Too Close for Comfort

[+Ambrosia]

Maybe it's just a mistake.

 

Could be. Picture after a hard day at work you have dinner and spend a little time with the family. Once the kids are in bed you check the queue and see over 100 caches awaiting review. It's late and you're tired but you have to get up early so you avoid a cup of coffee. Bleary eyed, you try to get through the queue as quickly as possible. Oops, there was a proximity issue you missed. Happens.

 

Im not buying it Brian!

What aren't you buying? That people are human and make mistakes sometimes? It must be nice being you.

 

He missed a comma.

 

*gasp*

 

Not perfect?

[+Rayvan43]

Dang! Busted by Chad! And my rouge of perfection just flew out the window!

[+Scubasonic]

Why not ask Wizard of Ooze directly what happened?

 

I found these a while ago:

GCG933

GCE096

 

They are about 200ft apart at the same Bar. Love them, but always scratched my head about them.

 

That was done

[4wheelin_fool]

I was about to rappel down to a cache in NY, and another cacher came by looking for a stage of a multi that was less than 20 feet away from the coords of the other.

There was an extreme difference in terrain, which is how I assume they both were published. I don't think that they do that anymore, but they are pretty flexible.

 

And of course they do make mistakes, as accepting the position is usually universally interpreted as the very first mistake..

[+Charlie Fingers]

The same has happened in my area. There is a long established cache placed in the welcome center of this town and recently another state agency sponsored cache was placed 157 feet away with no physical boundaries and literally across the street from each other.

 

I refer to:

Some fun in Dahlonega and Dahlonega Gold Museum

 

I just accepted it as possibly an intentional "guideline" call since one is a 4 year old cache with near 400 finds and the other is a state historic site giving more visibility to the sight and to geocaching.

 

Bottom line: It doesn't bother me all that much, but it is still there for people to nit pick about.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Maybe it's just a mistake.

 

Could be. Picture after a hard day at work you have dinner and spend a little time with the family. Once the kids are in bed you check the queue and see over 100 caches awaiting review. It's late and you're tired but you have to get up early so you avoid a cup of coffee. Bleary eyed, you try to get through the queue as quickly as possible. Oops, there was a proximity issue you missed. Happens.

Zero excuse whatsoever.

 

I appreciate that our Reviewers are Volunteers, but if they can't handle the job competently along with the rest of their daily lives then they don't need to be in it!

 

I hear that all the time as an excuse... they are volunteers, they have a life, yada yada. I'm a volunteer too, in other communities, and if I get to where I can't balance everything (and it does happen) I ask for help.

 

'I'm over-worked' or 'I'm too busy to do what I do well' is never an acceptable excuse.

I guess I am only somewhat surprised by this response TAR. Sadly. Keep in mind that you were once a reviewer. As the one who took over the area that you previously reviewed, seeing these words written by you is rather disappointing. Did you write that? Really?

 

I am going to go with the caches in the original post, but it applies generally. Wiz has done an outstanding job in taking on reviewer duties. She took on a busy area in BC from me and now has additional help there. She knew when to ask for it and got it. She is so well respected in her community. At GeoWoodstock, I had some long conversations with people around her area. We chatted some about her. I had no idea about some of the things she has done up there before putting on the reviewer hat. Such a class act. Such a great person. Such a simple mistake, easy to make. You throw her under the bus for that? Knowing the people up there pretty well, your comments won't sit well with the community there. I know it is offensive to me, and I feel like I am still a part of that community is a small way (waves, miss you folks). I said in another topic that we are all human. You, me, even Keystone. OK, maybe not Keystone. Your comments above show how human you are. You are pretty far off base here. As I try to strive to learn from my mistakes, I hope that you will learn from yours as well. You made a pretty good one with that post.

I apologize, that was phrased poorly.

 

I would ask two things - that it be considered in the context of years of other posts which are all very supportive of and complementary to the Reviewers, and thus that it not be taken in such an out-of-context extreme. I thought it was obvious that it was a reply to something Briansnat said, I'm not sure how it can be interpreted as a slam at a Reviewer, since to my knowledge no Reviewer has ever used it as an excuse, but communications skills are obviously not my forte.

