Searching for caches that have not been found

[+PezCachers]

Trying to find caches that have not been found after they were hidden.

With all the ”beta finders” logging in even before the published date the caches still come up as being found. So, if you do a PQ with beta finders already logged in who ever logs in first gets the FTF running a stats PQ?

Are there any filters to use to eliminate the beta finders and see the unfound caches?

Pezcachers

[+mountainman38]

Trying to find caches that have not been found after they were hidden.

With all the ”beta finders” logging in even before the published date the caches still come up as being found. So, if you do a PQ with beta finders already logged in who ever logs in first gets the FTF running a stats PQ?

Are there any filters to use to eliminate the beta finders and see the unfound caches?

Pezcachers

 

I'm not sure I understand your question. What do you mean by a "beta finder"? Running a pocket query to find unfound caches returns lots of hits with notes on them, including DNF's (such as mine, here).

[+DENelson83]

Just making sure that when he says "beta logger", he doesn't really mean "data logger"... Wait, isn't that exactly what a GPSr is???

[+PezCachers]

Trying to find caches that have not been found after they were hidden.

With all the ”beta finders” logging in even before the published date the caches still come up as being found. So, if you do a PQ with beta finders already logged in who ever logs in first gets the FTF running a stats PQ?

Are there any filters to use to eliminate the beta finders and see the unfound caches?

Pezcachers

 

I'm not sure I understand your question. What do you mean by a "beta finder"? Running a pocket query to find unfound caches returns lots of hits with notes on them, including DNF's (such as mine, here).

 

When a cache is hidden and there are people with the cache hider many times they post a find and date it before the published date of the reviewer and claim a “beta find”

Once they do that it will not come up as an unfound cache even though it predates the reviewers published date.

I don’t agree with the practice but it happens all the time and if you want to run a PQ for unfound caches I guess you are out of luck.

[+mountainman38]

When a cache is hidden and there are people with the cache hider many times they post a find and date it before the published date of the reviewer and claim a “beta find”

Once they do that it will not come up as an unfound cache even though it predates the reviewers published date.

I don’t agree with the practice but it happens all the time and if you want to run a PQ for unfound caches I guess you are out of luck.

Wow. I haven't seen that done yet, but it sounds like a pretty poor practice. People can go on all they want about how silly an FTF race is, but it's certainly an exciting part of the game for a lot of people.

 

When someone logs a find before the cache is even published, they oughta go sit in timeout. As should the CO, if he/she allows that. If you're gonna allow that, why bother to publish the cache? Just make up a bunch for your friends to find.

 

Sorry -- I don't know of a way around this kind of behavior.

[+PezCachers]

When a cache is hidden and there are people with the cache hider many times they post a find and date it before the published date of the reviewer and claim a “beta find”

Once they do that it will not come up as an unfound cache even though it predates the reviewers published date.

I don’t agree with the practice but it happens all the time and if you want to run a PQ for unfound caches I guess you are out of luck.

Wow. I haven't seen that done yet, but it sounds like a pretty poor practice. People can go on all they want about how silly an FTF race is, but it's certainly an exciting part of the game for a lot of people.

 

When someone logs a find before the cache is even published, they oughta go sit in timeout. As should the CO, if he/she allows that. If you're gonna allow that, why bother to publish the cache? Just make up a bunch for your friends to find.

 

Sorry -- I don't know of a way around this kind of behavior.

 

 

GC20c4Q

GC20B0K

GC20c4R

 

The list can go on and on....

These are all found caches while with the hider.

 

If you go to nearest caches all of these were logged as found but still no FTF?

[Tahosa and Sons]

Many of my tough backcountry caches were field tested by Beta Testers.

And they were very helpful helping me find out if I made any mistakes in the long and complicated routes, etc. etc. Without out their time and help these caches might not of reached their full realm.

As to FTF'ers there is not a rush for those that require a good 8 - 12 mile hike. So who really cares who a beta finder or a FTF'er is.

Oh the FTF'ers only make the made dash for those so called urbanized caches.

[+Max and 99]

I care. It's much more rewarding to be a FTF on a challenging cache that requires a hike and a lot of work!

[+tozainamboku]

As Tahosa and Sons says many back country caches are going to have beta testers. What has been happening here in So. California, is that several groups have formed that get together to tackle a difficult back country cache (or more likely to find the caches along a a trail that has turned into a powertrail.). It has become popular for cachers in these groups to place new caches as part of their hike. The common practice has become to for those on the hike that aren't the owner of the new cache to sign the log and claim a beta find.

