Jump to content

FTF Stat on the stats list.


Rosemark

Recommended Posts

This discussion is all a moot point, really. The facts are:

 

1) Like two weeks ago, Groundspeak announced they had "acquired" a known web-based Geocaching stats program, which had FTF tracking ability.

 

2) Like 10 days ago, Groundspeak bestowed upon us the "Statistics tab", which did not utilize that FTF tracking ability.

 

So it would seem to me that TPTB's line of thinking is along these lines:

 

The way we have it now is perfect. People can claim whatever FTF count they want by whatever rules they want in their own profile and/or bookmark list.

I'm not sure that it's that cut-and-dried; just because the first iteration doesn't have a particular feature doesn't mean it's been rejected out of hand. There is a fairly decent chance that they are rolling the stats out in stages, much as they are with the new maps, starting with the simplest to implement. You can't hide caches you've already found on the new maps, but I don't think that means we won't be able to moving forward.

 

Some features of mygeocachingprofile.com are more complicated - county maps, for example. I wouldn't be surprised if we see those in the coming weeks/months, and it also wouldn't surprise me to see cachers have the ability to indicate caches that are notable to them for some reason or another. I'd love to be able to click a box or enter a field to highlight the oldest caches I've found, or all of the 5/5s, or the first cache I found in each state, or whatever other caches of personal significance I'd like to highlight - I'd hate to be blocked from that kind of flexibility just because some folks would use it to track FTFs.

Link to comment
And yet, by giving your description of how bad FTF'rs are, you are trying to impose your narrow view on me.

 

Um, no.

 

Stating an opinion is not trying to impose a view on you.

 

Now, if I were trying to get FTFs banned, and trying to prevent people from playing their private FTF game, you might have a point. But I am not. I am simply giving my opinion that the FTF game is bad for geocaching and that I do not want to see it become an official part of the game.

 

This is a common fallacy on these forums; people who state an opinion are frequently accused of trying to impose that opinion on others. While there are a few examples of that, in the vast majority of cases nobody is trying to force something on anyone else.

 

When you make the claim that expressing any opinion amounts to an attempt to limit other peoples' enjoyment of the game, you are not only engaging in a logical fallacy, but you are also setting yourself up to have that thrown back at you. Like this:

 

By calling my opinion about FTFs "hypocrisy" you are trying to dictate what I can say, and therefore how I enjoy geocaching.

 

See how that works?

 

I posted this to get peoples opinions. and tho I don't agree with Fuzzy, I am glad he posted his opinion. I for one am for FTF's being made an official part of Groundspeak. I wanted to see if a majority of Cachers agreed with me. It seems based on the posts, that they do not! And thats ok! I got my answer and I will live with it! But it is wrong to say anyone is trying to force anything on anyone just by giving thier opinion! There opinion is what I wanted. If there is more of you who like the idea, and just read the fourm and did not post, than they are the ones who are wrong! so I am only left to say Thanks to Fuzzy for his opinion.

The forum isn't even close to being the majority. You had about 25 people or so give their opinions so I hope you don't think this is the majority. I like the FTF game and I think the game should be reconized by GS. At least it will give a reason for people to complain more than they already do. We give credit to the FTFers on the cache page with a nice text saying congrats. Others make certificates and ribons. So there are quite a few people that play this game. So what if it's competitive, that's just human nature. I think the FTF game is great aspect of the game. People play for different reasons and remember it's just a game.

 

Um, it's the exact opposite as far as the majority. The FTF game is played by a miniscule portion of the overall Geocaching populace. A handful of premium members on a website where the overwhelming majority of players are not premium members. Heck, the same 4 people in my area have gotten all the FTF's since about 2005. And the only one who pays attention to them, and "recognizes" them on cache pages or gives them prizes are newbies, because they see all this "Woohoo, FTF!" nonsense every time a cache is published, and don't realize (for a while) that it's the same 4 people every time, with an occasional newbie trying to join in. This out of tens of thousands of people who have found Geocaches in my region since 2001. Unless someone wants to tell me my region is atypical of any other region in North America. ;)

 

And what's up with "Fuzzy" in one of the quotes above?? I think there's a lot of challenges around that going to have to be renamed. :huh:

Ummm. I was talking about the forum not being the majority. I also said quite a few people play the ftf game not the majority. We must still be newbies because we still give out prizes for FTF's. Guess every area is different.

