Posting FTF Dates Before Caches Are Published

[+Trav'lin Two]

Recently we were out and found caches where FTF dates were posted before the cache was published. How does this happen? Looks like someone had inside info.

[+StarBrand]

The site does not recognize FTF and as such there are no rules. Therefore - the very first person to locate the cache by whatever means are at hand is the First to Find the cache. Nothing can change that.

 

FTF and 50 cents will buy you can of soda (at least at machines local to me).

[oakenwood]

Sometimes a cache is reserved for a few before being released to the general public. Special events, "beta testing", etc. I'm told one cacher hid an engagement ring in a cache and let his girlfriend find it.

[+narcissa]

The site does not recognize FTF and as such there are no rules. Therefore - the very first person to locate the cache by whatever means are at hand is the First to Find the cache. Nothing can change that.

 

 

This.

[+briansnat]

This is only a listing site and cache owners are free to advertise their caches any way they please. If that means they list it on another site first, give the coordinates to friends, post them on their website, whatever, that is their right. There is no rule that says that caches have to be listed here first.

[+Geoextreme87]

This is only a listing site and cache owners are free to advertise their caches any way they please. If that means they list it on another site first, give the coordinates to friends, post them on their website, whatever, that is their right. There is no rule that says that caches have to be listed here first.

 

Exactly there are other cache sites including navicache, LbNA, Atlas Quest, Terracaching, and other smaller sites that all offer caching opportunities and sometimes cachers post there first. Plus friends sometimes do get the benefit of the find first. I also had my sister and a group of her friends accidentally run into a new cache before it got officially posted.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Geoextreme87

[+narcissa]

I recently put out a cache for a friend's birthday. In it, I put a birthday gift for him, and another FTF prize for the next person to find the cache.

[jholly]

Recently we were out and found caches where FTF dates were posted before the cache was published. How does this happen? Looks like someone had inside info.

Without a GC number to look up the cache and get the log information it is impossible to say if someone had inside information. The site did have a problem with the logs of folks that found the cache on the day it was published being before the publish log. Perhaps the problem came back. Can you give us a GC number?

[GermanSailor]

Recently we were out and found caches where FTF dates were posted before the cache was published. How does this happen? Looks like someone had inside info.

Who cares? Yes, there are people over-eager to get an FTF. I once send the listing via email to friends while the geocache was waiting review. It had three finds before it went online. Wow, the FTF hunters were really pissed off.

Some people even log with a sock-puppent account to relieve the FTF-stress...

 

It's just a hobby!

 

GermanSailor

[+bladesedge]

I have found that, being from NZ we're ahead of the Groundspeak clock.... so to speak. That is, right now in NZ its the evening of the 2nd of Feb. If I was to log a cache find right now it would try to log the date as the 1st of Feb. WE actually have to change the date to reflect the actual date here - which kind of throws all the date fields out on the website - caches that people have logged for today actually show up as '-1 days ago' in the various lists.

 

So if the Reviewer publishes the cache with todays date, and a cache finder finds the cache and forgets to change the date to the actual date - it can show up as being found before being published.

[+Trav'lin Two]

Recently we were out and found caches where FTF dates were posted before the cache was published. How does this happen? Looks like someone had inside info.

Without a GC number to look up the cache and get the log information it is impossible to say if someone had inside information. The site did have a problem with the logs of folks that found the cache on the day it was published being before the publish log. Perhaps the problem came back. Can you give us a GC number?

 

The caches in question are: GC23CQQ, GC23CQE, GC23CPT, GC23CPG, GC23CP3, GC23CPD, GC23D8J, GC23D88, GC23D8Y, and GC23DF7. The caches were originally posted as published on the 28th with FTF on the 27th.

 

An interesting fact is now the published date corresponds with the FTF date. Now, I am no dummy and neither are the guys we hunt with. We know that the FTF dates on the logs were a day before the published date. We are not FTF hunters but do feel that this does cheapen the the deal for the FTF guys.

 

So, the guy that boasts he has X number of FTF's doesn't hold water. Ok rant off.

[+fizzymagic]

So, the guy that boasts he has X number of FTF's doesn't hold water.

You got it in one! People who boast about their FTFs are pathetic.