 

My response was to that one specific post, not the thread or even the topic overall, and was certainly not aimed at her or in fact at or about any Reviewer at all. Whenever any question is raised about any Reviewer, inevitably someone answers 'They are volunteers, cut them some slack'. As I stated, being a volunteer is not an excuse and should not be put forth as one.

 

I am the last person in the world to expect perfection. I make more than my share of mistakes and expect no better from others. My post wasn't meant to be critical about anything other than folks throwing out the excuse that Reviewers are volunteers as if that somehow makes it okay.

 

Anyone who has any familiarity with me or my posts in these forums is well aware that I have expressed nothing but support for our volunteers.

 

Again, if anyone is offended by my post I apologize as that was not my intent.

Edited July 12, 2011 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+The_Incredibles_]

WOW. Especially when it's such an easy mistake to fix once discovered.

I'm not so sure the owner of the archived cache would feel the same way, though.

 

Uh, it's the cache owner's responsibility to check for proximity before placing a cache. Maybe he should have been more thorough.

[+cache_test_dummies]

WOW. Especially when it's such an easy mistake to fix once discovered.

I'm not so sure the owner of the archived cache would feel the same way, though.

 

Uh, it's the cache owner's responsibility to check for proximity before placing a cache. Maybe he should have been more thorough.

In this particular case, the person who placed the cache too close to another nearby Premium Member Only cache was not himself a PM, so the location of the nearby PM cache would not have been know to him.

 

The owner of the cache that was later archived made this very argument on the cache page after his cache was archived.

[knowschad]

Dang! Busted by Chad! And my rouge of perfection just flew out the window!

 

I am not Chad. I know Chad.

[7rxc]

Uh, it's the cache owner's responsibility to check for proximity before placing a cache. Maybe he should have been more thorough.

In this particular case, the person who placed the cache too close to another nearby Premium Member Only cache was not himself a PM, so the location of the nearby PM cache would not have been know to him.

 

The owner of the cache that was later archived made this very argument on the cache page after his cache was archived.

 

But PMOCs (at least regular ones) are searchable. Enter your chosen coordinates (hide and seek page), the list and map available will show the nearest caches to that location, use a smaller radius to limit it. PMOs show as a small upper body half in black.

Doesn't work for multis or multi stage puzzles, but will show that one is in the area.

 

So at least some of the work can be done... one can also ask your reviewer about a selected site once you have done that part. Your choice of coords can be locked as well to prevent others from sneaking in while you search.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+Scubasonic]

WOW. Especially when it's such an easy mistake to fix once discovered.

I'm not so sure the owner of the archived cache would feel the same way, though.

 

Uh, it's the cache owner's responsibility to check for proximity before placing a cache. Maybe he should have been more thorough.

In this particular case, the person who placed the cache too close to another nearby Premium Member Only cache was not himself a PM, so the location of the nearby PM cache would not have been know to him.

 

The owner of the cache that was later archived made this very argument on the cache page after his cache was archived.

 

No different then finals of multi's or mysteries that you have not completed

 

SS

[+NeverSummer]

I am the reviewer who published the cache that is being discussed here, and I've just archived the cache with this note of explanation:

 

Hello,

I am the reviewer who published your Little Prairie Cache on July 6. Unfortunately, I failed to notice that there was an existing premium member cache, GC2VGC5, located only 173 feet away, and published your cache in error. I've archived your cache to give you an opportunity to find a new spot for your cache that's at least the minimum required distance of 528 feet away from existing nearby caches. When you do, please submit a new cache listing that's at least 528 feet away from nearby caches and you'll have a fresh start with your new cache.

 

I apologize for the oversight on my part. Thank you for your contribution to geocaching.

 

Wizard of Ooze

Volunteer Reviewer

Thanks for oozing your way over to the forums to give an update. It speaks well of your efforts and success as a reviewer to see how you brought up the archiving issue.

