Jump to content

Geocaching Etiquette and FTF Logging


Followers 6

Recommended Posts

I recently got an FTF and it was 3 days before I logged it. I know I could have logged from my phone while onsite but I don't log from my phone. Another cached found it 2 days after and was pretty upset about my untimely logging. He even stated that he was gonna start CLAIMING the FTF on caches when it isn't logged fast enough. That wouldn't bother me as my FTF list is my own and just for me. I have a full time job and three kids. I log when I get around to it.

Link to comment
<_< So, I think I got it now. It seems the aka Smartphone Users vs the GPSr Users.
No, it isn't.
Agreed. I do most of my caching with my phone, and I always use field notes in the field, and post the real logs later, when I have access to a real keyboard, at my convenience.
Link to comment

I recently got an FTF and it was 3 days before I logged it. I know I could have logged from my phone while onsite but I don't log from my phone. Another cached found it 2 days after and was pretty upset about my untimely logging. He even stated that he was gonna start CLAIMING the FTF on caches when it isn't logged fast enough. That wouldn't bother me as my FTF list is my own and just for me. I have a full time job and three kids. I log when I get around to it.

exactly.

Link to comment

 

Agreed (although I realize that not everybody sees that as a bad thing). Unfortunately, it is now spreading to non-FTFs as well, although I have NO idea why. At least I can see the point of those that do it for FTFs.

 

It's hit here as well, even with regular finds. One such cacher always posts a log that just says "Place holder." and if you're lucky, they might come back and expand on it. Sad thing is, their "expanded log was maybe a sentence or two. You could have written it right there! But...as was said, though, unless you intentionally go back to look, you never know if they changed it or not, so...

 

The biggest problem that I have with that is not so much that they may forget to expand their log, is that it subverts the purpose of the email notification the cache owner receives, and puts the impetus on the cache owner to remember to go to his cache pages (which he normally would rarely do) to see what the edited log is... IF it has been edited yet. Some finders will delete their place-holder and relog, but that seems to be quite rare.

Link to comment

I recently got an FTF and it was 3 days before I logged it. I know I could have logged from my phone while onsite but I don't log from my phone. Another cached found it 2 days after and was pretty upset about my untimely logging. He even stated that he was gonna start CLAIMING the FTF on caches when it isn't logged fast enough. That wouldn't bother me as my FTF list is my own and just for me. I have a full time job and three kids. I log when I get around to it.

 

I think I'm going to "CLAIM" FTF on every new cache in my state. Makes about as much sense as that guy. I might even decide to invent the light bulb and discover America... who know?

Link to comment

Once again, just goes to show that no matter how you log your caches, you're doing it wrong. Logging quickly from the field so it's done right away? WRONG, LOG IS TOO SHORT. Logging at home when you have the time and the means to type out a thoughtful log? WRONG, YOU ARE NOW A FTF CHEATER.

Link to comment

Once again, just goes to show that no matter how you log your caches, you're doing it wrong. Logging quickly from the field so it's done right away? WRONG, LOG IS TOO SHORT. Logging at home when you have the time and the means to type out a thoughtful log? WRONG, YOU ARE NOW A FTF CHEATER.

No, it doesn't show that at all. People are only talking about the extremes. The majority of logs are fine.

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

Here's a bit of a rant, but I'm looking for opinions...

 

A Cache was published in the morning of June 30'th, and was quickly found. I Headed out with my daughter to find it, as we attempted a FTF. We got there, opened the cache and saw the FTF log entry, and we were second. No problem, it happens, and the person that got the FTF is well known in the area, and has quite a few finds (Almost 3,000 finds.) This person decided not to log the find, and proceeded to travel to Geowoodstock, and logged it this morning, JULY 4'th. which is 5 days after Publishing.

 

So my question is this... I realize FTF is just a bragging right, and doesn't really count for anything. Should a Cacher claim a FTF, when they didn't bother to log it for 5 days? Or, did the technically find it first, but lost the claim, due to not logging in a timely manor? I Believe that a FTF should be logged ASAP, so other potential cachers know it's been found. After that, I don't really care when people log it.

 

Opinions, are welcome.

 

Happened to me before (though not a five day delay). I just posted a log saying "first to log...but SECOND to find" (or something to that effect). Why would anyone other than the first person to actually find it claim FTF? I've seen plenty of logs by first-to-finders that didn't actually claim that particular title. Why should it matter if they do or don't?