[+palmetto]

I looked at 3 of those caches. All were published on the 27th, and found on the 27th.

 

I'm guessing that you received notifications on the 28th.

 

The caches were originally posted as published on the 28th with FTF on the 27th.

 

An interesting fact is now the published date corresponds with the FTF date. Now, I am no dummy and neither are the guys we hunt with. We know that the FTF dates on the logs were a day before the published date.

 

Had dates been edited, there would be a note to that effect. It would look like this:

 

[This entry was edited by palmetto on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 at 4:07:26 AM.]

 

Which does not alter the reality that caches can be found before they're published here. But those caches appear to have been found on the day they were published, not the day before.

[+Wooden Cyclist]

I received the notification of a new cache listing while on my way home last week on Jan 28th. Shortly after I got to GZ another cacher showed up. We noticed that the FTF signature was dated Jan 29th and speculated about how that could happen. In our logs we both joked about time traveling cachers and moved on to other things.

 

I like to get FTF's but there is no reason to get worked up about it.

[Mushtang]

So, the guy that boasts he has X number of FTF's doesn't hold water.

You got it in one! People who boast about their FTFs are pathetic.

Do you have some sort of immunity from the mods here? I'm curious how you can constantly be the rudest person in the forums while others are getting warnings.

[Mr.Yuck]

I received the notification of a new cache listing while on my way home last week on Jan 28th. Shortly after I got to GZ another cacher showed up. We noticed that the FTF signature was dated Jan 29th and speculated about how that could happen. In our logs we both joked about time traveling cachers and moved on to other things.

 

I like to get FTF's but there is no reason to get worked up about it.

 

Yeah, this stuff has been going on for years and everywhere. I first noticed it in my area on some 2002 placements. I wasn't even around, but there weren't many caches back when I started, and it was easy to see this in the listings. It's happened to me twice I remember, and once even 200 miles from home out of state on an extended business trip.

 

Doesn't bother me a bit. But I guess it would tend to tick off FTF enthusiasts when FTF is claimed without mentioning shenanigans; which is usually the case.

[+Jeep_Dog]

So, the guy that boasts he has X number of FTF's doesn't hold water. Ok rant off.

 

News flash - there's folks that boasts they have X number of FINDS that doesn't hold water....

[+briansnat]

Recently we were out and found caches where FTF dates were posted before the cache was published. How does this happen? Looks like someone had inside info.

Without a GC number to look up the cache and get the log information it is impossible to say if someone had inside information. The site did have a problem with the logs of folks that found the cache on the day it was published being before the publish log. Perhaps the problem came back. Can you give us a GC number?

 

The caches in question are: GC23CQQ, GC23CQE, GC23CPT, GC23CPG, GC23CP3, GC23CPD, GC23D8J, GC23D88, GC23D8Y, and GC23DF7. The caches were originally posted as published on the 28th with FTF on the 27th.

 

An interesting fact is now the published date corresponds with the FTF date. Now, I am no dummy and neither are the guys we hunt with. We know that the FTF dates on the logs were a day before the published date. We are not FTF hunters but do feel that this does cheapen the the deal for the FTF guys.

 

So, the guy that boasts he has X number of FTF's doesn't hold water. Ok rant off.

 

This would mean that the reviewer was complicit in this which is hard to believe, because reviewers don't give a clam's patootie who is FTF on the caches they publish.

 

The reviewer would have to change the published date and there are two ways of doing it. Editing the date in the log which would leave a "log edited" message on the page, or the reviewer retracting the listing, deleting the original published log and publishing it again, then changing the date immediately so the "log edited' message doesn't show. This would have been evident to anybody who has instant notifications.

 

So lacking evidence that either occurred, it is likely that you are mistaken about the published date being changed.

[+wimseyguy]

One local hider likes to pass out the coords to his hides at his events and 'award' the FTF as door prizes before the listings are published.

 

Does that cheapen the thrill of the FTF? I don't hear anyone complaining. It might for me if I was a FTF hound and viewed it as a competition.

 

Is the reviewer complicit? He does agree to delay the publication until the CO says he is ready for them to be published. Is that any different than any other cache publication?

 

Does anyone really know what time it is? Does anyone really care?

[+Scubasonic]

Recently we were out and found caches where FTF dates were posted before the cache was published. How does this happen? Looks like someone had inside info.