 

And it is by simple mistakes that people are able to fine-tune their work. Small mistake, small tweak...and things get better.

[4wheelin_fool]

Uh, it's the cache owner's responsibility to check for proximity before placing a cache. Maybe he should have been more thorough.

In this particular case, the person who placed the cache too close to another nearby Premium Member Only cache was not himself a PM, so the location of the nearby PM cache would not have been know to him.

The owner of the cache that was later archived made this very argument on the cache page after his cache was archived.

But PMOCs (at least regular ones) are searchable. Enter your chosen coordinates (hide and seek page), the list and map available will show the nearest caches to that location, use a smaller radius to limit it. PMOs show as a small upper body half in black.

Doesn't work for multis or multi stage puzzles, but will show that one is in the area.

 

So at least some of the work can be done... one can also ask your reviewer about a selected site once you have done that part. Your choice of coords can be locked as well to prevent others from sneaking in while you search.

Doug 7rxc

Yes, PMOs are visibly listed in proximity searches to regular members, so it could have been avoided. If it was the stage of a PMO multi, or the final of ANY difficult puzzle, then the argument would be valid. Some of the older multis have waypoints not listed, or viewable to reviewers also, so they may not even be able to catch it.

[+cx1]

So let me see if I am following this correctly;

 

A geocacher has a new cache denied for proximity issues.

 

Later that same geocacher finds a cache that was published that is even more out of line with proximity guidelines then their denied cache. However they still go ahead and log a find and claim their FTF.

 

The geocacher then posts about this proximity violating cache on the forum.

 

This posting leads to supposed questions about reviewer competency. It also appears there is some question as to the reviewers gender since despite several mentions that the reviewer is female there are subsequent posts still referring to the reviewer as male.

 

The offending cache gets archived and an apology sent to the cache owner for the mistake.

 

Owner of the archived cache may or may not be pleased with this result.

 

An attempt to shift blame(responsibility) for this incident to the cache owner is made by a third party. An ironic twist of the word 'thorough' is used considering a 'thorough' reading of the thread could have established the previously mentioned PMO issue.

 

So after all of this I have a question.

 

Is it ethical to claim and find and a FTF on a cache and then set in motion events that cause the cache to get archived so no one else has the opportunity to also claim a find while retaining credit to your own find count?

This is not a case where the cache situation changed after the FTF was made. The cache was in apparent violation of a guideline known to the geocacher making the FTF claim. Yet they claimed the find anyway and only after this 'credit' does this guideline violation issue become important enough to bring to others attention.

[+cache_test_dummies]

But PMOCs (at least regular ones) are searchable. Enter your chosen coordinates (hide and seek page), the list and map available will show the nearest caches to that location, use a smaller radius to limit it.

Interesting - I didn't know this.

 

I stand corrected.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

Is it ethical to claim and find and a FTF on a cache and then set in motion events that cause the cache to get archived so no one else has the opportunity to also claim a find while retaining credit to your own find count?

This is not a case where the cache situation changed after the FTF was made. The cache was in apparent violation of a guideline known to the geocacher making the FTF claim. Yet they claimed the find anyway and only after this 'credit' does this guideline violation issue become important enough to bring to others attention.

 

A find is a find. I dont see why they should not get any credit for it, as they found it.

 

Anyone else can still post a find on it until the owner removes it.

 

The real question is, is it ethical to NOT say anything about a cache which violates the guidelines and could be a potential problem?

 

A new cacher sees the two caches placed close together, and then goes ahead and spends several days creating a custom made container for a particular spot 300 feet from another cache, and does not realize there could be a problem since they found 2 other caches like that. Next their cache gets denied, and they say that it was created just for that particular area and cannot be moved, starts screaming favoritsm, ect..

 

Or finding a freshy dug 5 gallon bucket buried to the lid in a sensitive wildlife area.. Some cachers would not say a thing as they dont want to cause problems, not realizing that they may be perpetuating a much larger problem, such as having caches banned from entire areas, ect.