Link to comment

Here's my 2 cents: Let the CO make the call!  

You sign the log to prove you found the cache.

You post on-line to let the CO (and the rest of the world) know that you did.

The person to find and sign the log first is the first to find (lower case signifying just an event).  A simple unchangeable fact.

However, as a CO the cache is yours and "awarding" the FTF (uppercase signifying recognition) is up to you!  

I prefer to recognize the first on-line poster until such a time where new evidence is received. Certainly there may be a difference between the ftf and FTF but this is easily reconciled.  If the finder doesn't care to log on-line then there is no obligation to recognize the find on-line, and (sincerely) there should be no hard feelings either way.  In other words:  If you are judging a pumpkin growing contest, the winner is going to go to the biggest pumpkin PRESENTED to you.  If there is a bigger pumpkin sitting in a field somewhere, it wasn't entered in the contest!

It is fine if a CO wants to go through the extra effort to check the log to verify a claim that was not presented on-line, but the CO should not be required to revisit he cache to compensate for a missing on-line post.

Likewise, it should be up the the CO to decide how to handle a late entry.  Honest mistakes or small delays can be tolerated while cachers suspected of playing "sniper" should be at risk of forfeiting the FTF's.

 

 

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, MrBasilisk said:

Here's my 2 cents: Let the CO make the call!  

I know it's a popular notion that the CO awards FTFs, but the fact is that the CO holds no power in the FTF game. If I think I got the FTF, I can claim the FTF, and no one can do anything about it. They can doubt me, they can make competing claims, and they might even be able to convince me I'm wrong, but as long as I consider my claim valid, there's nothing anyone can do to take it away from me. And the beautiful part about it is that someone else can be every bit as sure they got FTF, and there's nothing I can do, including making my own claim, to take it away from them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

That's exactly how it goes. It can happen that there is more than one FTF in a single cache if players have different criterias for the FTF.

What criteria place a second finder before the first? The one who is first to find the container and put his/her name in the log is FTF anyone else claiming even more first is seeking excuses.

Do you think Conrad and Bean are claiming first moonwalk instead of Armstrong and Aldrin because they used other critera?

 

Edited by on4bam
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, on4bam said:
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

That's exactly how it goes. It can happen that there is more than one FTF in a single cache if players have different criterias for the FTF.

What criteria place a second finder before the first? The one who is first to find the container and put his/her name in the log is FTF anyone else claiming even more first is seeking excuses.

Some have suggested that a find pre-publication of the cache doesn't count for the FTF race.  That could be the result of someone beta-testing the hide (or puzzle),  a friend that was with the CO when the cache was placed, or just stumbling upon a cache before it's been published.  I've seen some argue that on a cache placed in a area with limited legal access (e.g. a park which is closed from dusk to dawn), a find that was done when the park is closed shouldn't "count".

I know, it *should* be cut and dried what the criteria for FTF is, but given all the drama we've seen about the FTF game, the reality is that it isn't so clear.

Link to comment

Finds before a cache is published (at least here) are logged on an earlier date than the publish log and clearly mention "test run". I haven't seen FTF claims in those kind of logs. The "found by accident" is probably so rare (0.000000..x%) that it should not considered an important argument.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, on4bam said:

What criteria place a second finder before the first? The one who is first to find the container and put his/her name in the log is FTF anyone else claiming even more first is seeking excuses.

Your opinion about whether their FTF is valid or an excuse has no bearing on their choice. Isn't that fun?

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Your opinion about whether their FTF is valid or an excuse has no bearing on their choice. Isn't that fun?

Good thing I couldn't care less about FTF but I think it's funny that people seem to want to claim things even if they well know that what they claim is false (Found it when they didn't, FTF when they didn't, largest crowd ever when it wasn't.. )

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I don't see why there is fuss about something that isn't part of geocaching nor recognised by Groundspeak (although the latter is rather ambiguous about it).
A FTF, as with other frills in this 'game', doesn't say a thing about your 'qualifications' as a cacher either.

Edited by searchjaunt
Link to comment
56 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Good thing I couldn't care less about FTF but I think it's funny that people seem to want to claim things even if they well know that what they claim is false (Found it when they didn't, FTF when they didn't, largest crowd ever when it wasn't.. )

That's not really what we're talking about. We're talking about people that believe their claim is true, you just disagree with them.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, on4bam said:

What criteria place a second finder before the first? The one who is first to find the container and put his/her name in the log is FTF anyone else claiming even more first is seeking excuses.

