FTF protocol

October 29, 2009

A group of local cachers placed 106 caches as part of a series. One of the placers claimed FTF on 46 of the caches. He claims that he only knew the coords to the caches he placed, but at the very least he knew they were in the pipe for publishing.

My question:

Should he have recused himself from FTF's on the series since he was part of the organizing committee?

6.7k · October 29, 2009

I find it difficult to care.

4.8k · October 29, 2009

I find it difficult to care.

And yet it was easy to comment?

My thoughts are "what harm came from his logging 46 FTF's?".

And followed by. Why do YOU care?

6.7k · October 29, 2009

Yup! Commenting was a POP. :blink:

October 29, 2009

And followed by. Why do YOU care?

Don't care. I wouldn't have gotten them anyway. Just a thought to generate a discussion.

22k · October 29, 2009

...nevermind

Edited October 29, 2009 by BlueDeuce

19k · October 29, 2009

I find it difficult to care.

And yet it was easy to comment?

My thoughts are "what harm came from his logging 46 FTF's?".

And followed by. Why do YOU care?

Not to mention, why do YOU care why he cares.

Edited October 29, 2009 by knowschad

19k · October 29, 2009

Whoops. I thought this was about the FTP protocol. Nevermind.

October 29, 2009

I dont think it is as much about protocol as it is of Ethics. Unethical probably. But I would guess that no one said that before the event that organizers were not allowed FTF on any of the even caches.

38.2k · October 29, 2009

A group of local cachers placed 106 caches as part of a series. One of the placers claimed FTF on 46 of the caches. He claims that he only knew the coords to the caches he placed, but at the very least he knew they were in the pipe for publishing.

My question:

Should he have recused himself from FTF's on the series since he was part of the organizing committee?

My question:

Did he find them first? If so he is the FTF.

19k · October 29, 2009

[
My question:

Did he find them first? If so he is the FTF.

What is an "FTF"? :blink:

1.9k · October 29, 2009

A group of local cachers placed 106 caches as part of a series. One of the placers claimed FTF on 46 of the caches. He claims that he only knew the coords to the caches he placed, but at the very least he knew they were in the pipe for publishing.

My question:

Should he have recused himself from FTF's on the series since he was part of the organizing committee?

My question:

Did he find them first? If so he is the FTF.

since ftf isn't officially observed who cares.

3.8k · October 29, 2009

A group of local cachers placed 106 caches as part of a series. One of the placers claimed FTF on 46 of the caches. He claims that he only knew the coords to the caches he placed, but at the very least he knew they were in the pipe for publishing.

My question:

Should he have recused himself from FTF's on the series since he was part of the organizing committee?

Like I keep saying... the only people worried about FTF hogs, methods, and protocols are those people who aren't getting FTF's. If you put as much energy into being FTF as you do worrying about it, you'll soon have as many FTF's as the rest of us.

October 29, 2009

You can claim them also if you want.

6.7k · October 29, 2009

I hereby claim FTF an all of my finds, because it was the First Time I Found them all.

What'd I win? :blink:

6.7k · October 29, 2009

I hereby claim FTF an all of my finds, because it was the First Time I Found them all.

What'd I win?

A dorkfish. Now you have to take care of it, feed it, change it's water, clean the tank, etc.

Cool! Now I will have a pair of them! Shouldn't be much more trouble to take care of two.

October 29, 2009

???????????????

WHO IS KEEPING SCORE??

???????????

October 29, 2009

I have a FTF question maybe someone could answer.

Awhile back, towards the end of a day of caching, I found a new cache. I happened to be the FTF, signed the blank log, and headed home.

I arrived home about an hour later and when I went to log my finds, I discovered that 2 other people already logged finds of that cache.

The one person is a rabid FTF hound and had the very first log.

My question is, does the software that keeps track of a cacher's stats record this as a FTF for them?

7.7k · October 29, 2009

I have a FTF question maybe someone could answer.

Awhile back, towards the end of a day of caching, I found a new cache. I happened to be the FTF, signed the blank log, and headed home.

I arrived home about an hour later and when I went to log my finds, I discovered that 2 other people already logged finds of that cache.

The one person is a rabid FTF hound and had the very first log.

My question is, does the software that keeps track of a cacher's stats record this as a FTF for them?

The only software that keeps track of FTF are software on your own computer.

You can claim FTF on every single one of your finds on the software, and no one else would be affected by it, since it is all local to your machine.

First to log doesn't mean first to find. Go ahead and claim FTF in your log. If the other person also claims FTF in their log, it's up to you to settle it among yourselves.

October 29, 2009

A group of local cachers placed 106 caches as part of a series. One of the placers claimed FTF on 46 of the caches. He claims that he only knew the coords to the caches he placed, but at the very least he knew they were in the pipe for publishing.

My question:

Should he have recused himself from FTF's on the series since he was part of the organizing committee?

My question:

Did he find them first? If so he is the FTF.

since ftf isn't officially observed who cares.

??? A lot of forum topics are not 'officially observed', yet people still care.

I always find it odd that those who say they 'don't care' actually take the time to post to the thread indicating as much.