Who cares? Yes, there are people over-eager to get an FTF. I once send the listing via email to friends while the geocache was waiting review. It had three finds before it went online. Wow, the FTF hunters were really pissed off.

Some people even log with a sock-puppent account to relieve the FTF-stress...

 

It's just a hobby!

 

GermanSailor

 

WOW glad you R not in my area.

 

Scubasonic

[+Scubasonic]

So, the guy that boasts he has X number of FTF's doesn't hold water.

You got it in one! People who boast about their FTFs are pathetic.

Do you have some sort of immunity from the mods here? I'm curious how you can constantly be the rudest person in the forums while others are getting warnings.

 

I think he does but then again, just by his comment I think we can all figure out who is pathetic. He for some reason hates FTFers, probably cause he has been bat out of one 2 many, is my guess, and is not up for the challenge.

 

Scubasonic

[+briansnat]

The thing a lot FTF enthusiasts don't realize is that FTF race is a side game played by a small segment of geocachers. Cache owners are under no obligation to accommodate the FTF enthusiasts. If they want to give coords to anybody before the cache is published that is their business alone. It isn't cheating, it isn't cheapening anything. It's their cache and their choice.

 

I recall when I converted a puzzle to a traditional and submitted a new listing. The cache was in the same place and because the logbook only had a handful of logs I decided to re-use it and wrote after the last log from the previous cache that the logs for the new cache started at that point.

 

I received an irate e-mail from the FTF because it wasn't a "virgin" logbook. If the existence of previous signatures in the logbook spoiled his enjoyment of the cache that isn't my problem.

[+Trav'lin Two]

I looked at 3 of those caches. All were published on the 27th, and found on the 27th.

 

I'm guessing that you received notifications on the 28th.

 

The caches were originally posted as published on the 28th with FTF on the 27th.

 

An interesting fact is now the published date corresponds with the FTF date. Now, I am no dummy and neither are the guys we hunt with. We know that the FTF dates on the logs were a day before the published date.

 

Had dates been edited, there would be a note to that effect. It would look like this:

 

[This entry was edited by palmetto on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 at 4:07:26 AM.]

 

Which does not alter the reality that caches can be found before they're published here. But those caches appear to have been found on the day they were published, not the day before.

 

I did not receive any notification of new postings. All I did was download caches on the 31st that we had not found. When I went to log our finds, there were two finds on the 27th and then the 'published" on the 28th. I am not mistaken about the dates nor are our friends we hunt with. Four of us saw the postings as found on the 27th and then published on the 28th.

 

When I went back to get the GC codes for this thread, the published date had been changed to the 27th. Sorry but that is the way it is so let the FTF hunters have their fun.

[+fizzymagic]

So, the guy that boasts he has X number of FTF's doesn't hold water.

You got it in one! People who boast about their FTFs are pathetic.

Do you have some sort of immunity from the mods here? I'm curious how you can constantly be the rudest person in the forums while others are getting warnings.

Platinum membership. Look it up.

 

 

Actually, I have no special immunity that I know of. I think you are confusing personal attacks and snark. AFAIK, there is no forum guideline against snarkiness, as long as it's not a personal attack. I enjoy doing snark, but I try to avoid personal attacks.

 

And I've apologized for particular inappropriate comments to you, so I'm not sure why you are so fixated on this. Would you like another apology? Would that help?

 

But that is beside the point. People might be surprised, but I do keep track of my FTFs. For my own personal amusement. And I value some of my FTFs, especially those for high-difficulty or terrain caches that have gone some time without being found. I don't tend to use the phrase in my logs, because who else really cares? And I just don't see the need to brag about them to be in some kind of competition to prove I'm better than anybody else.

 

In my opinion, those who feel the need to brag about their FTFs are pathetic. I don't understand why anyone would consider that rude. It's just my opinion.

[+briansnat]

I looked at 3 of those caches. All were published on the 27th, and found on the 27th.

 

I'm guessing that you received notifications on the 28th.

 

The caches were originally posted as published on the 28th with FTF on the 27th.

 

An interesting fact is now the published date corresponds with the FTF date. Now, I am no dummy and neither are the guys we hunt with. We know that the FTF dates on the logs were a day before the published date.