In one documented case the another player claimed second FTF because he has solved the mystery using different tools and diid not park his car on the roadside as the first one did.

Link to comment

Once a discussion begins about who ACTUALLY was FTF and who solved it first and who had it in hand first and blah blah blah blah...

...I just zone out.  

If you step back a bit, take a deep breath and think about what it is you are talking about, you will hopefully understand that debating or arguing the point is darn near the silliest thing you can do.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

f you step back a bit, take a deep breath and think about what it is you are talking about, you will hopefully understand that debating or arguing the point is darn near the silliest thing you can do.

It is just fun to debate about silly things.The debate does not have to be always so serious. I have often pondered how should respond to a delayed FTF logs. Sometimes it makes the game more interesting when you can never be sure of FTF in advance. Sometimes it feels like bullying.

In fact, there is no valid excuse not to log the FTF immediately if you own a mobile device. The actual (longer) log can be made anytime later. It would be very fun to see what would happen when the second finder logs the FTF instead of the delayed one. :)

Link to comment

Interesting to see this two year old thread revived to a lively debate.

Anyway.  Following a dispute between the first couple folks who logged a find on one of our earthcaches, as a CO, I no longer recognize FTF on any of our caches.  Makes no difference to me whether one cacher claims it or thirteen -- it's an unofficial side game, in which I have no desire to play the referee.

When we first started caching,I wanted to rack up FTFs and tried getting out there as soon as I saw emails.  It was frustrating at first, because others were clearly quicker to react and beat me there.  Once I got a few, it was still fun, but the allure started to wear off.  I still keep a list of FTF, more out of habit at this point than anything else.  I still go for FTF occasionally, if the mood strikes me when I see a cache pop up in an out of the way location.  And when I do, I try to log at least something from the field so any other prospective FTF chasers have no reason to complain about how I log caches.

I've seen in some areas that people track not only FTF, but second and third place as well.  And even first, second, or third to solve a puzzle cache.  Uh...no, thanks.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, arisoft said:

In fact, there is no valid excuse not to log the FTF immediately if you own a mobile device.

That of course begs the question of whether an excuse is required.  But then this discussion does center on whether the acceptable etiquette for logging FTFs has changed over the years.  As technology proliferates, cell coverage improves, and more cachers log with their phones, the playing field changes.  But you're still going to see plenty of folks who maintain that their logging habits are their own, and that no one should have an expectation otherwise.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, hzoi said:

Following a dispute between the first couple folks who logged a find on one of our earthcaches, as a CO, I no longer recognize FTF on any of our caches.

I don't put that stuff on my cache page.  The exceptions have been when the first person to SOLVE the puzzle is different than the first person to find the cache.  This has happened on a couple of my trickier puzzles and I give them recognition for that.  I never put "congrats to <cacher nickname here> for the FTF" like a lot of people do.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, hzoi said:

That of course begs the question of whether an excuse is required.

It is not but it has been attempted to offer. The delay is probably intentional. I've even heard that the some cache owner has demanded for delaying the first entry. The obvious purpose is to cause disappointment.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I've even heard that the some cache owner has demanded for delaying the first entry. The obvious purpose is to cause disappointment.

I'd say disappointment can be an effect, but let's not impute this to the cache owner's intent.  Cache owners want people to find their caches.  There's often a rush to hunt for a cache right after publication.  Once that rush is over, sometimes a cache will sit for a week or two before the next wave of finders can be bothered.  I can see how a cache owner might want to put off the post-FTF slump. 

Not a great idea, because it's going to irk those FTF hounds who feel their time was "wasted" (apparently a find soon after publication is only worthwhile if it's an FTF).  But I think it's a more reasonable explanation for a CO's motivation than an assumption that they're evil and want to disappoint as many FTF seekers as possible.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

In fact, there is no valid excuse not to log the FTF immediately if you own a mobile device.

I don't know about that.

