Finding caches before they are published

[+SimpleBears]

Today there were quite a few new caches published in my area. So this morning I set out to find some of them hoping to score my first FTF.

 

I checked the logs to make sure no one had found them yet and then went on my way. After I got to my first one I checked the logs again and its already been logged FTF. I look a little closer and the FTF log is from 3/19 but the cache wasn't published till 3/21.

 

How is it possible for someone to find the cache before it's published?

 

Leslie

[+Panda Inc]

Today there were quite a few new caches published in my area. So this morning I set out to find some of them hoping to score my first FTF.

 

I checked the logs to make sure no one had found them yet and then went on my way. After I got to my first one I checked the logs again and its already been logged FTF. I look a little closer and the FTF log is from 3/19 but the cache wasn't published till 3/21.

 

How is it possible for someone to find the cache before it's published?

 

Leslie

When you are logging several caches, some last week, some yesterday or today it is possible to mistakenly put in the wrong found date, I'm guessing that is what happened. Look at the physical log book of the cache, the first to sign it is the FTF.

Cheers

Panda Inc

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Well, it doesn't happen very often, but some times a Cache is found while someone is looking for a hiding spot, but the more likely thing is that it was found by some friend of the hider as a test on the hide and coordinates. I've found at least one where thet was done on the day of the hide, but all the testers had left a space for me to log my FTF, and none of them logged online intil aftet me. That was nice of them!

 

Even another scenario (although very unlikely) would be listing a Cache here AFTER it had already been listed somewhere else. You could publish a Cache here that has been hidden for 5 years and has a hundred finds if you wanted.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Only saw one that you did, placed on 3/14, published on 3/21.

 

Only you logged (online).

 

It is possible that somebody held off on the publishing, allowing a friend to grab the FTF. It happens on occasion.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

OK, are you talking about online logs, or logs in the Cache?

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

 

It is possible that somebody held off on the publishing, allowing a friend to grab the FTF. It happens on occasion.

Ack, that's cheating!!

 

J.K.

[GermanSailor]

How is it possible for someone to find the cache before it's published?

The owner gave the coordinates and / or the listing to some friends before it was published by a reviewer. There is absolutely nothing wrong about it. Some call this "beta-test", others just don't want to wait. However it's not possible to log online until a listing is published, but you can enter whatever date you want with your log.

 

GermanSailor

[+SimpleBears]

I'm talking about the online logs. The one I logged today isn't the cache I'm referring to. The cache I'm referring to I didn't end up going in after. We got quite a bit of snow and I would have had to go hiking through the woods in it.

 

I'm not upset about it. I am just new to geocaching and was confused how that could happen.

[BlueRajah]

edited

Edited March 21, 2010 by BlueRajah

[GermanSailor]

Ack, that's cheating!!

Definition of cheating by Mirriam-Webster online:

1

a : to practice fraud or trickery

b : to violate rules dishonestly

2 : to be sexually unfaithful

3 : to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area

 

Let's not forget: Geocaching is a hobby, it's not about winning prices or making money. Especially this FTF mumbo-jumbo is just a very unofficial side-game. To some it's the most important thing in the world, other couldn't care less.

 

GermanSailor

[+firennice]

There are many ways people may have found or signed it before it was listed...

 

if you were first post listing..claim the ftf and enjoy.

[+baloo&bd]

There are many ways people may have found or signed it before it was listed...

 

if you were first post listing..claim the ftf and enjoy.

 

Of course, in actuality you would really be second to find, but if it makes you happy...

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Ack, that's cheating!!

GermanSailor

Let's not mis quote me...you left out the part where I said J.K.

 

which means Just Kidding.

[+SimpleBears]

I got a note back from the cache owner. The cache in question was for an event, and the reviewer didn't post the cache till after the event. Makes sense to me.

[+Matt_B_Good]

Only saw one that you did, placed on 3/14, published on 3/21.

 

Only you logged (online).

 

It is possible that somebody held off on the publishing, allowing a friend to grab the FTF. It happens on occasion.

 

I'm planning one of those. just so the friend can find it in its original condition.

[+dfx]

I got a note back from the cache owner. The cache in question was for an event, and the reviewer didn't post the cache till after the event. Makes sense to me.

apart from that, two more scenarios come to mind:

 

1) beta-testing a cache. usually only happens on multis and mysteries. the CO gives the listing privately to a friend, to have him check the validity of the cache. only after a successful beta-test, the cache will be activated and published.

2) caches placed for personal reasons, such as a birthday surprise. again the listings are given privately to somebody close to the CO, and will be activated and published only after they have found the caches.

 

in all of those cases, you can still claim your FTF: first to find after it was published. if that doesn't go against your FTF codex, that is

 

and also in all those cases, nobody could've logged any finds online before the publish date, but usually they will log afterwards, with a log date of before the publish date.

[+Biker64]

I've been known to raffle the FTF opportunity at an event and give someone a 20 minute headstart on all the other cachers at the event. then the cache doesn't publish until the next day and then everyone can log..

[+simpjkee]

Maybe they were part of the placement team.

[+briansnat]

I got a note back from the cache owner. The cache in question was for an event, and the reviewer didn't post the cache till after the event. Makes sense to me.

 

One of a number of ways it could happen. You have to remember that this is just a listing site. The cache owner is free to advertise his cache to whomever, whenever and wherever he wants. This site is just one of the ways he can do so, and nowhere is it written that it has to be listed here first.

[+Walts Hunting]

It can happen legitemently sometimes. I worked very hard to do a cache that you had to find three travel bugs to get the final coordinates. Got the publishing schedule worked out with the reviewer and went out in the morning on a long drive spreading the TB's a minimum of 15 miles apart. Was looking forward to everyone chasing the TB's hard for FTF (which was a R/C car). Later that night this log appearred.

 

Jeo was here

Mc5 and I were feeling like a hike so we decided to go on a Road Trip and do some cache maintenence on "Red White and Blue" and "Road Trip". While there we stumbled across the first of the three bugs. I didn't recognize it or the cache it was referring to but wrote down the numbers anyway "Just in case". Then headed up the hill for a new cache "Gold Bug". Hey What's this a second mysterious TB??? The plot thickens, am I that far out of the loop or am I just getting lucky? Made a quick phone call to find out where the third TB was. Found out it was down in my area but also found out that there wasn't a cache yet hhmmm The gravy thickens Made a quick trip to get the rest of the info and hopefully find the mysterious cache. On approach to the final location I made a guess from about 100 feet away and I was right Mc5 hates it when I do that. Cool there's still an R/C car and we were WooHoo FTF! Took the car and dropped off a 915LM garage door open/close indicator light (I'm glad I brought the work truck). Then when we got home still couldn't find the cache online and found out that it hadn't been approved yet. Cool found a cache before approval, reminds me of the good ol days when we could lurk around the not approved caches. Sometimes it pays to be lucky.

Thanks for a great and well setup cache.

[+van der Decken]

How is it possible for someone to find the cache before it's published?

Sometimes you don't really need coordinates. Sometimes you just need to be a bit lucky and a lot persistent.

 

On Saturday I was heading up a ridgeline in the foothills for a newly published brass cap (Canadian benchmark). Given the location, I had a pretty strong hunch who might have requested this particular cap. If it was him, he'd already made a trip to check it out. And knowing how he hides, there was a strong likelihood that he'd hidden a cache (or caches) along the way. So I kept my eyes open, and spotted a container in a tree just over 0.1 mile from the cap I was seeking; I just happened to look at the right tree from the right angle. Opened it up and discovered that it was indeed a brand new cache with a blank logbook. Woo hoo; FTF.

 

And in a further coincidence, at just about the same time I was making the find, the CO emailed me (and others) to let us know that he'd placed some caches along the way to the brass cap and that they'd likely be published on Sunday. Without letting us know where they were mind you -- more or less saying to wait until they were published, saving us a second trip up. When I got home and saw that email, I emailed him back a picture of my GPSr sitting on top of the cache with the FTF card in view.

[Andronicus]

On one of my caches, I posted a hint on our local forum. I figured someone would find it to claim the FTF, but no one even looked untill it was listed. Then someone, who likely had read the forum hint, found it in about 45min.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

It can happen legitemently sometimes. I worked very hard to do a cache that you had to find three travel bugs to get the final coordinates. Got the publishing schedule worked out with the reviewer and went out in the morning on a long drive spreading the TB's a minimum of 15 miles apart. Was looking forward to everyone chasing the TB's hard for FTF (which was a R/C car). Later that night this log appearred.

 

You was robbed!!

[+GeoGerms]

There is another way which I haven't seen mentioned here. If the owner places a TB in the cache before it's published there is a way to extract the coords for the unpublished cache from it. Then they run over to write their names in the logbook, wait for it to be published, then log it online. Sometimes it takes a few days for it to be published resulting in the mismatch dates. This has happened to me a couple of times. I now the trick, but don't use it. I feel it is cheating .

[+Gorak]

Many years ago we had a local reviewer who would find and claim FTF before the cache was published. Apparently he doesn't review local caches anymore. Probably doesn't happen very often but is certainly not beyond belief.

 

Hope I don't get banned for dredging that dusty old skeleton up....

[+Max and 99]

Many years ago we had a local reviewer who would find and claim FTF before the cache was published. Apparently he doesn't review local caches anymore. Probably doesn't happen very often but is certainly not beyond belief.

 

Hope I don't get banned for dredging that dusty old skeleton up....

 

Seriously? You're not making this up?

[+Gorak]

 

Seriously? You're not making this up?

Sad, but true.

 

[+baloo&bd]

There is another way which I haven't seen mentioned here. If the owner places a TB in the cache before it's published there is a way to extract the coords for the unpublished cache from it. Then they run over to write their names in the logbook, wait for it to be published, then log it online. Sometimes it takes a few days for it to be published resulting in the mismatch dates. This has happened to me a couple of times. I now the trick, but don't use it. I feel it is cheating .

 

How is this, or for that matter any other way of finding a cache before it is published "cheating".

 

GC is a listing service. You are free to give out coords to a cache the minute you place it, even before to anyone who wants them and if they in fact find it first, they are first to find.

 

If you are going to play some made-up side game, and others choose to not participate, you're just gonna have to learn to live with a little disappointment however, it is not cheating or unfair by any stretch of the imagination. It affects no one adversely.

[+GeoGerms]

 

How is this, or for that matter any other way of finding a cache before it is published "cheating".

 

GC is a listing service. You are free to give out coords to a cache the minute you place it, even before to anyone who wants them and if they in fact find it first, they are first to find.

 

If you are going to play some made-up side game, and others choose to not participate, you're just gonna have to learn to live with a little disappointment however, it is not cheating or unfair by any stretch of the imagination. It affects no one adversely.

 

I agree with you except that I am talking about "beating" the GC listing service, obtaining the coords (without cache owners approval), and logging it before it is officially published.

[+narcissa]

 

Ack, that's cheating!!

 

 

No, it isn't.

 

There are no official rules to FTF, it's not enshrined in the guidelines in any way, and geocache owners are free to list their caches privately or on other listing services. Geocache owners are not obligated to give Geocaching.com users first crack at FTF.

[+narcissa]

Ack, that's cheating!!

GermanSailor

Let's not mis quote me...you left out the part where I said J.K.

 

which means Just Kidding.

 

Sorry, I did this too. It looked like you were one of those weird people who signs posts with their initials. I'm used to "j/k" but not "J.K."

 

Z.T.

[+Renroc]

I had this happen to me when I had not been caching very long. I was looking for one cache on the Queensland Gold Coast and found another one.....new logbook and TB.... so I signed the logbook as FTF and took the TB.. I did another few caches (didn't manage to find the one I had originally been looking for) and went the 100km home.

When I tried to log the TB it said it was in a particular cache... when I looked for that cache name it told me it wasn't published.

 

SO I sent an email to the cache owner and told them what had happened. I then waited for a couple of days before it was published and I could claim my FTF...

[+baloo&bd]

I agree with you except that I am talking about "beating" the GC listing service, obtaining the coords (without cache owners approval), and logging it before it is officially published.

 

They found the cache, which is what is the basic premise of caching. Do you include or have you ever included or found a cache that has the standard cache note? It does not say "If you found this by accident, you cheated", it invites the finder to join.

 

How they got the coords does not impact the CO, subsequent finders or geocaching in general. The publish date simply is the date it has met the requirements to be listed on GC, not given permission to be found. Finding a cache by whatever means is simply not cheating.

[+GeoGerms]

I agree with you except that I am talking about "beating" the GC listing service, obtaining the coords (without cache owners approval), and logging it before it is officially published.

 

They found the cache, which is what is the basic premise of caching. Do you include or have you ever included or found a cache that has the standard cache note? It does not say "If you found this by accident, you cheated", it invites the finder to join.

 

How they got the coords does not impact the CO, subsequent finders or geocaching in general. The publish date simply is the date it has met the requirements to be listed on GC, not given permission to be found. Finding a cache by whatever means is simply not cheating.

 

Once again I agree with the idea that first to find the cache is FTF when you just so happen to stumble upon one out in the wild or when the cache owner provides you with the coords and allows you to find the cache before anyone else. What I consider "cheating" is when people wait for an owner to place a TB in an unpublished cache on the listing service geocaching.com, extract the coords by a current loophole that said listing service knows about and plans fix in the future, then runs out and logs the find. Like it or not the "FTF side game" is part of the game (albeit not for everyone) and like everything else in geocaching is basically based on an honor system. I don't expect a person who is not a "FTF Hound" to understand this, but by rushing out before the #1 geocache listing service in the world says "GO!" to me is just wrong. One more thing, it may impact the CO when the CO, who is unaware of the loophole, is actually interested in who will be FTF (say when they place a FTF prize in the cache).

[+addisonbr]

There are bits and pieces to the FTF side game that I consider cheating, at least among those who also play the FTF side game. I don't need for a centralized service to declare it "So" or "Not So" for me to conclude that. For the most extreme example I see in this thread, I'd certainly say that a reviewer running out and finding caches before he chose to publish them was "cheating" by any common practices standard, regardless of what Groundspeak doesn't have to say about the matter. Of course, that's a pretty unusual scenario.

 

But the great thing about there being no centralized authority on the matter is that I am free to add the cache to my personal bookmark list or check the box on GSAK or etc. without having to think or worry about what other people do.

[+3doxies]

Just a thought here...if a new cache is submitted to both the Pond and another listing service, and said other listing service publishes it quicker than the Frog can breep it out, could those who are only seeing it first on the Pond not get a nasty surprise with finding a defiled log? Seems the FTFers may need to grow eyes that can watch both sides of the swamp...

[+baloo&bd]

One more thing, it may impact the CO when the CO, who is unaware of the loophole, is actually interested in who will be FTF (say when they place a FTF prize in the cache).

 

They still won't be impacted because whomever is first to sign the log is still the one who is "credited" with first to find and gets the gift. No harm, no foul.

[+GeoGerms]

One more thing, it may impact the CO when the CO, who is unaware of the loophole, is actually interested in who will be FTF (say when they place a FTF prize in the cache).

 

They still won't be impacted because whomever is first to sign the log is still the one who is "credited" with first to find and gets the gift. No harm, no foul.

 

It impacts the CO when the CO, like myself, is interested in a fair "FTF race". Why? I know a bunch of people don't care, but I consider it fun (especially when a noob beats an established FTF hound ). And a "FTF race" to me, maybe I'm a bit old fashioned here, is defined as someone saying "GO!" and the first one there gets the "prize (blank log or actual prize)". So, a listing service publishes the cache = "GO!" and first one there = "FTF".

Edited January 19, 2011 by GeoGerms

[+baloo&bd]

It impacts the CO when the CO, like myself, is interested in a fair "FTF race". Why? I know a bunch of people don't care, but I consider it fun (especially when a noob beats an established FTF hound ). And a "FTF race" to me, maybe I'm a bit old fashioned here, is defined as someone saying "GO!" and the first one there gets the "prize (blank log or actual prize)". So, a listing service publishes the cache = "GO!" and first one there = "FTF".

 

Thanks to thread like this, people who do participate in this side game are starting to realize that it is fair to assume the game starts at placement with no adverse affect on th cache, CO or subsequebt finders.

 

Really, it is surprising it took this long since when you consider all the whining is really a veiled complaint that someone was more clever then they were at getting there first, which most say the side game is all about.

[+GeoGerms]

Thanks to thread like this, people who do participate in this side game are starting to realize that it is fair to assume the game starts at placement with no adverse affect on th cache, CO or subsequebt finders.