 

Had dates been edited, there would be a note to that effect. It would look like this:

 

[This entry was edited by palmetto on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 at 4:07:26 AM.]

 

Which does not alter the reality that caches can be found before they're published here. But those caches appear to have been found on the day they were published, not the day before.

 

I did not receive any notification of new postings. All I did was download caches on the 31st that we had not found. When I went to log our finds, there were two finds on the 27th and then the 'published" on the 28th. I am not mistaken about the dates nor are our friends we hunt with. Four of us saw the postings as found on the 27th and then published on the 28th.

 

When I went back to get the GC codes for this thread, the published date had been changed to the 27th. Sorry but that is the way it is so let the FTF hunters have their fun.

 

What you are saying is virtually impossible. First off a reviewer would have to do it and second there would be a audit trail visible to everyone. It isn't there. You are mistaken.

[+wimseyguy]

Perhaps the OP has mistaken the placed on dates for the published dates?

Perhaps the FTF's wrote the wrong dates on the physical logs in the caches?

 

Does anyone really know what day it is, does anyone really care?

[jholly]

Recently we were out and found caches where FTF dates were posted before the cache was published. How does this happen? Looks like someone had inside info.

 

I looked at the first three and every thing seems to be cool. The published log is the lowest log ID, so that predates any of the finders logs. I'll put it down to a rip in the space-time continuum. Q must be playing with us.

[+DeRock & The Psychic Cacher]

The published log is the lowest log ID, so that predates any of the finders logs.

 

I should probably know this but I don't. How do you determine the lowest log ID?

 

Thanks,

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

[+Trav'lin Two]

I looked at 3 of those caches. All were published on the 27th, and found on the 27th.

 

I'm guessing that you received notifications on the 28th.

 

The caches were originally posted as published on the 28th with FTF on the 27th.

 

An interesting fact is now the published date corresponds with the FTF date. Now, I am no dummy and neither are the guys we hunt with. We know that the FTF dates on the logs were a day before the published date.

 

Had dates been edited, there would be a note to that effect. It would look like this:

 

[This entry was edited by palmetto on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 at 4:07:26 AM.]

 

Which does not alter the reality that caches can be found before they're published here. But those caches appear to have been found on the day they were published, not the day before.

 

I did not receive any notification of new postings. All I did was download caches on the 31st that we had not found. When I went to log our finds, there were two finds on the 27th and then the 'published" on the 28th. I am not mistaken about the dates nor are our friends we hunt with. Four of us saw the postings as found on the 27th and then published on the 28th.

 

When I went back to get the GC codes for this thread, the published date had been changed to the 27th. Sorry but that is the way it is so let the FTF hunters have their fun.

 

What you are saying is virtually impossible. First off a reviewer would have to do it and second there would be a audit trail visible to everyone. It isn't there. You are mistaken.

 

No, I am not mistaken. Besides, there are three others that saw the same thing. I am able to tell the difference between a green dot and a yellow smiley and when the green one is on top of the yellow. The next time, if there will be one a screen shot will be in order.

[GOF and Bacall]

Why does it even matter? First to find gets the same cash prize as fifth to find, or everyone else for that matter.

[Pup Patrol]

Seems a bit unnecessary to post something about it in every log.

 

And an interesting "conspiracy theory" about the reviewer's actions.

 

Isn't this supposed to be a "fun" game?

Edited February 3, 2010 by Pup Patrol

[GOF and Bacall]

Seems a bit unnecessary to post something about it in every log.

 

And an interesting "conspiracy theory" about the reviewer's actions.

 

Isn't this supposed to be a "fun" game?

 

I guess some people just enjoy a good conspiracy.

[+briansnat]

Seems a bit unnecessary to post something about it in every log.

 

And an interesting "conspiracy theory" about the reviewer's actions.

 

Isn't this supposed to be a "fun" game?

 

The point is that the reviewer could not have done this without an edited message or a retract and republish. Either would have been obvious to everybody. Changing the date is not possible any other way, unless you believe that the developers of this site have joined in on a conspiracy to cover up a pre FTF on a few caches.

 

No, I am not mistaken. Besides, there are three others that saw the same thing. I am able to tell the difference between a green dot and a yellow smiley and when the green one is on top of the yellow. The next time, if there will be one a screen shot will be in order.