[+NeverSummer]

 

So after all of this I have a question.

 

Is it ethical to claim and find and a FTF on a cache and then set in motion events that cause the cache to get archived so no one else has the opportunity to also claim a find while retaining credit to your own find count?

This is not a case where the cache situation changed after the FTF was made. The cache was in apparent violation of a guideline known to the geocacher making the FTF claim. Yet they claimed the find anyway and only after this 'credit' does this guideline violation issue become important enough to bring to others attention.

A "FTF" is nothing more than a confirmation that the cache is at the listed coordinates and can be found by a user with a GPS and some searching. Also, that this "Found it" log is the first official, non-owner find of that cache within the context of its location. It doesn't matter is it meets the guidelines to be found--it was published and could BE found. But, upon discovery by the first person to find it, the cache was a proximity issue (or in a sensitive area, private property, etc) A cache owner can make a mistake with their listing, and sometimes a Reviewer doesn't ever get to visit GZ to see the specifics. We peons are the agents of discovery. (Cue the patriotic/sweepingly dramatic music) It's up to us to help keep geocaches in line according to the local laws, guidelines, geocaching.com TOU, Reviewer's publishing, and the cache-placer's description.

[knowschad]

So let me see if I am following this correctly;

 

A geocacher has a new cache denied for proximity issues.

 

Later that same geocacher finds a cache that was published that is even more out of line with proximity guidelines then their denied cache. However they still go ahead and log a find and claim their FTF.

 

The geocacher then posts about this proximity violating cache on the forum.

 

This posting leads to supposed questions about reviewer competency. It also appears there is some question as to the reviewers gender since despite several mentions that the reviewer is female there are subsequent posts still referring to the reviewer as male.

 

The offending cache gets archived and an apology sent to the cache owner for the mistake.

 

Owner of the archived cache may or may not be pleased with this result.

 

An attempt to shift blame(responsibility) for this incident to the cache owner is made by a third party. An ironic twist of the word 'thorough' is used considering a 'thorough' reading of the thread could have established the previously mentioned PMO issue.

 

A third party adds to the discussion by questioning if it is ethical to claim and find and a FTF on a cache and then set in motion events that cause the cache to get archived so no one else has the opportunity to also claim a find while retaining credit to your own find count.

 

So after all of this I have a question.

 

Why would anybody go through all that work to summarize the thread, then turn it into an FTF ethics question?

[+NeverSummer]

So let me see if I am following this correctly;

 

A geocacher has a new cache denied for proximity issues.

 

Later that same geocacher finds a cache that was published that is even more out of line with proximity guidelines then their denied cache. However they still go ahead and log a find and claim their FTF.

 

The geocacher then posts about this proximity violating cache on the forum.

 

This posting leads to supposed questions about reviewer competency. It also appears there is some question as to the reviewers gender since despite several mentions that the reviewer is female there are subsequent posts still referring to the reviewer as male.

 

The offending cache gets archived and an apology sent to the cache owner for the mistake.

 

Owner of the archived cache may or may not be pleased with this result.

 

An attempt to shift blame(responsibility) for this incident to the cache owner is made by a third party. An ironic twist of the word 'thorough' is used considering a 'thorough' reading of the thread could have established the previously mentioned PMO issue.

 

A third party adds to the discussion by questioning if it is ethical to claim and find and a FTF on a cache and then set in motion events that cause the cache to get archived so no one else has the opportunity to also claim a find while retaining credit to your own find count.

 

So after all of this I have a question.

 

Why would anybody go through all that work to summarize the thread, then turn it into an FTF ethics question?

Apparently OP is tough to follow.

And the FTF "issue" really gets a bee in some people's bonnet. Unfortunately.

[4wheelin_fool]

So let me see if I am following this correctly;

 

A geocacher has a new cache denied for proximity issues.

 

Later that same geocacher finds a cache that was published that is even more out of line with proximity guidelines then their denied cache. However they still go ahead and log a find and claim their FTF.