I've been FTF on at least a couple of caches, own a mobile device but did not have immediate access to cellular data.   That's happened locally when the cache was in a spot which did not have cellular coverage.  That was on a cache near my sister-n-laws house, about six miles from where I live.  It's also happened on a cache over about 9400 miles from home, in a spot which probably has cellular coverage but I wasn't going to risk data roaming charges (which can get very expensive) in order to log the cache in the field.  I was able to log it about an hour later when I got back to my hotel and had wifi access.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Rebore said:

I think the cache with the most FTF claims is in Austria, but I might be wrong:

FTF

Is that a liars cache?   

Who's FTF for a flash mob event?  I attended one that have ~470 attendees.  The event started (and ended) with the blowing of a horn:  over 400 shared FTFs.  Anyone ever claimed FTF on an event cache?

 

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, hzoi said:

Anyway.  Following a dispute between the first couple folks who logged a find on one of our earthcaches, as a CO, I no longer recognize FTF on any of our caches.  Makes no difference to me whether one cacher claims it or thirteen -- it's an unofficial side game, in which I have no desire to play the referee.

Even though it's been common practice as long as I've been geocaching, I never dreamed of recognizing FTF on my caches. At first, I was just thinking that it isn't my place, but as time went on, it occurred to me that it would actually be rather presumptuous of me to assume I, as the CO, had any say about it at all. If there's any kind of argument over who's FTF, what actual position do I have that justifies me resolving the disagreement other than claiming I'm god for this cache, so what I say goes?

Although, even more to the point is that, as you say, there's no reason to pick one FTF over any other, anyway. Two FTFs on my cache? That's twice the fun! Why should I want to rule either one invalid even if I thought I could?

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Although, even more to the point is that, as you say, there's no reason to pick one FTF over any other, anyway. Two FTFs on my cache? That's twice the fun! Why should I want to rule either one invalid even if I thought I could?

Nobody can rule either one invalid.  As there isn't a central authoritative list for who is FTF on every cache (that's a job I'd never want) anyone that chooses to play the FTF game maintains their own list of FTF using whatever form of book keeping they choose.  One cacher claiming to be FTF on a cache may keep track caches upon which the claim to be FTF using an Excel spread sheet.  Another cacher may create a bookmark list.  At no time are any of these list compared.   If someone chooses to claim FTF on a cache on their personal list there isn't anything anyone can do about it.   The only thing that can make any claim of FTF valid or invalid is personal integrity.  

 

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, dprovan said:

At first, I was just thinking that it isn't my place, but as time went on, it occurred to me that it would actually be rather presumptuous of me to assume I, as the CO, had any say about it at all. If there's any kind of argument over who's FTF, what actual position do I have that justifies me resolving the disagreement other than claiming I'm god for this cache, so what I say goes?

I think it's the announcing of FTF on cache pages that has fueled the flame of competition. Public recognition? Gotta run and strive for those FTFs! And thus the various interpretations of FTF begin to clash.

If I ever congratulate FTF on the listing, it'll be dislaimed with the definition used :P.

If someone ubers a puzzle cache without solving it first, I may congratulate them on signing first but state that full FTF is still up for grabs - the one who both solves the puzzle and finds it, first.

I think congratulating FTF on the listing is fine, by I prefer to see clarity if there's any possible confusion (especially so there aren't debates and tension coming into community events); and as long as the CO realizes they are essentially condoning a competitive mentality.

Hey, congratulating the FTFs publicly is sort of like "rewarding" the "good cache owners" :P:ph34r:

Link to comment
3 hours ago, hzoi said:

That of course begs the question of whether an excuse is required.  But then this discussion does center on whether the acceptable etiquette for logging FTFs has changed over the years.  As technology proliferates, cell coverage improves, and more cachers log with their phones, the playing field changes.  But you're still going to see plenty of folks who maintain that their logging habits are their own, and that no one should have an expectation otherwise.

 

If i happen to be first, i try my best to log as soon as i can. Unfortunately for those who get upset about it, it sometimes doesn't happen right away. I may have a smart phone but i don't use it to text, email, or surf the web except, if i'm in a pinch. I use a dedicated gpsr, not my phone, so i usually don't log via the app. I said usually, meaning there have been a few times that i app logged when i knew i would not be back home for a few hours. I can remember one time that someone got upset. He was one of those that does everything on the phone and thinks it's odd that people like me do not. He got over it when he found out i'm an old timer that still does everything from a desktop.