 

You may have seen a green dot above the yellow smiley if the FTF dated his log before the published date, then deleted it and re-posted it with a corrected date. That is possible. Changing the published date is not possible without an associated edited message.

Edited February 3, 2010 by briansnat

[+brslk]

Seems a bit unnecessary to post something about it in every log.

 

And an interesting "conspiracy theory" about the reviewer's actions.

 

Isn't this supposed to be a "fun" game?

 

The point is that the reviewer could not have done this without an edited message or a retract and republish. Either would have been obvious to everybody. Changing the date is not possible any other way, unless you believe that the developers of this site have joined in on a conspiracy to cover up a pre FTF on a few caches.

 

I never go out caching without my tin foil hat.

[Pup Patrol]

Seems a bit unnecessary to post something about it in every log.

 

And an interesting "conspiracy theory" about the reviewer's actions.

 

Isn't this supposed to be a "fun" game?

 

The point is that the reviewer could not have done this without an edited message or a retract and republish. Either would have been obvious to everybody. Changing the date is not possible any other way, unless you believe that the developers of this site have joined in on a conspiracy to cover up a pre FTF on a few caches.

 

I don't post often enough...or my sarcasm would have been obvious. My bad.

 

Ya see, I'm having a hard time understanding why this is such a big deal. There's been plausible explanations posted.

 

And I find it quite rude to have posted a "snarky" comment about this issue on each "found it" log. If I was the cache owner, well, I'd be right ticked off...and offended at some vague accusation of "chicanery".

 

And I find the inference that the reviewer or someone went back and edited the "published" date, for some unknown reason, to also be insulting.

 

I just didn't want to be rude.

 

[jholly]

The published log is the lowest log ID, so that predates any of the finders logs.

 

I should probably know this but I don't. How do you determine the lowest log ID?

 

Thanks,

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

 

You download the gpx file from the cache page and then bring it up in notepad. You look for the Log ID= in the gpx. Log ID's are assigned site wide and are strictly monotonically increasing. Looking at the caches in question and looking at the Log ID of the published cache it was smaller than the subsequent log, ergo, it was the newest log on the cache.

[+NeecesandNephews]

I've been reading along thinking I would see where this goes, but would like to mention I find it interesting the FTF on these caches were all the same person/persons. Just a coincidence I am sure.

[+sullude]

I looked at 3 of those caches. All were published on the 27th, and found on the 27th.

 

I'm guessing that you received notifications on the 28th.

 

The caches were originally posted as published on the 28th with FTF on the 27th.

 

An interesting fact is now the published date corresponds with the FTF date. Now, I am no dummy and neither are the guys we hunt with. We know that the FTF dates on the logs were a day before the published date.

 

Had dates been edited, there would be a note to that effect. It would look like this:

 

[This entry was edited by palmetto on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 at 4:07:26 AM.]

 

Which does not alter the reality that caches can be found before they're published here. But those caches appear to have been found on the day they were published, not the day before.

 

I did not receive any notification of new postings. All I did was download caches on the 31st that we had not found. When I went to log our finds, there were two finds on the 27th and then the 'published" on the 28th. I am not mistaken about the dates nor are our friends we hunt with. Four of us saw the postings as found on the 27th and then published on the 28th.

 

When I went back to get the GC codes for this thread, the published date had been changed to the 27th. Sorry but that is the way it is so let the FTF hunters have their fun.

 

What you are saying is virtually impossible. First off a reviewer would have to do it and second there would be a audit trail visible to everyone. It isn't there. You are mistaken.

 

 

I do a a lot of midnight caching, I log my finds sometimes at 3 am and the date will say yesterday date on it. So if it's published on the Feb 2 and 00:10 hrs and I find it and log it in at 1:00hrs my log will say Feb 1

[+The Jester]

There is an interesting thing that happens with the time codes on some logs/caches. I loaded the last listed cache in GSAK and the publish date comes out the 28th, with the first found log on the 27th. I believe the time stamp is in GMT which means the cache was published about 9:16pm on the 27th (which is 5:16am on the 28th GMT - we're in the -8 zone). At times the servers seem to use the adjusted date, other times the listed date. This only affects the Publish log as it has an actual timestamp, found logs on have the date the finder enters as the date found (with 00:00 for time). So the OP is correct, the page probably showed the unadjusted date early on and has since corrected the date to local time.