 

The geocacher then posts about this proximity violating cache on the forum.

 

This posting leads to supposed questions about reviewer competency. It also appears there is some question as to the reviewers gender since despite several mentions that the reviewer is female there are subsequent posts still referring to the reviewer as male.

 

The offending cache gets archived and an apology sent to the cache owner for the mistake.

 

Owner of the archived cache may or may not be pleased with this result.

 

An attempt to shift blame(responsibility) for this incident to the cache owner is made by a third party. An ironic twist of the word 'thorough' is used considering a 'thorough' reading of the thread could have established the previously mentioned PMO issue.

 

A third party adds to the discussion by questioning if it is ethical to claim and find and a FTF on a cache and then set in motion events that cause the cache to get archived so no one else has the opportunity to also claim a find while retaining credit to your own find count.

 

So after all of this I have a question.

 

Why would anybody go through all that work to summarize the thread, then turn it into an FTF ethics question?

 

So after all of this I have a question.

 

Ethically speaking, if the FTFer is known to be "packing heat", wouldn't that unfairly frighten away the other FTF candidates? And why would a 5th party add that to the discussion?

[+cx1]

 

Why would anybody go through all that work to summarize the thread, then turn it into an FTF ethics question?

 

Why would someone copy and paste another person's post but not properly quote it or address the question asked? < insert whatever emoticon you wish here >

 

The ethics question is not over the FTF issue.

 

The real question is about if you can have a legitimate find on a cache that you know is not legitimate.

 

Does the cache not being legitimate preclude it from being a legitimate find?

 

To me, if I know a cache violates the listing guidelines and I feel that attention needs to be brought to the cache that will more likely then not result in that cache being archived then the cache in question is no longer 'in play' for me and is no longer eligible to count as a 'find' for me. If technically the cache should not be there then it is not a properly listed cache. Finds should only count for properly listed caches.

[+DanOCan]

Is it ethical to claim and find and a FTF on a cache and then set in motion events that cause the cache to get archived so no one else has the opportunity to also claim a find while retaining credit to your own find count?

 

I see no ethical issue at all.

 

How else would someone know there is a problem with the cache if they didn't actually find it?

 

Whether the person who reported the issue is FTF is irrelevant.

[+A & J Tooling]

Well crap. If I can't take credit for finding all the caches around me that shouldn't be there, I'd have like 15 left.

[+DanOCan]

I'm surprised to learn that reviewers need to check for saturation manually. I would have expected the system would handle this programmatically.

 

"You are about to publish a cache that violates the proximity guideline. It is too close to this [cache/stage of a multi/final puzzle location]. Are you sure you wish to proceed with this publication?"

[+cx1]

 

So after all of this I have a question.

 

Ethically speaking, if the FTFer is known to be "packing heat", wouldn't that unfairly frighten away the other FTF candidates? And why would a 5th party add that to the discussion?

Not specifically addressed to me but it is an open forum...

 

First are they carrying a fuel additive a cooking device or 'something else'?

If it was 'something else' and that person is in full compliance with all State regulations regarding the issue then I do not see why anyone else would be frightened.

One cannot control on what another person may have a fear or phobia.

As to the second question I have no determinative idea.

[+Scubasonic]

.

 

Is it ethical to claim and find and a FTF on a cache and then set in motion events that cause the cache to get archived so no one else has the opportunity to also claim a find while retaining credit to your own find count?

This is not a case where the cache situation changed after the FTF was made. The cache was in apparent violation of a guideline known to the geocacher making the FTF claim. Yet they claimed the find anyway and only after this 'credit' does this guideline violation issue become important enough to bring to others attention.

 

Your facts are somewhat wrong but I am the cacher that got both FTFs on these caches and at the time I went for the cache in question that was Published on July 6th I had no idea that it was to close to the FTF I had gotten on the cache that was published in the same Park a few months before, after all I don't really check before I run out for a FTF what's going on with surrounding caches, could have been archived for all i know. It was only after a friend had told how close they were that I posted to the Forum, as I said in my post I just found it interesting. Hey I'm very cool with it 2 FTFs in one Park is it Ethical you bet it was published wasn't it, I figure once it is published it's fair game.

