FTF: I don't understand how this happened..

[+RhinoInAToga]

We found our first FTF a couple of weeks ago. We don't jump at every FTF, a lot of them pop up in email notifications with bad timing for us..but I do have them sent through email. If we have the opportunity to go get one it makes us happy, whether we make it first or not.. We consider it to be part of the fun even though it's not officially recognized as part of the game.

 

We were out caching one night around 11pm and one popped up. I checked my phone & there was a new email- a "published" notification- so off we went to go get it. We found it, signed the log with time & date, and immediately logged it online (actually had to stop at the gas station anyways, so it was immediately after we found it that we logged it).

 

What is odd, was when I went to look it up to write the details down in our physical logbook (I'm a scrapbooker, I know, dorky, what can I say...) the date for publication said that it was published the day AFTER the notification for publication was sent to my email and the day AFTER we logged it online, and signed the logbook. I found that very weird.

Also, the Second-to-find was rude in their log, and I'm thinking it might have to do with the weird dates...or it could be very dry humor. (Or they could be mad that they were second, I suppose, if they are really wrapped up in the FTF "race") That's just a side note/wonder, what really bothers me is the dates.

[+RhinoInAToga]

Here's the GC code: GC2V2WN

And yes, we did a victory dance. We also dance at particularly challenging caches when we finally have cache in hand.

And when we're shaking up the baby's bottle,

And whenever we hear "Cotton-eyed Joe". So... Like I said, dorks.

[+palmetto]

The publish log on GC2V2WN is 4/27 and so is your found log - 4/27. All other logs are on 4/28 and later.

I don't see the issue?

 

At various times this website has stacked logs in what most people find "backwards" order, so that the earliest log in on any given day is at the top, and the latest is at the bottom. This really throws people.

 

And reviewers working late nights can publish just across the day/date line.

 

I once read an explanation of how GSAK sometimes shifts logs dates. Perhaps you're seeing this in GSAK and not on the site? Or the date on the notification was shifted by your ISP? ie, it dated the email, not the publish log...just speculating here.

Edited May 13, 2011 by palmetto

[+NanCycle]

We found our first FTF a couple of weeks ago. We don't jump at every FTF, a lot of them pop up in email notifications with bad timing for us..but I do have them sent through email. If we have the opportunity to go get one it makes us happy, whether we make it first or not.. We consider it to be part of the fun even though it's not officially recognized as part of the game.

 

We were out caching one night around 11pm and one popped up. I checked my phone & there was a new email- a "published" notification- so off we went to go get it. We found it, signed the log with time & date, and immediately logged it online (actually had to stop at the gas station anyways, so it was immediately after we found it that we logged it).

 

What is odd, was when I went to look it up to write the details down in our physical logbook (I'm a scrapbooker, I know, dorky, what can I say...) the date for publication said that it was published the day AFTER the notification for publication was sent to my email and the day AFTER we logged it online, and signed the logbook. I found that very weird.

Also, the Second-to-find was rude in their log, and I'm thinking it might have to do with the weird dates...or it could be very dry humor. (Or they could be mad that they were second, I suppose, if they are really wrapped up in the FTF "race") That's just a side note/wonder, what really bothers me is the dates.

 

I don't see anything rude in the STF log; if you are taking their reference to dancing as "rude" I think you're being much too sensitive.

[knowschad]

We found our first FTF a couple of weeks ago. We don't jump at every FTF, a lot of them pop up in email notifications with bad timing for us..but I do have them sent through email. If we have the opportunity to go get one it makes us happy, whether we make it first or not.. We consider it to be part of the fun even though it's not officially recognized as part of the game.

 

We were out caching one night around 11pm and one popped up. I checked my phone & there was a new email- a "published" notification- so off we went to go get it. We found it, signed the log with time & date, and immediately logged it online (actually had to stop at the gas station anyways, so it was immediately after we found it that we logged it).

 

What is odd, was when I went to look it up to write the details down in our physical logbook (I'm a scrapbooker, I know, dorky, what can I say...) the date for publication said that it was published the day AFTER the notification for publication was sent to my email and the day AFTER we logged it online, and signed the logbook. I found that very weird.