 

The beta find is a way of allowing those that still compete for FTF to claim the FTF after publication. Most beta finders hold off logging online until the cache is found post publication. Of course if the FTF-PP is not aware of the practice they may find a log book full of signatures on the first page and wonder what is going on. Similary are the beta finders who log their find as soon as the cache is publish, making those that want a FTF-PP not know if the cache was found post publication or if only beta finders have signed the log.

 

I'm not sure if PezCachers are asking how to search for cache that have not been found (except perhaps by beta testers) or if they are asking how to get some statistic program to recognize which caches they were FTF on when the PQ show earlier logs from beta testers. Most stats programs do not use the earliest log as the "FTF". This is because, even without the beta find question, the 2nd to find may log online before the FTF. Usually stats programs rely on manually inputing which caches you were FTF on. So if you want to count the FTF-PP that you have simply tell the stats program that you were FTF on those caches.

[+Jennifer&Dean]

I care. It's much more rewarding to be a FTF on a challenging cache that requires a hike and a lot of work!

Usually the Beta tester has had to do the same amount of work and hiking as you. Most of the time with the ones I have seen, they don't claim FTF but just claim the find as present with owner when placing or as the Beta tester.

 

Do you mean that if my brother is with us when we place a cache 3 miles up a trail that after he field tests the coordinates for us and confirms that they work for him in his GPS, he can't claim a find until he returns up that same trail after the cache is posted? That would be a little mean to do to him.

 

(I should try it someday and see if he will be stubborn enough to do the hike again just because some folks on a forum think it isn't fair.)

 

I've been FTF on a few caches and puzzles that weren't beta tested and really needed to be. It sucks when the owner doesn't bother testing the whole process or assumes something makes sense and you have to spend all your time trying to figure out what went wrong. I would prefer if the cache owner works the kinks out before publication instead of after. Let the Beta testers and co-cachers have their logs.

J

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Trying to find caches that have not been found after they were hidden.

With all the ”beta finders” logging in even before the published date the caches still come up as being found. So, if you do a PQ with beta finders already logged in who ever logs in first gets the FTF running a stats PQ?

Are there any filters to use to eliminate the beta finders and see the unfound caches?

Pezcachers

 

You can run a pocket query which will only show caches for which an online found it log has not been posted, however that may include caches that have been found. Sometimes beta testers of caches won't log their find online. Sometimes they will wait until someone else has found it before logging online. Sometimes they won't wait. There are no rules about beta testing caches and although FTF is not an official part of the game, there can only be one FTF on a cache and that is the first person to find the cache after it's been hidden. The online logs have nothing to do with it.

[Clan Riffster]

I don't know an answer to your question, but I do know a way to avoid such incidents in the future. I've been hiding caches recently in rather hazardous environments. I've taken up the practice of asking a few friends to tag along with me to mark the coords where I met my maker, (and hopefully hide a cache in my honor), should I ever fail to exit the swamps. I typically have these folks sign a few pages in to the logbook, noting that they beta tested it. Then I ask them to either log their adventure as a note, which they can change to a find later, or wait till someone else finds it, then log their find. The folks I cache with are all reasonable, and none have objected to this practice.

[+PezCachers]

As Tahosa and Sons says many back country caches are going to have beta testers. What has been happening here in So. California, is that several groups have formed that get together to tackle a difficult back country cache (or more likely to find the caches along a a trail that has turned into a powertrail.). It has become popular for cachers in these groups to place new caches as part of their hike. The common practice has become to for those on the hike that aren't the owner of the new cache to sign the log and claim a beta find.

 

The beta find is a way of allowing those that still compete for FTF to claim the FTF after publication. Most beta finders hold off logging online until the cache is found post publication. Of course if the FTF-PP is not aware of the practice they may find a log book full of signatures on the first page and wonder what is going on. Similary are the beta finders who log their find as soon as the cache is publish, making those that want a FTF-PP not know if the cache was found post publication or if only beta finders have signed the log.