 

Really, it is surprising it took this long since when you consider all the whining is really a veiled complaint that someone was more clever then they were at getting there first, which most say the side game is all about.

 

Oh I beg to differ, take this scenario (one of possibly many) for example: Cache owner places cache (and drops TB) in what he believes is a safe place, the "clever" one runs out after it before it has been approved/published, runs into Military Police because the cache owner didn't know it was on Military Property (out here not everything is marked by fences and signs), however, the reviewer did and denies the cache. If you are on gc.com, like the majority of the world (for now anyway), it is better for everyone involved to wait for a second set of eyes (gc.com or whomever) to check the cache out before it is OK to go after it. I don't believe it is "clever" to "beat the system", in fact when said like that "clever" sounds like "cheating" .

[+Gorak]

I don't believe it is "clever" to "beat the system", in fact when said like that "clever" sounds like "cheating" .

How can you "cheat" at a side game when there are no "official" rules? It seems that the only widely accepted "unofficial" rule for FTF is to be the first one to sign the log book.

 

[+GeoGerms]

I don't believe it is "clever" to "beat the system", in fact when said like that "clever" sounds like "cheating" .

How can you "cheat" at a side game when there are no "official" rules? It seems that the only widely accepted "unofficial" rule for FTF is to be the first one to sign the log book.

 

 

People always say there are "no official rules" to this "side game" and I agree with that, but the majority of the people I play this "side game" with do follow some "unsaid rules" one of them being what we have been talking about here - it is bad form to extract the coords from a TB drop in an unpublished cache and go out to find it.

[+baloo&bd]

Oh I beg to differ, take this scenario (one of possibly many) for example: Cache owner places cache (and drops TB) in what he believes is a safe place, the "clever" one runs out after it before it has been approved/published, runs into Military Police because the cache owner didn't know it was on Military Property (out here not everything is marked by fences and signs), however, the reviewer did and denies the cache. If you are on gc.com, like the majority of the world (for now anyway), it is better for everyone involved to wait for a second set of eyes (gc.com or whomever) to check the cache out before it is OK to go after it. I don't believe it is "clever" to "beat the system", in fact when said like that "clever" sounds like "cheating" .

 

Couple assumptions here that don't quite hold up.

 

First is, if this "scenario" were actually ever to happen, two sets of eyes already viewed it. The hider and the finder. If a reviewer were then to find the error, great. It is not listed, the finder does not get an online log and the only issue is they had to explain why they were there. Were this even to happen, it is rare. A more common occurrence, very common, is that a cache is placed, approved and sometimes even has a few finds when a cacher is confronted by a property owner or police officer because they are on private property. As such, this example is not really relevant.

 

Second, the OP never stated it was found by someone who did it via a TB, it was found because it was placed for an event and just not published till afterward. Cheating? There are also many of us that give coords out prior to them being published. Magellan some years back had caches placed for weeks, if not months, that you could only get the coords from their page prior to it finally being listed on GC (Magellan 2005 Contest). Who was FtF?

 

Cheating not only implies rules of which everyone is not only aware but agree to, but also implies something being done deceptively (see previous post with definition). If you go caching after it has snowed and about 50 yards out you see footprints and, as you get closer, you see a trail in the snow directly to the hide. Is it fraudulent to log it because you did not use a GPS or map? What if it is hidden in a manner where the only legal trail to reach it is a 3/4 mile hike however I know a property owner who has property right next to the cache which means I only have to walk 185 feet to reach it. Was I deceptive because I did not hike to it as the hider intended? To each and every one of these examples if you search the threads hard enough you will find that someone considers them cheating. Heck, there was a whole thread on someone upset when a couple went out and found a hide in a tree and only one of them climb up and wanted to delete the logs.

 

We can all go on with far fetched, one off type examples involving police, snow, trees, etc. however even with the TB example it basically comes down to the fact that someone found how to use a feature within the system to play a side game where all the participants only agreed upon rule is that you must be first to sign the log book. Others (not the OP) are now complaining because they were not clever enough to find the feature on their own and utilize it.

Edited January 19, 2011 by baloo&bd

[+Gorak]

People always say there are "no official rules" to this "side game" and I agree with that, but the majority of the people I play this "side game" with do follow some "unsaid rules" one of them being what we have been talking about here - it is bad form to extract the coords from a TB drop in an unpublished cache and go out to find it.

So what are the "unsaid rules" that everyone is supposed to be aware of and agree with? Can you list them so that we are all aware of them and playing from the same rulebook?

 

From reading this thread it appears that the "unsaid rules" are far from being accepted by everyone. What may be "bad form" for you may simply be another winning strategy for someone else who is willing to put the time and effort into searching for TB's placed in unpublished caches.

 

Perhaps the old adage that "if you can't beat them, join them" is appropriate here. If you are concerned that you're not getting a fair chance to be FTF because of people exploiting loopholes perhaps you should be monitoring those same loopholes and beating the "cheaters" at their own game.

 

[+GeoGerms]

 

Couple assumptions here that don't quite hold up.

 

First is, if this "scenario" were actually ever to happen, two sets of eyes already viewed it. The hider and the finder. If a reviewer were then to find the error, great. It is not listed, the finder does not get an online log and the only issue is they had to explain why they were there. Were this even to happen, it is rare. A more common occurrence, very common, is that a cache is placed, approved and sometimes even has a few finds when a cacher is confronted by a property owner or police officer because they are on private property. As such, this example is not really relevant.

 

Um, the finder might also be clueless as to it being on Military property. Here on O'ahu, there are several places (i.e. training areas) that look great for a cache placement, but are actually on government land. No, the cache owner and reviewer are still the only ones that can view the cache before it is published. By using this "loophole" the "clever" cacher only gets the coords, he doesn't see the whole picture. The purpose of the scenario was to propose an example that the game starts at publish not at what you stated earlier "at placement with no adverse affect on th cache, CO or subsequebt finders".

 

Second, the OP never stated it was found by someone who did it via a TB, it was found because it was placed for an event and just not published till afterward. Cheating? There are also many of us that give coords out prior to them being published. Magellan some years back had caches placed for weeks, if not months, that you could only get the coords from their page prior to it finally being listed on GC (Magellan 2005 Contest). Who was FtF?

 

The OP stated this:

"Today there were quite a few new caches published in my area. So this morning I set out to find some of them hoping to score my first FTF.

 

I checked the logs to make sure no one had found them yet and then went on my way. After I got to my first one I checked the logs again and its already been logged FTF. I look a little closer and the FTF log is from 3/19 but the cache wasn't published till 3/21.

 

How is it possible for someone to find the cache before it's published?

 

Leslie"

 

I gave an example of how caches can be found "before it's published". Yes I added my $0.02 with how I felt about the method, not about his situation. Yes I am aware of others handing out coords before it is published and I am fine with that (Which I have stated several times already!). I am merely talking about finding the cache via the "loophole".

 

Cheating not only implies rules of which everyone is not only aware but agree to, but also implies something being done deceptively (see previous post with definition). If you go caching after it has snowed and about 50 yards out you see footprints and, as you get closer, you see a trail in the snow directly to the hide. Is it fraudulent to log it because you did not use a GPS or map? What if it is hidden in a manner where the only legal trail to reach it is a 3/4 mile hike however I know a property owner who has property right next to the cache which means I only have to walk 185 feet to reach it. Was I deceptive because I did not hike to it as the hider intended? To each and every one of these examples if you search the threads hard enough you will find that someone considers them cheating. Heck, there was a whole thread on someone upset when a couple went out and found a hide in a tree and only one of them climb up and wanted to delete the logs.

 

Your examples are fine. I have no issue with stumbling upon a cache in the wild (You lucky bugga, time to go Vegas!) or finding Published caches. My issue is with taking advantage of the "loophole". That the majority, if they knew existed wouldn't drop a TB in their unpublished cache.

 

We can all go on with far fetched, one off type examples involving police, snow, trees, etc. however even with the TB example it basically comes down to the fact that someone found how to use a feature within the system to play a side game where all the participants only agreed upon rule is that you must be first to sign the log book. Others (not the OP) are now complaining because they were not clever enough to find the feature on their own and utilize it.

 

I don't think it is far fetched at all. It is not a "feature", it is "loophole" that GS (and some cachers "in the know") knows about and will hopefully fix in the future. To me a race should start on an even playing field and that field starts at publication, when the finder can make the assumption the cache is safe to be hunted. That is how the "FTF Race" started, right?

[+BulldogBlitz]

"beta tester"... but as with the FTF "race", there seems to be nothing more than a gentleman's agreement between people who may or may not have ever met or discussed the terms of the race.

 

try having a difficult/unique cache, with a prize for the FTF, only to have the beta tester pounce on the final location the instant of publishing.

 

it is all pretty much gray area. you can claim FTF or FTL if it is that important to you. the CO can't even come close to stopping you.

[+BulldogBlitz]

I don't think it is far fetched at all. It is not a "feature", it is "loophole" that GS (and some cachers "in the know") knows about and will hopefully fix in the future. To me a race should start on an even playing field and that field starts at publication, when the finder can make the assumption the cache is safe to be hunted. That is how the "FTF Race" started, right?

 

very many times, on the caches where i can claim FTF, it wasn't even a race. the true "race" happens that first hour after a cache is published. if no one bothers after the cache that day... or the next... or into the next afternoon, what is the sense in making a big to-do about being FTF as if you raced out of your house in your underwear with a flashlight to beat joe-shmo cacher who lives nearby.

 

the caches that i know are in a location to have a serious "race", i won't even bother since we have a pool of admitted speeders here who see nothing wrong with running a red light or three in order to be "first".

[+GeoGerms]

People always say there are "no official rules" to this "side game" and I agree with that, but the majority of the people I play this "side game" with do follow some "unsaid rules" one of them being what we have been talking about here - it is bad form to extract the coords from a TB drop in an unpublished cache and go out to find it.

So what are the "unsaid rules" that everyone is supposed to be aware of and agree with? Can you list them so that we are all aware of them and playing from the same rulebook?

 

From reading this thread it appears that the "unsaid rules" are far from being accepted by everyone. What may be "bad form" for you may simply be another winning strategy for someone else who is willing to put the time and effort into searching for TB's placed in unpublished caches.

 

Perhaps the old adage that "if you can't beat them, join them" is appropriate here. If you are concerned that you're not getting a fair chance to be FTF because of people exploiting loopholes perhaps you should be monitoring those same loopholes and beating the "cheaters" at their own game.

 

 

OK I'm going out on a limb here, because I'll probably be laughed at but here it goes . There aren't many, but here are some off the top of my head. Yes they are a gentleman's agreement between people I play with, that basically revolve around caching safely and starting on an even playing field where everyone can hunt (noobs and seasoned cachers alike).

 

1. The previously stated the "loophole" is bad form - not everyone knows about it and there is no distinctive "GO!" to start the race

2. If the cache owner says the cache is in a park with hours go during those hours

3. Follow the attributes, Not recommended at night - don't go at night, Not 24/7 - don't go when the cache is not available, Not a night cache - again don't go at night.

 

Simple rules voiced by FTF Hounds who care about keeping the race clean and fun .

[+Gorak]

Yes I am aware of others handing out coords before it is published and I am fine with that (Which I have stated several times already!).

 

I have no issue with stumbling upon a cache in the wild (You lucky bugga, time to go Vegas!)

 

To me a race should start on an even playing field and that field starts at publication, when the finder can make the assumption the cache is safe to be hunted. That is how the "FTF Race" started, right?

Your statements above, all from the same posting, do not jive with your last statement. So which is it? Does the "race" start with the Groundspeak publication of the cache or when the cache is hidden. Your statements seem to indicate that either meet your "unsaid rules". If you are adamant that someone using "the loophole" to be FTF is gaining an upper hand and is therefor cheating, why are you OK with a cache owner giving another person the upper hand by handing out the coords prior to publication? It seems to me that in both of those examples, the FTF'er has had an advantage that was not available to those who rely solely on Groundspeak cache listings and notifications.

 

[+Gorak]

Yes they are a gentleman's agreement between people I play with, that basically revolve around caching safely and starting on an even playing field where everyone can hunt (noobs and seasoned cachers alike).

That may be all well and good for you and those people you play with. However, the FTF game is open to all geocachers and not all are gentlemen (or even men, for that matter). In most races, the winners abide by agreed-upon rules, not "gentlemen's agreements". Screaming "foul" because the winner didn't abide by an unwritten and debatable "gentlemen's agreement" is what the poor losers do.