6.7k · October 29, 2009

A group of local cachers placed 106 caches as part of a series. One of the placers claimed FTF on 46 of the caches. He claims that he only knew the coords to the caches he placed, but at the very least he knew they were in the pipe for publishing.

My question:

Should he have recused himself from FTF's on the series since he was part of the organizing committee?

My question:

Did he find them first? If so he is the FTF.

since ftf isn't officially observed who cares.

??? A lot of forum topics are not 'officially observed', yet people still care.

I always find it odd that those who say they 'don't care' actually take the time to post to the thread indicating as much.

We do it just to confuse you. Nice to see it is working.

October 29, 2009

A group of local cachers placed 106 caches as part of a series. One of the placers claimed FTF on 46 of the caches. He claims that he only knew the coords to the caches he placed, but at the very least he knew they were in the pipe for publishing.

My question:

Should he have recused himself from FTF's on the series since he was part of the organizing committee?

Yes, he should have recused himself. A large part of FTF pusuit is the race, and he had inside information.

7.7k · October 29, 2009

I always find it odd that those who say they 'don't care' actually take the time to post to the thread indicating as much.

Why do you care that they don't care yet care enough to post to the thread about how little they care?

I'm kidding!

"Recuse" makes it sound so formal.

I think it's not terribly sporting. But it's between him and whoever feels they are affected by it.

6.7k · October 29, 2009

I have a FTF question maybe someone could answer.

Awhile back, towards the end of a day of caching, I found a new cache. I happened to be the FTF, signed the blank log, and headed home.

I arrived home about an hour later and when I went to log my finds, I discovered that 2 other people already logged finds of that cache.

The one person is a rabid FTF hound and had the very first log.

My question is, does the software that keeps track of a cacher's stats record this as a FTF for them?

If you signed the blank log in the cache you are FTF, as they can't claim a log online without signing the cache log, and clearly they didn't. Ask the cache owner about it; it's his responsibility to delete bogus logs.

As to the OP, I don't track FTFs but I think most who do write FTF in their online log, then download a PQ of all of their finds into GSAK and do a search for the acronym FTF. I think.

10.2k · October 29, 2009

I have a FTF question maybe someone could answer.

Awhile back, towards the end of a day of caching, I found a new cache. I happened to be the FTF, signed the blank log, and headed home.

I arrived home about an hour later and when I went to log my finds, I discovered that 2 other people already logged finds of that cache.

The one person is a rabid FTF hound and had the very first log.

My question is, does the software that keeps track of a cacher's stats record this as a FTF for them?

If you signed the blank log in the cache you are FTF, as they can't claim a log online without signing the cache log, and clearly they didn't. Ask the cache owner about it; it's his responsibility to delete bogus logs.

As to the OP, I don't track FTFs but I think most who do write FTF in their online log, then download a PQ of all of their finds into GSAK and do a search for the acronym FTF. I think.

I don't use FindStatsGen (or currently even GSAK), but I'm sure I've heard that. For the program CacheStats I know it's totally manual. You just check a box saying you were FTF for the cache. Check the box for as many caches as you like. Even the ones you weren't FTF on. That should be fun, when you're local FTF rival looks at your profile, eh? :rolleyes:

1.4k · October 29, 2009

A group of local cachers placed 106 caches as part of a series. One of the placers claimed FTF on 46 of the caches. He claims that he only knew the coords to the caches he placed, but at the very least he knew they were in the pipe for publishing.

My question:

Should he have recused himself from FTF's on the series since he was part of the organizing committee?

My question:

Did he find them first? If so he is the FTF.

since ftf isn't officially observed who cares.

Boy do I hate DBL posts oops OFF TOPIC nevermind.

SS

October 30, 2009

Some people value FTFs. Some don't.

Some people care about the numbers. Others don't.

Some people value the historical or cultural significance of the cache's locale. Some don't.

Some of us like to be competitive, some don't. And some of us just compete with ourselves, pushing ourselves further.

Just because we all cache, doesn't mean we are all the same.

How about we agree to disagree, but we also agree to respect other people's preferences and opinions.

huh?

October 30, 2009

I saw something similar. A bunch of caches were posted within a few days. Each time I received an email notification of the posting. I would check the cache page right away, and on some of them, there was already a find posted before the posting date.

My question is how do you search for chaches that haven't posted yet?

3.3k · October 30, 2009

[RANT]Why do people insist on posting "who cares" on forum topics they don't care about? If you truley don't care, don't post! It realy anoyes everyone who does care.[RANT\]

Anyway....because FTF isn't found anywhere in the guidlines, and is not supported in any way by groundspeek, FTF is whatever you define it as. If you define it as the FTF after being published, then you can still 'claim' FTF even if it was found before being published. But that other guy my define FTF as the first to sign the log book. He may also 'claim' FTF on the same cache. If this happens, both guys will get mad at eachother, thinking that the other guy has caused him some damage. But this damage is just imagined.

The other day, I gave a hint on our local forum hoping that someone would find it before it was published. No one took the bait, and maybe for the better. A big fiud in our local community may not be good. Most of the guys are friends and making them all mad at eachother would probably be a bad thing.