 

I'm not sure if PezCachers are asking how to search for cache that have not been found (except perhaps by beta testers) or if they are asking how to get some statistic program to recognize which caches they were FTF on when the PQ show earlier logs from beta testers. Most stats programs do not use the earliest log as the "FTF". This is because, even without the beta find question, the 2nd to find may log online before the FTF. Usually stats programs rely on manually inputing which caches you were FTF on. So if you want to count the FTF-PP that you have simply tell the stats program that you were FTF on those caches.

 

 

Thanks Toz,

This is what I was not aware of. I thought the programs you ran your own stats on picked up the FTF from the first found it log.

As far as being a beta tester I will never get the way people are doing it but that was not my initial question and I could care less what other people do.

I beta tested a couple of caches. I did not know the hider on one of them and I was not with either one of them when they were placed. They both emailed me and asked if I would check it out and gave me the coords. After I found the caches I waited until the FTF was claimed then logged in using the date before the cache was published since I had the coords before they went online.

[+StarBrand]

The first person to find the cache after it was hidden using the coordinates of the location is the FTF. No matter how they aquired the coordinates.

 

That is if FTF still means First to Find.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

After I found the caches I waited until the FTF was claimed then logged in using the date before the cache was published since I had the coords before they went online.

 

I'm not sure if you're confusing FTL (first to log) with FTF, but whoever "claimed" FTF on that cache wasn't the first to find it. You were. As has been pointed out a few times in this thread...it does not matter if a cache is found before it's published on geocaching.com. Whoever found the cache first, published or unpublished, is FTF.

 

A person could find a cache and never log the find online...they're still FTF on that cache.

[knowschad]

Am I the only one that finds this whole concept of "beta testers" to be more than a little bit ridiculous? First of all, a "beta tester" is a software concept, not a geocaching concept. But more than that... can't you test your own hide, for Pete's sake? Mark the spot, walk off a bit, select that waypoint, and see where it takes you. Do you really need somebody else to do that for you?

[+Crow-T-Robot]

But more than that... can't you test your own hide, for Pete's sake? Mark the spot, walk off a bit, select that waypoint, and see where it takes you. Do you really need somebody else to do that for you?

 

For the most part, I agree. But, there are examples of when a cache owner just assumes anyone who sets out to find their cache will know all there is to know about their town/city/county/state/whatever. For instance, I found a 4 star multi and one of the stages asked me to use the last three digits of that towns postal code in the math equation to find the next stage (no numbers, just a slip of paper that said "Add xxx to the last three numbers of (name of town)'s zip code for the North coords, etc)

 

One of the previous finders had written in the needed numbers (they had unofficially adopted the cache since the owner wasn't maintaining it), so I was able to go on without having to go home, google the zip code and go back out. It wasn't a stage that made it a 4 star difficulty...the owner just assumed people would know the postal code.

 

Admittedly, there aren't alot of caches that need to be beta tested but sometimes as a cache owner, you have to think about things beyond a local scale. Beta testers can catch some things about your cache that you honestly didn't realize and that might frustrate alot of cachers who come looking for it.

[+tozainamboku]

I'm not sure if you're confusing FTL (first to log) with FTF, but whoever "claimed" FTF on that cache wasn't the first to find it. You were. As has been pointed out a few times in this thread...it does not matter if a cache is found before it's published on geocaching.com. Whoever found the cache first, published or unpublished, is FTF.

 

A person could find a cache and never log the find online...they're still FTF on that cache.

 

This literalistic view does not consider how way people who "competively" try to get first to finds might think. These people see FTF as an objective that is available on every cache. When the cache is published, everyone gets notified at about the same time so there is some degree of "fairness" in racing to find the cache first. If cachers are logging finds because the were given the coordinates before the cache was published or they were with the cache owner when the cache was hidden, that cache is no longer in play. One thing would be for the cache owner to say that the cache was already found when it get publish so the competitive FTFers would know to not look for it. The other option is for the community to accept the idea of FTF-PP (FTF post publication) and let the competitive FTFers claim FTF if they are the first non-beta finder.

 

The interesting thing about this thread is that PezCachers are interested in remote caches that aren't the subject of the normal FTF competition. These caches sit unfound for months until someone like PezCachers goes to look for them. The cache owner may even have left a FTF prize as incentive for someone to go find the cache. A few people enjoy looking for caches that have sat for a few months without being found. Several of my FTFs are like this - difficult puzzles, long hikes, or high terrain. If the only ones who have "found" the cache were actually with the cache owner when it was hidden, you can be sure I'm going to claim to be the first to actually have found a cache like this.

 

Am I the only one that finds this whole concept of "beta testers" to be more than a little bit ridiculous? First of all, a "beta tester" is a software concept, not a geocaching concept. But more than that... can't you test your own hide, for Pete's sake? Mark the spot, walk off a bit, select that waypoint, and see where it takes you. Do you really need somebody else to do that for you?

I don't think there is any real testing going on. It is simply a combination of the fact that site does support true multiple ownership and the the no ALR rule - namely that once you have signed the physical cache log you can log a find online. When the cache is hidden the people with the cache owner sign the log, therefore they have "found" the cache. The use of the term beta test is just a convenient way to say that you didn't really find the cache. A real beta test where the cache owner prints out the cache page and gives it to someone to look for the cache and check that the coordinates and ratings are correct is rare.

[+PhxChem]

"Beta finder"? Really?

 

Is that the second Greek person to find your cache?

 

Tomorrow, I'm releasing a beta version of a cache......once I find out what that means.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

The other option is for the community to accept the idea of FTF-PP (FTF post publication) and let the competitive FTFers claim FTF if they are the first non-beta finder.

 

I think that's a good idea. I'm not a FTF hound, so perhaps I'm wrong, but I think most cachers who chase after FTF's don't really care if a cache was found before it was published on gc.com. They want the glory of being the first person to find it once it's published for all the world to seek.

 

My view is simplistic in that once a cache is found, noone else can be "FTF"...but given that hounds enjoy the chase and the competition of beating their fellow chasers to the cache, rather than being the actual first person to find the cache, I don't see a reason to deny them that fun.

[+Bear and Ragged]

>snipped<

When someone logs a find before the cache is even published, they oughta go sit in timeout. As should the CO, if he/she allows that. If you're gonna allow that, why bother to publish the cache? Just make up a bunch for your friends to find.

A local cacher set up a 10 Years! event.

Placed new caches around the area and distributed the information on a print out for those at the event.

 

As the local Reviewers were all at 10 Years! events themselves on the day the caches didn't get published on the day of the event, but the day after.

 

Are you saying the cachers that found the caches 'before they were published' can't claim a find?

[+mountainman38]

Usually the Beta tester has had to do the same amount of work and hiking as you. Most of the time with the ones I have seen, they don't claim FTF but just claim the find as present with owner when placing or as the Beta tester.

 

Do you mean that if my brother is with us when we place a cache 3 miles up a trail that after he field tests the coordinates for us and confirms that they work for him in his GPS, he can't claim a find until he returns up that same trail after the cache is posted? That would be a little mean to do to him.

 

It's great that you have people along to help you with your caches. However, how exactly is it a "find" when he watched you place the cache? Should I log all the caches I've placed, because I "found" them?

 

Have helpers if you like, but for them to claim a find on a cache that they didn't actually find seems less rewarding than if they'd gone out and actually hunted it up. I suppose it's no different than a whole group of people claiming a find because one person found a cache, though.

 

This is why I prefer to cache alone -- I enjoy the sense of satisfaction from finding caches on my own.

[+mountainman38]

A local cacher set up a 10 Years! event.

Placed new caches around the area and distributed the information on a print out for those at the event.

 

As the local Reviewers were all at 10 Years! events themselves on the day the caches didn't get published on the day of the event, but the day after.

 

Are you saying the cachers that found the caches 'before they were published' can't claim a find?

Only if you want to play by the rules. As I said before, this is more like setting up a caching event for your friends. While the FTF is not officially recognized, it certainly is a fun and enjoyable part of the game for a lot of people. Letting your friends log a find before the cache is even published ruins that part of the experience.

[+briansnat]

A local cacher set up a 10 Years! event.

Placed new caches around the area and distributed the information on a print out for those at the event.

 

As the local Reviewers were all at 10 Years! events themselves on the day the caches didn't get published on the day of the event, but the day after.

 

Are you saying the cachers that found the caches 'before they were published' can't claim a find?

Only if you want to play by the rules. As I said before, this is more like setting up a caching event for your friends. While the FTF is not officially recognized, it certainly is a fun and enjoyable part of the game for a lot of people. Letting your friends log a find before the cache is even published ruins that part of the experience.

 

There are no rules. This is just a listing site. Cache owners are free to advertise their caches any way they please and it is nobody's business but the cache owner's. If he wants to give out the coords to friends ahead of publication here, that is perfectly fine. If he wants to publish them on another listing site first, that is his right. If he wants to post them on his blog or Facebook page before the cache is published here, there is nothing wrong with that. It's his cache.

 

FTF is not officially recognized and it is only played by a segment of geocachers. They have no right to dictate to owners how and when they can advertise their caches. FTF may be fun for some but they shouldn't be disappointed when they discover that not everybody plays their little side game.

[+Avernar]

Of course if the FTF-PP is not aware of the practice they may find a log book full of signatures on the first page and wonder what is going on. Similary are the beta finders who log their find as soon as the cache is publish, making those that want a FTF-PP not know if the cache was found post publication or if only beta finders have signed the log.

When our group beta tests a complicated cache we usually sign in on the last page of the book under the heading "Beta Testers". That way the FTF gets a nice blank first page. We then hold off logging the find until after the first log comes in.

[+mountainman38]

There are no rules. This is just a listing site. Cache owners are free to advertise their caches any way they please and it is nobody's business but the cache owner's. If he wants to give out the coords to friends ahead of publication here, that is perfectly fine. If he wants to publish them on another listing site first, that is his right. If he wants to post them on his blog or Facebook page before the cache is published here, there is nothing wrong with that. It's his cache.

 

FTF is not officially recognized and it is only played by a segment of geocachers. They have no right to dictate to owners how and when they can advertise their caches. FTF may be fun for some but they shouldn't be disappointed when they discover that not everybody plays their little side game.

There are no rules?! That's a slightly wide loop to cast. Of course there are rules to this game -- that's what most threads on the forums are about.

 

While there may be nothing that says you have to wait until a cache is published here on geocaching.com to claim it, or you'll lose your smilie, in order for cachers to all have the same opportunities at caches, finders should wait until the cache is published to go for it.

 

You say FTF seekers are a segment of the game, and shouldn't dictate to owners how to advertise. While they may be a segment, they ARE part of the game, and the idea of the playing field being even applies to them as well.

[+StarBrand]

Of course if the FTF-PP is not aware of the practice they may find a log book full of signatures on the first page and wonder what is going on. Similary are the beta finders who log their find as soon as the cache is publish, making those that want a FTF-PP not know if the cache was found post publication or if only beta finders have signed the log.

When our group beta tests a complicated cache we usually sign in on the last page of the book under the heading "Beta Testers". That way the FTF gets a nice blank first page. We then hold off logging the find until after the first log comes in.

If FTF still means "First to Find" then the beta testers are FTF - signature in the back or not.

[+sbell111]

A local cacher set up a 10 Years! event.

Placed new caches around the area and distributed the information on a print out for those at the event.

 

As the local Reviewers were all at 10 Years! events themselves on the day the caches didn't get published on the day of the event, but the day after.

 

Are you saying the cachers that found the caches 'before they were published' can't claim a find?

Only if you want to play by the rules. As I said before, this is more like setting up a caching event for your friends. While the FTF is not officially recognized, it certainly is a fun and enjoyable part of the game for a lot of people. Letting your friends log a find before the cache is even published ruins that part of the experience.

Where are these 'rules' published?

[+sbell111]

... While there may be nothing that says you have to wait until a cache is published here on geocaching.com to claim it, or you'll lose your smilie, in order for cachers to all have the same opportunities at caches, finders should wait until the cache is published to go for it. ...

Every cacher has the same 'opportunity' to find any cache listed on this site. Just because you are not the very first one to sign the logbook doesn't mean that you didn't have an opportunity to find the cache.

 

GC.com is just a listing site. If, as a cache owner, I wish to post cache coords on my FB page prior to listing them on this site, I am free to do so.

[+briansnat]

There are no rules. This is just a listing site. Cache owners are free to advertise their caches any way they please and it is nobody's business but the cache owner's. If he wants to give out the coords to friends ahead of publication here, that is perfectly fine. If he wants to publish them on another listing site first, that is his right. If he wants to post them on his blog or Facebook page before the cache is published here, there is nothing wrong with that. It's his cache.

 

FTF is not officially recognized and it is only played by a segment of geocachers. They have no right to dictate to owners how and when they can advertise their caches. FTF may be fun for some but they shouldn't be disappointed when they discover that not everybody plays their little side game.

There are no rules?! That's a slightly wide loop to cast. Of course there are rules to this game -- that's what most threads on the forums are about.