 

And if I spent all my time Micro-defining every FTF that came out before I went after it.....well I guess I wouldn't have over 1500 FTFs now would I?

 

SS

[+cx1]

 

I see no ethical issue at all.

 

How else would someone know there is a problem with the cache if they didn't actually find it?

 

Whether the person who reported the issue is FTF is irrelevant.

 

Actually being FTF is very relevant because they could have prevented this from becoming an issue at all.

They were first to know that there was an issue with the cache. They could have immediately contacted the cache owner and/or a reviewer with their concerns. Instead they log a find and then later bring the issue up on a forum. So now the reviewer and cache owner are blindsided by this becoming an issue on an international forum. Accusations have been raised against the cache reviewer and cache owner all because it was more important for someone to get their 'smiley' then to address the listing issue first.

[+Scubasonic]

 

I see no ethical issue at all.

 

How else would someone know there is a problem with the cache if they didn't actually find it?

 

Whether the person who reported the issue is FTF is irrelevant.

 

Actually being FTF is very relevant because they could have prevented this from becoming an issue at all.

They were first to know that there was an issue with the cache.

 

No I was not FT know didn't even think about it when I was going for the FTF, as I said before who checks on all that stuff when you are after a FTF obviously you don't get many FTFs otherwise you would know

 

SS

[+Scubasonic]

 

I see no ethical issue at all.

 

How else would someone know there is a problem with the cache if they didn't actually find it?

 

Whether the person who reported the issue is FTF is irrelevant.

 

Actually being FTF is very relevant

 

I just looked at your profile, and saw how many FTFs you have, this explains why you just don't get it.

 

SS

[+Scubasonic]

Please don't read any more into my posts than I put in them.

 

Oh gimme a break you are the King of Improve my friend

[+cx1]

 

 

Your facts are somewhat wrong but I am the cacher that got both FTFs on these caches and at the time I went for the cache in question that was Published on July 6th I had no idea that it was to close to the FTF I had gotten on the cache that was published in the same Park a few months before, after all I don't really check before I run out for a FTF what's going on with surrounding caches, could have been archived for all i know. It was only after a friend had told how close they were that I posted to the Forum, as I said in my post I just found it interesting. Hey I'm very cool with it 2 FTFs in one Park is it Ethical you bet it was published wasn't it, I figure once it is published it's fair game.

 

And if I spent all my time Micro-defining every FTF that came out before I went after it.....well I guess I wouldn't have over 1500 FTFs now would I?

 

SS

 

Well the comment you made

I can practically see the other cache from the new one that was published.

makes it seem you had a pretty good idea the other cache was there.

 

My number FTF caches has no bearing on the discussion of the issue at hand. FTF is a yardstick you seem to use to measure yourself whereas I don't.

 

If I found a cache and then later personally set in motion events that got the cache archived for listing violations that were present when I found the cache then I would delete my find. The cache should not have been there, therefore I should not have been able to find it and my find count should reflect that. If you want to take advantage of a loophole in the system and claim finds that should not be there to be claimed and then turn around and close that same loophole to others well then that is on you. That just doesn't measure up on the yardstick I use.

[+NeverSummer]

 

Why would anybody go through all that work to summarize the thread, then turn it into an FTF ethics question?

 

Why would someone copy and paste another person's post but not properly quote it or address the question asked? < insert whatever emoticon you wish here >

 

The ethics question is not over the FTF issue.

 

The real question is about if you can have a legitimate find on a cache that you know is not legitimate.

 

Does the cache not being legitimate preclude it from being a legitimate find?

 

To me, if I know a cache violates the listing guidelines and I feel that attention needs to be brought to the cache that will more likely then not result in that cache being archived then the cache in question is no longer 'in play' for me and is no longer eligible to count as a 'find' for me. If technically the cache should not be there then it is not a properly listed cache. Finds should only count for properly listed caches.