[+Trav'lin Two]

There is an interesting thing that happens with the time codes on some logs/caches. I loaded the last listed cache in GSAK and the publish date comes out the 28th, with the first found log on the 27th. I believe the time stamp is in GMT which means the cache was published about 9:16pm on the 27th (which is 5:16am on the 28th GMT - we're in the -8 zone). At times the servers seem to use the adjusted date, other times the listed date. This only affects the Publish log as it has an actual timestamp, found logs on have the date the finder enters as the date found (with 00:00 for time). So the OP is correct, the page probably showed the unadjusted date early on and has since corrected the date to local time.

 

Now, this explanation I can buy. It would make sense that the postings would be in GMT to keep all postings across the world on an even plain.

 

It does seem funny that all of the caches in question have the same CO and all were FTFs by the same cachers.

 

But another question is how did the published date come into line with the FTF dates?

 

Oh well, it is time for this thread to end.

[Skippermark]

Nevermind, I misread the post.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Skippermark

[Skippermark]

Why does it even matter? First to find gets the same cash prize as fifth to find, or everyone else for that matter.

Not always. Around here, there's a guy that puts $20 bills in for the FTF.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I loaded the last listed cache in GSAK and the publish date comes out the 28th, with the first found log on the 27th. I believe the time stamp is in GMT which means the cache was published about 9:16pm on the 27th (which is 5:16am on the 28th GMT - we're in the -8 zone). At times the servers seem to use the adjusted date, other times the listed date.

 

Ah, thank you for the explanation.

[+bflentje]

Recently we were out and found caches where FTF dates were posted before the cache was published. How does this happen? Looks like someone had inside info.

 

Here we go again...

[+bflentje]

So, the guy that boasts he has X number of FTF's doesn't hold water.

You got it in one! People who boast about their FTFs are pathetic.

Do you have some sort of immunity from the mods here? I'm curious how you can constantly be the rudest person in the forums while others are getting warnings.

 

thank you for pointing that out...

[+uxorious]

In my opinion, those who feel the need to brag about their FTFs are pathetic. I don't understand why anyone would consider that rude. It's just my opinion.

 

In my opinion it's those who think players who enjoy a part of the game they don't are "pathetic" are the ones who are pathetic. I don't do FTFs, I don't do puzzle caches, I'm not real big on micros,(though I do a lot of them.) However, the person who would consider someone who likes those thing pathetic, is pathetic and rude.

Edited February 3, 2010 by uxorious

[+GeoGeeBee]

In my opinion, those who feel the need to brag about their FTFs are pathetic. I don't understand why anyone would consider that rude. It's just my opinion.

 

In my opinion it's those who think players who enjoy a part of the game they don't are "pathetic" are the ones who are pathetic. I don't do FTFs, I don't do puzzle caches, I'm not real big on micros,(though I do a lot of them.) However, the person who would consider someone who likes those thing pathetic, is pathetic and rude.

 

He didn't say that people who like FTF's are pathetic. He said people who "feel the need to brag about their FTF's" are pathetic.

 

And since it wasn't directed at any particular individual, I don't see how it can be a personal attack.

[+WHO-DEY]

WHAT ARE FTF'S? I did not see anything in the "rules" about them. I guess they are just made up for fairy tales. Not legit. HMM.

[+ArcherDragoon]

It does seem funny that all of the caches in question have the same CO and all were FTFs by the same cachers.

Not really...

 

Hey, I just placed this caches...here are the coords...go see if you can find them...

 

I have done that several times with some close friends...heck, even did it once to pit two cachers against each other to see who would find the cache first...both of them found it before the cache was published...no big deal...

 

Heck, even did it with a series of four once...

[+bittsen]

A geocache is a geocache whether or not it's published on GS.

 

The FTF thing is silly (thought I chase them on occasion). Whining because someone found the cache before it was LISTED on geocaching.com is ridiculous. There are hundreds of ways to let people know about a geocache without listing it on geocaching.com. I bet there are even thousands of caches out there that aren't even listed on GC.com.

 

 

(that last sentence was sarcasm. I know there are other listing sites)