 

While there may be nothing that says you have to wait until a cache is published here on geocaching.com to claim it, or you'll lose your smilie, in order for cachers to all have the same opportunities at caches, finders should wait until the cache is published to go for it.

 

You say FTF seekers are a segment of the game, and shouldn't dictate to owners how to advertise. While they may be a segment, they ARE part of the game, and the idea of the playing field being even applies to them as well.

 

There are customs and mores associated with geocaching, but no rule book. As far as customs, it has long been common for cache owners to give out coordinates before publication on this site.

 

Your post shows a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of this website. Geocaching.com is simply a listing service that provides cache owners with a method of advertising their geocaches. Nowhere is it written that it has to be the only method that owners can use.

 

FTF is not geocaching. It is a side game played by a small segment of geocachers. If they enjoy it, more power to them, but if I want to list my cache on another listing service 2 months before I list it here that is my right as a cache owner. Sure the FTF hounds will be disappointed to see pages of signatures in the logbook ahead of theirs, but you know what, tough cookies.

[+Avernar]

If FTF still means "First to Find" then the beta testers are FTF - signature in the back or not.

Strange then that the first non beta finders are quite happy to claim the FTF. In fact they're usually happy that the cache was beta tested. Especially on some of the complex night caches we put out around here.

 

Beta testers could be considered more of co-owners of the cache than actual finders. If the site had a co-owner feature then it would make this moot. Or maybe even a "Beta Test" log type.

 

And no, the ignore list is not a good substitute.

[+Jennifer&Dean]

Usually the Beta tester has had to do the same amount of work and hiking as you. Most of the time with the ones I have seen, they don't claim FTF but just claim the find as present with owner when placing or as the Beta tester.

 

Do you mean that if my brother is with us when we place a cache 3 miles up a trail that after he field tests the coordinates for us and confirms that they work for him in his GPS, he can't claim a find until he returns up that same trail after the cache is posted? That would be a little mean to do to him.

 

It's great that you have people along to help you with your caches. However, how exactly is it a "find" when he watched you place the cache? Should I log all the caches I've placed, because I "found" them?

 

Have helpers if you like, but for them to claim a find on a cache that they didn't actually find seems less rewarding than if they'd gone out and actually hunted it up. I suppose it's no different than a whole group of people claiming a find because one person found a cache, though.

 

This is why I prefer to cache alone -- I enjoy the sense of satisfaction from finding caches on my own.

 

Umm... usually we would make him wait a ways away from the hide area, down or up the trail while we hide the cache. Sometimes we let him help us hide it but since we can't be co-hiders, we let him claim a find so the cache doesn't show up as an unfound cache for him when we pull PQs of caches he hasn't found.

 

We have helped him hide his own cache as well. Being present and assisting with the taking of coordinates and confirming that they will work. We logged a find on the cache after it was published as we couldn't get listed as a co-hider and have it count as a hide for us as well as him. Noone complained about the logging method.

 

What would you have families do when the little kids want to hide their own cache? Should they not test the kid's coordinates and hide for issues before publishing? What if every child in the family has their own login name and all the kids help hide it. You may need to be a bit more open minded about how logs are used in some cases. FTF is a side game that isn't part of the original focus of Geocaching.

 

The original idea is basically to go find something hidden and sign the logbook to prove you were there. Timing really doesn't matter once the cache is placed. I've heard of caches found and logged by muggles before they were posted. FTF is not played by all cachers the same way.

Jen

[+SSO JOAT]

Are there any filters to use to eliminate the beta finders and see the unfound caches?

Pezcachers

 

As it looks like this thread has turned into another FTF bash, I thought I'd let the OP know that their request is simple... All you need is to set up a filter in GSAK. I just ran a quick test by setting the Dates filter to select only caches where the publish date is newer than the last found date. I limited it to traditionals. It pulled 39 out of 2353 caches in my local database. I flipped through the list and they are all yet-to-be-found. A couple of them have finds logged prior to the publish date, but none afterward (your so-called "beta testers"). This naturally relies on the found logs to have been dated prior to the placed date, which we all know is hardly foolproof, but it is a starting point. A few more tweeks here and there and you could probably get a pretty accurate list.

 

Just to toss my thoughts into the rest of the debate... since there is no official "FTF" log, anyone at any time can claim to be the FTF. No one will know any different, nor can anyone say any different. GS doesn't administer or track anything to do with this silly FTF thingie. GS is also not the only way to have a cache listed. If you think that the guy who hunted down the cache right after the CO placed it wasn't really the "First To Find" the cache, then go ahead and puff out your chest and claim that you were in fact FTF before that other guy who found it before you did. Of all the pre-publish hunts I'm aware of, the CO hides the cache without the rest of the group seeing how/where the cache was placed. Then they regroup and the CO shares the coords and the others get to go find it. Just because it hasn't been published by GS doesn't mean they aren't having to hunt down the cache the same as everyone else.

 

Or just do like everyone else does and call it FTFAP and be done with it.

[+StarBrand]

If FTF still means "First to Find" then the beta testers are FTF - signature in the back or not.

Strange then that the first non beta finders are quite happy to claim the FTF. ...

 

Hmmmm - strange and odd to me they would 'claim' FTF when in fact - they were not.

[Andronicus]

Here is my take.

 

A CO can do whatever they want. Therefore, the FTF may occur before a cache is published (on GC.com or other listing sites).

 

The FTF is the "First" to "Find".

 

First: The person who comes before anyone else

Find: A person who does not know were something is, and searches and locates the item.

 

Therefore, you can only be the FTF is you didn't already know where it was, and only if no one else found it before you. When it is listed on GC.com is of no relevence. The fact that the CO didn't put it out until a day after it was listed, and you were the first to GZ is of no relevence (although it is very maddening) (That would make you FTGZ).

[+Avernar]

Hmmmm - strange and odd to me they would 'claim' FTF when in fact - they were not.

You seem to want to make some rules in regards to FTFs. The acronym is not FTFATCOHI (First To Find After The Cache Owner Hid It). It's just simply FTF. First To Find after what exactly? Some people think it's after the CO hides it, others after the beta testers are done with it, while others think it's after it's been published.

 

Heck, the CO could actually be the FTF as he found the spot first. Who says it has to refer to finding the cache rather than the spot?

 

See how silly it is to try to make rules for something that has no rules?

 

So if someone claims they're the FTF then who really cares if they're not?

[+PezCachers]

Are there any filters to use to eliminate the beta finders and see the unfound caches?

Pezcachers

 

As it looks like this thread has turned into another FTF bash, I thought I'd let the OP know that their request is simple... All you need is to set up a filter in GSAK. I just ran a quick test by setting the Dates filter to select only caches where the publish date is newer than the last found date. I limited it to traditionals. It pulled 39 out of 2353 caches in my local database. I flipped through the list and they are all yet-to-be-found. A couple of them have finds logged prior to the publish date, but none afterward (your so-called "beta testers"). This naturally relies on the found logs to have been dated prior to the placed date, which we all know is hardly foolproof, but it is a starting point. A few more tweeks here and there and you could probably get a pretty accurate list.

 

Just to toss my thoughts into the rest of the debate... since there is no official "FTF" log, anyone at any time can claim to be the FTF. No one will know any different, nor can anyone say any different. GS doesn't administer or track anything to do with this silly FTF thingie. GS is also not the only way to have a cache listed. If you think that the guy who hunted down the cache right after the CO placed it wasn't really the "First To Find" the cache, then go ahead and puff out your chest and claim that you were in fact FTF before that other guy who found it before you did. Of all the pre-publish hunts I'm aware of, the CO hides the cache without the rest of the group seeing how/where the cache was placed. Then they regroup and the CO shares the coords and the others get to go find it. Just because it hasn't been published by GS doesn't mean they aren't having to hunt down the cache the same as everyone else.

 

Or just do like everyone else does and call it FTFAP and be done with it.

 

Great!

That’s as close as it can get to answer my question.

I will give it a try and see what happens.

Thanks

[Andronicus]

There are no rules. This is just a listing site. Cache owners are free to advertise their caches any way they please and it is nobody's business but the cache owner's. If he wants to give out the coords to friends ahead of publication here, that is perfectly fine. If he wants to publish them on another listing site first, that is his right. If he wants to post them on his blog or Facebook page before the cache is published here, there is nothing wrong with that. It's his cache.

 

FTF is not officially recognized and it is only played by a segment of geocachers. They have no right to dictate to owners how and when they can advertise their caches. FTF may be fun for some but they shouldn't be disappointed when they discover that not everybody plays their little side game.