October 30, 2009

A group of local cachers placed 106 caches as part of a series. One of the placers claimed FTF on 46 of the caches. He claims that he only knew the coords to the caches he placed, but at the very least he knew they were in the pipe for publishing.

My question:

Should he have recused himself from FTF's on the series since he was part of the organizing committee?

My question:

Did he find them first? If so he is the FTF.

No different to been out and about caching and a friend rings you with a new cache listed nearby. You have been give a heads up that there is a new cache. Or how about working out the co-ords cause somene placed a TB in the cache before it was published. If your able to work it out then that is a frill to chase a new unpublished cache.

October 30, 2009

Like I keep saying... the only people worried about FTF hogs, methods, and protocols are those people who aren't getting FTF's.

It seems I have a different reason to complain, then. Some FTF hunters here around are only going for unlogged caches.

I hide caches to be found. Not just once! Please go for them even if they have already been found!

7.7k · October 30, 2009

It seems I have a different reason to complain, then. Some FTF hunters here around are only going for unlogged caches.

I hide caches to be found. Not just once! Please go for them even if they have already been found!

I'd say to each his own. If they're not interested in geocaching, merely in beating others to a cache, let them do what they want. What's the point in asking them to visit your cache? I'd say you're probably better off introducing a muggle to geocaching.

October 30, 2009

I have a FTF question maybe someone could answer.

Awhile back, towards the end of a day of caching, I found a new cache. I happened to be the FTF, signed the blank log, and headed home.

I arrived home about an hour later and when I went to log my finds, I discovered that 2 other people already logged finds of that cache.

The one person is a rabid FTF hound and had the very first log.

My question is, does the software that keeps track of a cacher's stats record this as a FTF for them?

If you signed the blank log in the cache you are FTF, as they can't claim a log online without signing the cache log, and clearly they didn't. Ask the cache owner about it; it's his responsibility to delete bogus logs.

As to the OP, I don't track FTFs but I think most who do write FTF in their online log, then download a PQ of all of their finds into GSAK and do a search for the acronym FTF. I think.

I don't use FindStatsGen (or currently even GSAK), but I'm sure I've heard that. For the program CacheStats I know it's totally manual. You just check a box saying you were FTF for the cache. Check the box for as many caches as you like. Even the ones you weren't FTF on. That should be fun, when you're local FTF rival looks at your profile, eh?

TheWhiteUrkel

Thanks. The "totally manual, check the box" part is what I wanted to know.

I don't use the software or track my FTF's, so I was curious how it worked.

October 30, 2009

Whoops. I thought this was about the FTP protocol. Nevermind.

That is redundant because "P protocol" says the same thing over again twice.

Do people with higher FTF rates actually think they are "better" geocachers? My impression is that FTF competition is simply a game within a game. I see this in virtually ever other other sport I do. For instance, someone bragging about passing someone on the ski slope when the passed person isn't concerned about speed.

24.7k · October 30, 2009

I find it difficult to care.

And yet it was easy to comment?...

It was a First! (to post) thing.

24.7k · October 30, 2009

...My question:

Should he have recused himself from FTF's on the series since he was part of the organizing committee?

On his own, yes.

On the rest? No.

October 30, 2009

Makes as much sense as trying to be the 'Last To Post' in this thread.

So far, I am LTP.

3.3k · October 30, 2009

Makes as much sense as trying to be the 'Last To Post' in this thread.

So far, I am LTP.

Congradulations to Minimike2 on LTP! Great job.

Oh, I guess he loses, as he is no longer the LTP. Sorry!

6.7k · October 30, 2009

I find it difficult to care.

And yet it was easy to comment?...

It was a First! (to post) thing.

It was?

6.7k · October 30, 2009

Makes as much sense as trying to be the 'Last To Post' in this thread.

So far, I am LTP.

Congradulations to Minimike2 on LTP! Great job.

Oh, I guess he loses, as he is no longer the LTP. Sorry!

If I had to guess I'd say that if this line of OT discussion continues it will be Keystone that gets the LTP. :rolleyes:

October 30, 2009

Ya think?

October 31, 2009

I hate reading forums for anything. Someone has a legitimate question and there is so much crap, that you can never find out anything. I was looking for guide lines on FTF also. I know nobody cares, I know we could log each find as a first to find. I know that I could log half the virtual and earth caches even if I never go near them. I could probably set at my computer and log 1000 finds in a day and maybe a few would be deleted. But there are people who would like to know what is considered normal.

If you don’t care or don’t even find FTF’s then why not go read a different forum.

I have seen the same problem that Zemmy opened with. I don’t think that it is fair.

I had a different question about FTF, but forget it.

7.9k · October 31, 2009

I used to be concerned with FTFs, but not so much lately.

You might get a cool prize, or usually not.

Otherwise, who cares?

Like any log, it it between the cache logger and the cache owner.

But truly, if their name is the first on the logsheet, then it is an FTF.

6.7k · October 31, 2009

...But truly, if their name is the first on the logsheet, then it is an FTF.

That is about as close to a consensus on this subject as you are likely to find around here and even this will draw opposition.

FTF protocol

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation