. This display is the result of changing the listing order on your profile page. Do to complaints the order was changed so it follows chronological order, but it broke the listing on the cache page. The cache page now lists the logs in descending order for each day, i.e., publish log followed by first to log, second to log, etc.

 

Jim

[+Cryptid]

I was wondering the same thing - how do they log before it's posted? Then it happened to me. I got my first FTF a week or so ago. It went like this:

 

I got a text message on my cell phone at 1115pm.

I checked the website and confirmed the text message- the cache had been posted and the log said "published" and that was the only entry.

I left my house at 1130pm.

I signed the log at about 1150pm.

I got home and entered by log online about 1215am.

My log showed up below the reviewer's published log.

 

I had no prior knowledge of this cache or anything in it. I have no explanation - I can only say there wasn't anything other than a straight find and log involved.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...bb-260c6e81bb30

 

With the exception of the times, this has happened to me on several occasions, but only in the last month, and not with every FTF I have found. One of them has two of us logged before the cache was published, and I know we both found it after is it was published.

[+mrbort]

I've noticed this too and the explanations make sense for the most part but yesterday I went to my first event and, knowing that we didn't have a lot of time to devote to the actual cache hunting, we milled around a bit and then wandered over to a cache that was part of the event and amazingly were the FTFs. Due to a death in the family and also a wedding (O_O crazy week) we had other things to do and by the time I got back to the computer it was late afternoon but the event was still going on. I logged the find well before anyone yet a later find showed up before the reviewer and mine showed up after. I really don't care about the order or FTF but for the sake of adding data that was my experience with that one. My first (and only other) FTF was the other day where I received the email alert and was heading out to the store anyway, was shocked that it was on the way and found it. When I got back, I logged it and for the balance of the day it was after the reviewer's published note but now it appears before. This would be totally consistent with the explanations offered thus far but the first example is confusing. Perhaps the other log just got caught up in the logjam of tubes in the interwebs. Glad someone brought this up; it's interesting to me on a technical level but I actually have found that I prefer to not be the first to find caches -- I feel like I'm robbing others who really revel in it their chance to get that lil jolt

[+Chris & Renee]

How do you get a text message sent to your phone for new caches?

It's under "member features" for premium members. This is a link http://www.geocaching.com/notify/

- I have mine set up to send me a message for any new notification within a 15 mile radius of my home coordinates.

 

Is the sms feature only avalible to certian countryes, i am a premium member and see no option at all that i can see to send a sms, only via email which i have enable and seems to work ok.

[+Chrysalides]

Is the sms feature only avalible to certian countryes, i am a premium member and see no option at all that i can see to send a sms, only via email which i have enable and seems to work ok.

I think you'll need to find an e-mail to SMS service for this to work. Many carriers provide such a service for their subscribers.

[Keystone]

I have noticed that too... only usually the FTF is published by a reviewer. Is that legal? Can a reviewer get the ftf THEN publish it for everyone else? Just doesn't seem fair...

Are you sure you're not confusing the "published" log with the "found it" log type?

 

Reviewers don't physically visit the cache locations prior to pressing the "publish" button. That log doesn't mean that the reviewer found the cache. We have to drive there just like anyone else.

[+Wadcutter]

We just found a cache (GC1RBK0) that came out earlier in the day and we found it at least 8 hrs after we received notice of a new cache. When we logged it the entry shows us finding it before the reviewer's entry. We had no prior tip and don't know the cache owner. We just got the notice and decided after dinner to go look for it.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

The system sorts logs in chronological order (oldest first - at the top) for each day. So, if you log after the reviewer "Publishes" (as normal!) on the same day, then the published log would be listed first, then your log. Anyone that logs after you would come after your log.

 

It does seem backwards as I would normally expect the entire list of logs to be in order, bottom to top. It's a programming thing, from what I've heard.

 

It would seem that listing them by their Log Control Number (for want of a better term) would work but the hiccup occurs when someone enters a new log days later and backdates it. The LCN would be higher than those of logs with later dates than the backdated one, so a simple sort wouldn't work. It has to sort by date first, then by LCN.

 

It's rarely even noticed since most caches don't get more than one or two logs per day - except when brand new.

 

And, the system does not recognize FTF in any way. The logs are in order of posting, not finding.

[+J-Way]

It would seem that listing them by their Log Control Number (for want of a better term) would work but the hiccup occurs when someone enters a new log days later and backdates it. The LCN would be higher than those of logs with later dates than the backdated one, so a simple sort wouldn't work. It has to sort by date first, then by LCN.

Oh-Kay.... but why can't the programming experts at Groundspeak implement a reverse-sort by LCN?

It's rarely even noticed since most caches don't get more than one or two logs per day - except when brand new.

Also happens when a group of people finds the same cache.

[jholly]

Oh-Kay.... but why can't the programming experts at Groundspeak implement a reverse-sort by LCN?

 

These are the folks that have been talking about implementing new forum software for the last five months. You expect a fix for this any time soon?

 

Jim

[+Chrysalides]

Oh-Kay.... but why can't the programming experts at Groundspeak implement a reverse-sort by LCN?

I'm extremely puzzled too. Seems like that would have been the easy thing to do.

 

Instead, on the cache page, it is first reverse sorted by date. Within a date, it is reversed sorted by LCN, EXCEPT that any "Published" log rises to the top of a date range, making it appear like the last action to be done that day. Very strange. Since the programmers are not stupid, it's either some internal design or one of those "it's not really broken, don't fix it" kind of scenario.

[jholly]

Oh-Kay.... but why can't the programming experts at Groundspeak implement a reverse-sort by LCN?

I'm extremely puzzled too. Seems like that would have been the easy thing to do.

 

Instead, on the cache page, it is first reverse sorted by date. Within a date, it is reversed sorted by LCN, EXCEPT that any "Published" log rises to the top of a date range, making it appear like the last action to be done that day. Very strange. Since the programmers are not stupid, it's either some internal design or one of those "it's not really broken, don't fix it" kind of scenario.

 

On your profile page, the personal one you can see not the public one, the caches use to be listed in reverse order for the day, i.e., first last. After many comments this was fixed so now your personal profile page has the listing in correct order. This "fix" broke the cache listing and also the public profile page for the cache order. I suspect it is an architectural issue.

 

Jim

[+Chrysalides]

On your profile page, the personal one you can see not the public one, the caches use to be listed in reverse order for the day, i.e., first last. After many comments this was fixed so now your personal profile page has the listing in correct order. This "fix" broke the cache listing and also the public profile page for the cache order. I suspect it is an architectural issue.

Ah, thanks for the info. I never looked at my public profile caches much, but did notice the strange ordering the one time I did. I guess we can look forward to more strange sorting orders before the whole issue is *cough* sorted out.

[ZeMartelo]

Another possible explanation is simply because you only get the notification of a the new cache a few days later.

This just happned to me.

I found about this new cache that was posted may/16 today because I have set up to receive notifications of any finds.

Weird... Checked the website and there was another cache also posted may/16 that I didnt get the notification...somehow some of the publishing emails are slipping thru the cracks and I am not getting them.

[+SHENNY-TLC]

Sometime luck is just involved. We found a cache in a spot we were scouting to place a cache in that my son wanted there. We signed FTF and dated it May 2nd in log book. Went home and went to log on GC.com and it wasnt published , not till later that day did it publish. But the best is a cache we found 3 weeks ago while looking to place another cache and it was taged with GC.com and a name and everything, so we signed FTF dated and came home to STILL 3 weeks later it not being published.

[+Sol seaker]

I have noticed that too... only usually the FTF is published by a reviewer. Is that legal? Can a reviewer get the ftf THEN publish it for everyone else? Just doesn't seem fair...

 

I've actually seen this happen too.

i've seen many discussions on this first to find thing.

It seems there are those who would do anything short of kill to get a first to find. They don't care about fair, they don't even register "fair" on their radar. The only thing that matters is that FTF.

 

Many in my area are now getting coordinates pre-publication from their friends. They find nothing wrong with this and still think it is a fair first to find. I do not agree with them, but it really doesn't matter what I think.

 

I've chosen to just stay out of it at this point. Not worth the angst.

 

So as I've repeated in past threads,

synopsis of past threads on this subject included the highlights of:

 

1. There is a good reason why Groundspeak chooses not to recognise FTF's (because they cause so much controversy and angst).

 

2. someone suggested FTFP (after published) as a title for those who find it after published.

 

3. another said that the main problem with FTF's is that they are causing so much upheaval, unrest and upset people in the forums.

 

And that concludes my involvement in this regularly scheduled discussion of the unfairness of first to find's.

Now back to my regularly scheduled micro bashing.

[Keystone]

Sol Seaker, please consider editing your broken quotes. It makes it look like you quoted me, when you did not.

 

As was stated above, if you have evidence that your reviewer is jumping the gun on puzzle caches or something, spill the beans so we can enjoy some popcorn. Or, write with the specifics of your complaint to the special e-mail address provided for this purpose: appeals @ geocaching.com.

 

Think about it: if a reviewer was using the info gained during the review process to dash out and FTF the caches prior to publishing them, do you think he would be a reviewer for very long?

Edited May 19, 2009 by Keystone

[jholly]

Think about it: if a reviewer was using the info gained during the review process to dash out and FTF the caches prior to publishing them, do you think he would be a reviewer for very long?

 

But how do we know that the reviewer doesn't dash out, get the FTF with their player account, dash home and publish the cache as a reviewer and then log it online with the player account? Not saying they would, but since few of us know the reviewer/player account connections how can we say? I found out one after the fact, but the others are unknown to me. I really don't think it is happening, but I can see a way it could and hardly anyone would be in the know.

 

Jim

[+mrbort]

Think about it: if a reviewer was using the info gained during the review process to dash out and FTF the caches prior to publishing them, do you think he would be a reviewer for very long?

 

But how do we know that the reviewer doesn't dash out, get the FTF with their player account, dash home and publish the cache as a reviewer and then log it online with the player account? Not saying they would, but since few of us know the reviewer/player account connections how can we say? I found out one after the fact, but the others are unknown to me. I really don't think it is happening, but I can see a way it could and hardly anyone would be in the know.

 

Jim

 

I haven't been around very long on this site but have been involved with similarly sized (or larger) forums for quite some time and have found that the vetting of mods (and in this case reviewers) is usually one of the most important things for the health of the forums (and here, the sport). The creators of this hobby have brought a unique idea that really takes critical mass to have any sort of appeal to the point where we have caches all over the place... I would like to think that the vetting process for new reviewers would be one of their top priorities (as ensuring quality and viability is in their hands). Part of this would clearly be looking at their record as cachers and possibly forum participants (though I have seen nothing to suggest the latter directly). So, one would hope that they choose reviewers who would not behave in this manner.

 

Additionally, I have seen in a lot of the other forums that I've been a part of that the role of an arbiter/mod/etc and the look behind the curtain has taken a lot of the enthusiasm away from these people for things that seemed to matter a lot before (in some places, post counts, up-votes, etc). I would guess that it would be rare that the FTF game would become MORE interesting for a reviewer and more likely that it would diminish a great deal.

 

That being said, Jim makes a great point that it would be almost impossible for the caching community to know and unlikely that there is the type of oversight on the reviewers that this type of thing would be noticed.... It's an interesting idea but maybe I'm naive and assume the best from people... especially those that have shown integrity in the past.

 

Edit: why dont i preview my posts more?

Edited May 19, 2009 by mrbort

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Many in my area are now getting coordinates pre-publication from their friends. They find nothing wrong with this and still think it is a fair first to find. I do not agree with them, but it really doesn't matter what I think

No matter how you obtain the coordinates, if you are the first person to find the hidden cache, you are FTF. I wouldn't have a problem with finding a cache before it was published if the hider gave me the coordinates. A cache can exist in the world without being published on this site. However, I wouldn't be all giddy and happy, happy, joy, joy in my online log, boasting about a FTF since when I found it, noone else had a chance to look for it. But, it would still be a fact. I was the first person to find that cache, whether it was published or not.

 

Bruce

[+JakeInPA]

Wow...a lot of crazy theories here...

 

I only have 2 FTF's, so I'll answer your question and hopefully put your mind at ease. My very first FTF, I got the e-mail saying it was posted. I d'loaded the coords, went and found it, then logged it. When I go back to the cache screen...BAM I found it before it was published...

 

Technically I didn't, but there appears to be some type of glitch with FTF every now and then. Most are not really being found before publishing, they're just appearing that way. I've noticed it with others. I watch as they get published, then the person to post FTF has their log before the reviewer.

[+chadli]

I have noticed that too... only usually the FTF is published by a reviewer. Is that legal? Can a reviewer get the ftf THEN publish it for everyone else? Just doesn't seem fair...

Are you sure you're not confusing the "published" log with the "found it" log type?

 

Reviewers don't physically visit the cache locations prior to pressing the "publish" button. That log doesn't mean that the reviewer found the cache. We have to drive there just like anyone else.

 

Yes, I'm sure I wasn't confusing it with the published log...

I cannot remember which particular cache I saw this on, but I'll keep my eye out and post it (or another one like it back here when I see it).

There was a note in the logs from the publisher, and being curious what a publisher was I looked at the profile and saw it referenced his/her other profile. They had one profile for caching and another one for publishing.

Question is... If I'm a publisher, and I get to see all the postings before they get published, what's to stop me from going and finding it before I hit that publish button? Collecting all the FTF prizes that I desire?

After all it takes 3 days to publish new postings that would give me plenty of time to go check them out before publishing, or at least the ones I was interested in.

 

I just put my first cache out a couple of days ago... still waiting for the publishing to see how long and who gets the ftf... been 2 days now since I posted it...

 

In any case, it really doesn't matter much to me personally about the FTF. I would just like to see the game played fairly.

 

On another note, it matters not to me if people want to share their caches before they are published, I think that in many instances it's just a result of this great game we have going, the friendships that are formed, people helping people, etc... And in some cases they are meant specifically for a certain person to find first, i.e. a milestone award, you might share with someone before it gets published to make sure that they get their coin/pin... Engagements, I've seen on youtube where people hide wedding proposals and probably even wedding rings in caches, that they certainly wouldn't want anyone else finding first, but makes a great tribute to a proposal. So I see nothing wrong with sharing coordinates with your friends if you so CHOOSE to do that. If coordinates and cache publishings are getting out before they are published against the wishes of the cache owner, then we DO have a problem.

 

I thnk I've said enough, and probably put most of you to sleep on the subject, but that's the way I see it!

[+Chrysalides]

Question is... If I'm a publisher, and I get to see all the postings before they get published, what's to stop me from going and finding it before I hit that publish button? Collecting all the FTF prizes that I desire?

Ethics.

[+Knight2000]

Simple. Find the cache before its published. There are unpublished caches hidden right now. Your job, should you accept it, is to find them.

[GOF and Bacall]

I have noticed that too... only usually the FTF is published by a reviewer. Is that legal? Can a reviewer get the ftf THEN publish it for everyone else? Just doesn't seem fair...

Are you sure you're not confusing the "published" log with the "found it" log type?

 

Reviewers don't physically visit the cache locations prior to pressing the "publish" button. That log doesn't mean that the reviewer found the cache. We have to drive there just like anyone else.

 

Yes, I'm sure I wasn't confusing it with the published log...

I cannot remember which particular cache I saw this on, but I'll keep my eye out and post it (or another one like it back here when I see it).

There was a note in the logs from the publisher, and being curious what a publisher was I looked at the profile and saw it referenced his/her other profile. They had one profile for caching and another one for publishing.

Question is... If I'm a publisher, and I get to see all the postings before they get published, what's to stop me from going and finding it before I hit that publish button? Collecting all the FTF prizes that I desire?

After all it takes 3 days to publish new postings that would give me plenty of time to go check them out before publishing, or at least the ones I was interested in.

 

I just put my first cache out a couple of days ago... still waiting for the publishing to see how long and who gets the ftf... been 2 days now since I posted it...

 

In any case, it really doesn't matter much to me personally about the FTF. I would just like to see the game played fairly.

 

On another note, it matters not to me if people want to share their caches before they are published, I think that in many instances it's just a result of this great game we have going, the friendships that are formed, people helping people, etc... And in some cases they are meant specifically for a certain person to find first, i.e. a milestone award, you might share with someone before it gets published to make sure that they get their coin/pin... Engagements, I've seen on youtube where people hide wedding proposals and probably even wedding rings in caches, that they certainly wouldn't want anyone else finding first, but makes a great tribute to a proposal. So I see nothing wrong with sharing coordinates with your friends if you so CHOOSE to do that. If coordinates and cache publishings are getting out before they are published against the wishes of the cache owner, then we DO have a problem.

 

I thnk I've said enough, and probably put most of you to sleep on the subject, but that's the way I see it!

 

I think you need to find something a bit more serious to worry about. I've never seen or heard of a case in which the reviewer found the cache before it was published. I can't see it being a wide spread problem. If it has occurred I'm sure there is a logical explanation. I can think of a couple of possibilities off the top of my head that could lead to the reviewer being FTF without breaking ethics.

Edited May 19, 2009 by GOF & Bacall

[+chadli]

 

I think you need to find something a bit more serious to worry about.

 

You may be right, and to be honest... I wasn't "worried" about it in the first place. I'm still pretty new at this and was looking for clarification on some things... but it looks like I stepped on more than a few toes in doing so. Sorry if I offended you. Next time I have a question, I won't ask it here...

As I stated in my post, it matters not to me, I was just wondering on the rules of the game, and apparently I'm not the only one that wonders... as I am not the one that created this thread.

Again, I apologize for offending anyone.

 

Good day

[GOF and Bacall]

 

I think you need to find something a bit more serious to worry about.

 

You may be right, and to be honest... I wasn't "worried" about it in the first place. I'm still pretty new at this and was looking for clarification on some things... but it looks like I stepped on more than a few toes in doing so. Sorry if I offended you. Next time I have a question, I won't ask it here...

As I stated in my post, it matters not to me, I was just wondering on the rules of the game, and apparently I'm not the only one that wonders... as I am not the one that created this thread.

Again, I apologize for offending anyone.

 

Good day

 

I think we may have bumped into the "tone of post" phenomenon. When I read your post it "sounded" like you were rather miffed and convinced that a reviewer was out to snatch up all the FTFs.

 

If you find that cache, or another, with the reviewer as the FTF please post it up. Should make for an interesting thread.

[+Mudfrog]

I'm not positive this is what we're talking about and it may have been mentioned in a previous post that i missed, but,,, i have recently noticed on several caches, where the first finder's logs preceded the reviewer's published log. I'm probably wrong but instead of this being a glitch, i actually thought it was something that gc.com implemented on purpose. You know, letting the ftf log show up as being the first log on the cache page so that those cachers could feel even more special.

[+Chrysalides]

I have noticed that too... only usually the FTF is published by a reviewer. Is that legal? Can a reviewer get the ftf THEN publish it for everyone else? Just doesn't seem fair...

 

Next time I have a question, I won't ask it here...

 

I have the relevant quote that "stepped on a few toes" above. Your failure to back it up did you no favors.

 

If you wanted to ask a question, perhaps it shouldn't be phrased as something like "So how long have you been clubbing baby seals?"

[+Parabola]

I've stumbled upon a few caches before they where published. Just by chance. I don't really care about the whole FTF thing. Just something caught my eye and looked a little out of place and wouldn't ya know there's a cache waiting to be published.

 

I've also found a letterbox that I'm the only finder of, and still haven't seen it listed anywhere.

 

Sometime's you just happen to look in the right spot by accident and wouldn't ya know, a container.

 

Now if they are "beta" testing cord's for the cache, I don't think they should be taking any prizes that was left for the FTF if there area any. And I do think if they are again "beta" testing they should go and sign the log afterward the publication.

 

ANd yes I have gone back to the one's I found by accident and refound them and signed the log (again). but it always makes for a good story at an event.

 

I wouldn't worry about it. But again I don't really care about trying to be a FTF. I've got some, but that doesn't really matter to me. I'll even lay off a cache for a few day's, so those that like to get the FTF can give it a whirl.