There are no rules?! That's a slightly wide loop to cast. Of course there are rules to this game -- that's what most threads on the forums are about.

 

While there may be nothing that says you have to wait until a cache is published here on geocaching.com to claim it, or you'll lose your smilie, in order for cachers to all have the same opportunities at caches, finders should wait until the cache is published to go for it.

 

You say FTF seekers are a segment of the game, and shouldn't dictate to owners how to advertise. While they may be a segment, they ARE part of the game, and the idea of the playing field being even applies to them as well.

 

There are customs and mores associated with geocaching, but no rule book. As far as customs, it has long been common for cache owners to give out coordinates before publication on this site.

 

Your post shows a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of this website. Geocaching.com is simply a listing service that provides cache owners with a method of advertising their geocaches. Nowhere is it written that it has to be the only method that owners can use.

 

FTF is not geocaching. It is a side game played by a small segment of geocachers. If they enjoy it, more power to them, but if I want to list my cache on another listing service 2 months before I list it here that is my right as a cache owner. Sure the FTF hounds will be disappointed to see pages of signatures in the logbook ahead of theirs, but you know what, tough cookies.

 

I like a FTF hunt as much as the next guy, but you are correct. FTF is not geocaching. I have twice given out puzzle like hints on my caches before they were published. (no one used them though) That is common and part of the game. It can drive FTF hounds nuts, but that is realy just part of their game as well.

[+StarBrand]

Hmmmm - strange and odd to me they would 'claim' FTF when in fact - they were not.

You seem to want to make some rules in regards to FTFs. The acronym is not FTFATCOHI (First To Find After The Cache Owner Hid It). It's just simply FTF. First To Find after what exactly? Some people think it's after the CO hides it, others after the beta testers are done with it, while others think it's after it's been published.

 

Heck, the CO could actually be the FTF as he found the spot first. Who says it has to refer to finding the cache rather than the spot?

 

See how silly it is to try to make rules for something that has no rules?

 

So if someone claims they're the FTF then who really cares if they're not?

 

FTF after sunrise.

FTF after 7pm

FTF after Joe found it

FTF after the snowstorm

FTF after getting listed on this website

 

Based on your argument - all valid resons to claim FTF. I had no idea!!

[+Avernar]

FTF after sunrise.

FTF after 7pm

FTF after Joe found it

FTF after the snowstorm

FTF after getting listed on this website

All quite correct. But around here, FTF with no qualifications means "after the CO thinks it's ready for the masses".

 

The few cachers who use your original definition of the absolute first finder are in the minority in my area. They're the ones who like to whine in their log entry that the log book is not empty. Boo hoo. My heart bleeds for them.

 

Think of FTF as a concept, or a title for a game, rather than a literal phrase and you'll sleep better at night.

[+SSO JOAT]

FTF with no qualifications means "after the CO thinks it's ready for the masses".

 

Citation Needed. Can't find this anywhere in the Groundspeak Rule Book.

[+Avernar]

But around here, FTF with no qualifications means "after the CO thinks it's ready for the masses".

Citation Needed. Can't find this anywhere in the Groundspeak Rule Book.

Didn't I say that the FTF game has no official rules?

 

I fixed your misquote of me above. In my caching area that's what the vast majority of cachers accept it to mean.

 

It's not a rule. There are no rules.

 

There's no spoon either.

[+sbell111]

I'm always amused when people speak about the wants, desires, and beliefs of everyone 'around here', rather than simply presenting their own feelings.

[+Avernar]

I'm always amused when people speak about the wants, desires, and beliefs of everyone 'around here', rather than simply presenting their own feelings.

Let me clear something up first. When I say 'around here' I mean in my caching area, not the forums.

 

I'm just writing about my observations: Cachers around here claim FTF even after beta testers have found the cache. The CO doesn't care they're not really the absolute first, the beta testers don't care that someone after them claimed it, the cacher who claimed the FTF obviously doesn't care and all the other cachers who find the cache after them don't care.

 

My feelings: I don't really care if a beta tester found it before me. The little FTF check box in GSAK gets ticked regardless.

 

So if the above text amuses you, glad I could brighten your day.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Avernar

[+mountainman38]

.........................

So if the above text amuses you, glad I could brighten your day.

I just checked with the Queen Mother - she said we are not amused.

[+Avernar]

I just checked with the Queen Mother - she said we are not amused.