Link to comment

I do like getting FTF's though I don't chase them quite as much as I used to. My point of view on the issue is that GS probably does not want to encourage FTF chasing because they do not want to worry about the liabilities (not that I think they are liable for people's stupid actions) of having people racing for FTF's and getting into/causing accidents and shining a bad light on it in the media. People also tend to bend the rules for FTF's such as going after caches that say not at night or not during certain times rather than just waiting. I don't see them incorporating it into the game.

Link to comment

If it involves me doing something to assign a FTF, then there are going to be a lot of disappointed FTF hounds. If GS wants to do something with FTF stats, then use a bookmark list kept by the FTF hound and generate the stat from that. Then we can have a competition on who gets the FTF and who fills up their FTF bookmark first.

 

I understand! I have a bit of the Lazy bone in me too! But I believe that Most Cachers that take the time to Place and Maintain Caches are willing to take the time to assign an FTF to there newly placed cache. It is a one time thing per cache, so it's not that much trouble, and Most cache placers are somewhat excited when there new cache is found.

 

I do realize that FTF is not important to all cachers, but it is one of the many aspects of this game that many cachers do like, and a stat would be something that can be done. We should accept that there are many aspects of this game, and we will enjoy the ones we like, and ignore the ones we don't, but we should not be against others from enjoying the other aspects of the game just because we don't. (Proud to be an "FTF hound")

 

This has nothing to do with laziness. I do not and would not award an FTF for any of my caches. I have signed a blank log on new caches around 300 times but have never used the three initials in a log.

I probably have well over 200, and I doubt if I've used them more then a dozen times, and then it was just to bug a couple of hounds :lol: :lol:

Link to comment

I don't think it's an issue of Groundspeak not wanting to encourage FTF competition. They clearly recognized it and encourage it somewhat by providing instant notifications to premium members. What Groundspeak doesn't want is to be in the business of adjucating disputes over who is the FTF. The definition of FTF varies widely among geocachers. Some recognize co-FTFs; some recognize FTF only post publication of the cache. There are all sort of disputes that could happen if someone forgot a pen and didn't sign a log, or if they signed on the back page and the next person opens the log book from the front and thinks they got an FTF.

 

Sure there are disputes over whether someone who logs a find online may have actually found the cache. TPTB traditionally avoided getting involved in these disputes. Only when ALRs got out of hand did they decide to restrict when the cache owner could delete logs. And this has opened a can of worms. Now if you signed the physical log and a cache owner deletes your find, you can appeal to have Groundspeak restore your log. That is probably taking up significant time for an organization that wants to only be a listing service.

 

They could, of course, issue guidelines for FTF and tell cache owners they have to monitor FTF claims and delete those which are bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or don't meet the stated requirements. But that would likely result in only more work for them as people will dispute when their FTF claim is deleted or when a cache owner decides to give the FTF to someone else.

 

Trying to be FTF is something that a cacher can do if they desire. They have to be aware that someone who is not trying to be FTF may in fact find the cache first. They should also be aware that many cache owners don't provide any special recognition for the FTF and would see any attempt to have cache owners adjucate FTF claims as an extra burden they don't want to take on. The current system of allowing each person to keep track of their own FTFs works the best. It is conceivable that a feature to put this number on your statistics page could be implemented.

Link to comment

What Groundspeak doesn't want is to be in the business of adjucating disputes over who is the FTF.

 

They could, of course, issue guidelines for FTF and tell cache owners they have to monitor FTF claims and delete those which are bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or don't meet the stated requirements.

 

I will NOT be an FTF monitor on my cache hides. What power do you think Groundspeak has over me that would convince me to change my mind? They only have the power to archive my caches. Do you believe they would be prepared to do that?

Link to comment

Ummm. I was talking about the forum not being the majority. I also said quite a few people play the ftf game not the majority. We must still be newbies because we still give out prizes for FTF's. Guess every area is different.

 

I'll do some big time snippage here. No, the forum is not the majority, but neither is the "woohoo!!! FTFFFFFFFF!!!!" crowd. Neither are not even close. :laughing: No, you're not newbs, and I've taken some heat for similar comments in the past. I did, and still do believe though that newbies get all caught up in the whole FTF thing though, before they realize it's only a small handful of people that engage in that sub-game. And they're certainly not the only ones who give out prizes and have scrolling marquees across the cache page congratulating FTF'ers, but they seem much more likely to do it. Just an opinion, of course. :)

Link to comment

If you look at all the other stats, they are all facts. # of caches of this type found on this day. # caches found here or there. FTF is not a verifiable stat and is open to interpretation, therefore it shouldn't show up in the stats tab.