Geocaching has changed, i know that phones have made it easier for most to log on the fly. All i can say is that i hope i'm not being labeled an etiquette shirker because i log caches the old timey way. If so, then ,,, oh well. :signalviolin:

Link to comment
2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Anyone ever claimed FTF on an event cache?

I saw a guy claim it for an event I attended once.  Apparently he edited his log afterward.

Same guy about threw a fit because, instead of sticking with the group that was going around hitting caches that had been put out for the event, he wandered off and didn't join us until one or two caches in.  Apparently we "robbed" him out of some FTFs.  :rolleyes:

Link to comment
5 hours ago, arisoft said:

In fact, there is no valid excuse not to log the FTF immediately if you own a mobile device. The actual (longer) log can be made anytime later. It would be very fun to see what would happen when the second finder logs the FTF instead of the delayed one. :)

Many of the bushland caches around here, and even some of the smaller towns, are in areas with no mobile data coverage. Someone once complained that the FTF on one of my hides didn't post a field log immediately, but the town it's near only has coverage from one of the providers and the FTF's phone was on a different one. They stopped in the town for lunch after making the find and weren't back in mobile coverage until much later in the day.

Link to comment

I stand by letting the CO make the call.  The CO is responsible for the cache listing, physical maintenance, editing the logs, and  to recognize (or not mention) the FTF.  If the ftf fails to notify the CO in a timely manner of their find, they forfeit the "award" of the FTF.  

The elephant in the room is this:  Why would anyone not log their find on line?

If there is a valid reason, let the CO know!  They are generally reasonable.

If there is some weird tactical game between FTF hounds going on, then they risk losing the stat. 

If the finder just enjoys the quick finds and doesn't ever bother to log on-line, then  they probably don't care about the stats anyway.

Works all the way around for me!

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, MrBasilisk said:

I stand by letting the CO make the call.  The CO is responsible for the cache listing, physical maintenance, editing the logs, and  to recognize (or not mention) the FTF.  If the ftf fails to notify the CO in a timely manner of their find, they forfeit the "award" of the FTF.  

The elephant in the room is this:  Why would anyone not log their find on line?

If there is a valid reason, let the CO know!  They are generally reasonable.

If there is some weird tactical game between FTF hounds going on, then they risk losing the stat. 

If the finder just enjoys the quick finds and doesn't ever bother to log on-line, then  they probably don't care about the stats anyway.

Works all the way around for me!

Both the guidelines and the Help Centre have detailed lists of a CO's responsibilities, but I don't see arbitrating FTF amongst them. The CO wasn't at GZ when the FTF contenders arrived and has no way of knowing who got there first.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Both the guidelines and the Help Centre have detailed lists of a CO's responsibilities, but I don't see arbitrating FTF amongst them. The CO wasn't at GZ when the FTF contenders arrived and has no way of knowing who got there first.

Not really talking about a close tie here, but Yeah the CO should make the call as there is no one else who can.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, MrBasilisk said:

I stand by letting the CO make the call.  The CO is responsible for the cache listing, physical maintenance, editing the logs, and  to recognize (or not mention) the FTF.  If the ftf fails to notify the CO in a timely manner of their find, they forfeit the "award" of the FTF.  

The elephant in the room is this:  Why would anyone not log their find on line?

If there is a valid reason, let the CO know!  They are generally reasonable.

If there is some weird tactical game between FTF hounds going on, then they risk losing the stat. 

If the finder just enjoys the quick finds and doesn't ever bother to log on-line, then  they probably don't care about the stats anyway.

Works all the way around for me!

Curious when a CO has ever been able to edit logs. 

I believe if a CO was to be so anal as to make policy over others regarding a side game, I'd bet a Reviewer or HQ would get an email ASAP for Additional Logging Requirements.   I'm one who'll mention a CO who feels they need to give me further direction on how I should play the hobby.   :)

We know of quite a few cachers who don't log online actually.  Nice people who leave real logs in caches that have anything larger than a piece of calendar paper.  A couple said they don't log online because they don't want to get involved in the drama.  I see now what they mean...

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, MrBasilisk said:
6 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Curious when a CO has ever been able to edit logs. 

Correct me If I'm wrong, but they can remove spoilers, no?

Cache owners can remove (or encrypt) logs that contain spoilers. They cannot remove spoilers from logs without removing the entire log.

And I hardly think a false or questionable claim of FTF warrants deleting a log.

  • Upvote 1
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...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...