Also, the Second-to-find was rude in their log, and I'm thinking it might have to do with the weird dates...or it could be very dry humor. (Or they could be mad that they were second, I suppose, if they are really wrapped up in the FTF "race") That's just a side note/wonder, what really bothers me is the dates.

 

I don't see anything rude in the STF log; if you are taking their reference to dancing as "rude" I think you're being much too sensitive.

 

I suspect it was actually the 3rd log... the one that was edited.

[+geodarts]

I suspect it was actually the 3rd log... the one that was edited.

 

I am still going with the comment that a cacher "Performed my STF dance. (Wait. I'm pretty sure I don't dance for ANY cache finds. Oh well.)"

 

I don't see anything particularly rude about this. A lot of "first logs" will throw in extra smileys, yahoos, a few exclamation points, and other such things to emphasize the importance of their find. That sometimes seems a bit over the top, since generally these kind of finds have as much to do with personal circumstances, geography, and the amount of time on one's hands than they do with anything else. So perhaps the reference to a "victory dance" could have been taken the same way. In any event, the response seems harmless enough. I would attribute it to dry humor.

 

I avoid the problem by not using the three initials when I sign blank logs in new caches.

Edited May 13, 2011 by mulvaney

[+RhinoInAToga]

Palmetto- you are right! When I went to look it up to write it down we weren't at home. I looked it up on the phone. Even now, I can look at my phone & it says the same as I saw earlier. However, on the comp it looks ok. I'm not well versed in computer technology, so I had no idea it could/would do that. Interesting, and thank you for your answer. I'll be sure to remember that next time I look something up on the phone, & compare any oddities with an actual comp.

 

As for the other comments, I'm now assuming it's dry humor. I thought if the dates were truly off they might be mad..as it would appear that we knew of the cache before notification. So I was thinking it could be a reaction to that. But, since the dates are fine, might as well assume on the positive side! no reason for them to mean it in any way but poking fun. (Not that it mattered much, anyways, I just didn't want them to think we knew of it any earlier than they did)

So I'm chalking this up to "newbie nerves". That's a phrase, right? I think it should be.

[+Mudfrog]

I've seen the publish dates be off a few times. Just went and looked and sure enough, i found this cache (GC2RRG9) on April 15, 2011. What looks odd is that the publish date shows April 16. The "published" email that i received is dated the 15th but states that the cache was published on the 16th. Just a mistake that happens from time to time i suppose.

 

But on the OP's initial concern,, There's no doubt that some who take FTFs seriously might get upset just looking at the cache page and thinking that i logged it before the cache was published.

[+va griz]

Since the "placed" date can be set by the whoever submited the cache, it's also possible they guessed it would be published the next day and set the date accordinly.

[+va griz]

Darn double tap

Edited May 17, 2011 by va griz

[+TL&MinBHIL]

It does appear the person who mentioned doing a "STF dance" was taking a bit of a shot at you, I can see where you're coming from. Maybe that person saw your dancing as gloating. If you ask me, you were tasteful noting your celebration. After all, it was your first FTF...it's good reason to be excited.

 

I wouldn't worry much about that person. They recently logged a cache as Found, but didn't actually find it or sign the physical log. That's clearly against the rules. They noted that a truck was parked next to the cache location and after waiting 15 minutes without it leaving, they logged it as Found and moved on. If muggles keep us from finding a cache, it's up to us to come back later. If they're willing to log caches they don't actually find, they should be careful what they say to other cachers in their logs.

[+RhinoInAToga]

I'm sorry that it's taken me so long to respond.

Yes, I was going to look at it in a positive light, until I came across another log of theirs while I was checking the logs for a difficult cache in the field. It wasn't a very nice log- and the remarks were unwarranted. (no, it wasn't directed at us.) So, I just chalked it up as a bad egg. Someone in the caching world that I don't feel like getting to know for once. I guess there's one in every crowd. But I'd be willing to bet we won't be seeing them at any CITO events, either, when we finally begin going to them- so, meh... It is what it is