 

Perhaps Groundspeak could add something to each person's profile where they could type in whatever they want, and that shows above or below the other stats.

Link to comment

I would still like a FTF stat kept on the stats page. I know the biggest obstacle to this is the fact that the First to Find is not always the First to Log on Groundspeak, so the FTF stat could go to the wrong cacher, but I think there is a simple fix to this problem.

 

The Fix: Do not automatically issue a FTF Stat based on who logged it first on Groundspeak. Have the Cache owner assign the FTF after confirming who actually found it. In most cases the posts reveal who was the true FTF, so it should be easy for the Cache Owner to figure out who to assign the FTF to. I know that on the rare occasion where the FTF is disputed the Case Owner may have to check the actual log, but that would be rare, and not that big a deal!

 

On the times where a group of cachers get FTF, the cache owner would simply ask of the cachers in the group, Which one of them actually spotted the cache, and that would be who he assigns FTF to.

 

Your IDEAS?

*********************************************************************************************

 

You want to play a game called FTF that isn't recognized as part of geocaching. That's fine, go for all the FTF's you can, no problem with me.

 

As a cache owner:

1. You want me to confirm the FTF by checking the posts. ......Why would I want to? I don't care who was FTF.

 

2. You want me to personally go check the logsheet at the cache site. ......I will go there to do maintenance or when there is a problem. A wet logsheet, logsheet is full, or if there are numerous DNF's.

 

3. You want me to email numerous Co-FTF's to see who was really the FTF. ....... I don't care who was FTF.

 

Then you say:

"I do realize that FTF is not important to all cachers, but it is one of the many aspects of this game that many cachers do like, and a stat would be something that can be done. We should accept that there are many aspects of this game, and we will enjoy the ones we like, and ignore the ones we don't"....you summarized it very well, the rest of us will ignore confirming the unofficial side game of FTF.

 

You say "a stat would be something that can be done."

......Qouting Ladybug Kids "In addition to other resources cited, GSAK users can use a macro to parse their logs to create a FTF table and count. As a result, FTF hounds can keep easily track their own FTFs, post them on their profile page (or in a bookmark list to display on each cache for which they were the FTF), and not create additional overhead for Groundspeak or the cache owner."

 

I have a few FTF's but it isn't so important that I would ask others to do all this extra stuff so you can play your unofficial side game.

Link to comment

I will NOT be an FTF monitor on my cache hides. What power do you think Groundspeak has over me that would convince me to change my mind? They only have the power to archive my caches. Do you believe they would be prepared to do that?

I doubt that Groundspeak would actually make a guideline that would force cache owners to monitor FTFs, but then I've been surprised before at what they expect cache owners to do. And the power they have is that if you won't do it they can archive your cache for not meeting their guideline. But you snipped the part of my post where I gave what I think is the real reason that Groundspeak won't do it. There will disputes if the cache owner gets to decide who is the FTF and that would take up some lackey's time trying to straighten things out. It's much easier to not have an FTF stat or have one where each cache can just say how many FTFs they have.

 

If you look at all the other stats, they are all facts. # of caches of this type found on this day. # caches found here or there. FTF is not a verifiable stat and is open to interpretation, therefore it shouldn't show up in the stats tab.

 

Perhaps Groundspeak could add something to each person's profile where they could type in whatever they want, and that shows above or below the other stats.

I don't think the other stats are "verifiable" either. They are simply based on the number of Found It, Attended, and Photo Taken logs a person has entered. Sure a cache owner can verify there is a name in the log book (for caches that have log books) and delete logs that the owner can't "verify", but they can't create a found log if somebody found their cache and just doesn't want to log online. And there are going to be cases where a log book or a cache disappears, so the owner can't verify names anyhow. No to mention a great many cache owners like myself who aren't going to go check the logs and will take a cacher's word or accept finds where the finder had a reasonable excuse for not signing the log. One of the objections to stats is that people will view them as some kind of official competition or as the official record that can be used for challenge caches and then they will get upset because someone is "cheating" because they don't have the same definition of a find.

 

The difference is that the current stats are based on logs that are already entered in the system. To add FTF there would have to be a way to enter this information. Counting the number of logs that are the first to be entered online won't work because few people accept this as a definition of FTF. Perhaps there could be a FTL (First to Log) statistic?

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...