Well, then you can log the cache however you want. But if the cache is published and the coordinates listed, and I can sign a logbook, I will do so. If the cache is not properly placed, I then have context that I have FOUND it, and can clearly see that it does not meet listing guidelines. Without FINDING the cache, how can you be positive it wasn't just the wrong coords, or just plain old not there?

 

All this to say, you have to find it to know that it's not right, otherwise you're just guessing. And the last thing you want to do is put up a stink about a cache you didn't find. There are many circumstances that you may be unaware of. And there might be other circumstances you can be aware of once you locate a cache. (shaped like a pipe bomb, near/on a bridge, stuck to a post drop box...)

[knowschad]

Why would anybody go through all that work to summarize the thread, then turn it into an FTF ethics question?

 

Why would someone copy and paste another person's post but not properly quote it or address the question asked? < insert whatever emoticon you wish here >

 

The ethics question is not over the FTF issue.

 

The real question is about if you can have a legitimate find on a cache that you know is not legitimate.

 

Does the cache not being legitimate preclude it from being a legitimate find?

 

To me, if I know a cache violates the listing guidelines and I feel that attention needs to be brought to the cache that will more likely then not result in that cache being archived then the cache in question is no longer 'in play' for me and is no longer eligible to count as a 'find' for me. If technically the cache should not be there then it is not a properly listed cache. Finds should only count for properly listed caches.

I think you would be in the minority there, by far. If I found the cache, and in the act of finding it or logging it, determined that there were issues, I surely would still go ahead and log my find.

[+cx1]

 

I just looked at your profile, and saw how many FTFs you have, this explains why you just don't get it.

 

SS

Oh I get it, to you the following of the rules and listing guidelines only matters AFTER you get your precious FTF. You have no problem upsetting a cache owner and causing issues for a reviewer all on a forum instead of following proper channels as long as you get to keep the smiley.

Now as to why the FTF is so precious the rules shouldn't matter....yeah I don't get that.

5 friends with a few sock-puppet accounts could get me FTF numbers higher then yours in a matter of a few months. So what do FTF numbers prove?

[+NeverSummer]

 

If I found a cache and then later personally set in motion events that got the cache archived for listing violations that were present when I found the cache then I would delete my find. The cache should not have been there, therefore I should not have been able to find it and my find count should reflect that. If you want to take advantage of a loophole in the system and claim finds that should not be there to be claimed and then turn around and close that same loophole to others well then that is on you. That just doesn't measure up on the yardstick I use.

 

Really? Really. A find is a find. It's published. It got found. The logbook was signed. Like A&JT said, there would be few cache finds left for me if I had to delete after that kind of weird litmus test.

 

It's hardly taking advantage of anything to log a find on a published cache and then notice later that it might violate TOU or a local law. It happens a lot. Sometimes it takes many, many finds to realize that a cache is actually on private property or has been placed without proper permissions. A land manager could decide that all hides on city park lands are not allowed once they find out about geocaching. Your logic would mean that whoever called it to the attention of the land manager (directly or indirectly) is responsible for ending a cache's existence, and every finder beforehand abused a loophole to find the cache.

 

If a finder discovers that a cache does not meet local law, guideline or gc.com TOU, then it is their responsibility to bring it to the attention of the cache owner and local reviewer. (Lest the muggle authorities get involved) If they found the cache, they found the cache.

 

I could publish a hide today, let it get found by someone and archive it immediately following. It happens in many different forms, and there is no need to get undies in a bundle about FTF jealousy or "loopholes". A find is a find.

[knowschad]

I'm surprised to learn that reviewers need to check for saturation manually. I would have expected the system would handle this programmatically.

 

"You are about to publish a cache that violates the proximity guideline. It is too close to this [cache/stage of a multi/final puzzle location]. Are you sure you wish to proceed with this publication?"

 

I was thinking the same thing. Guess not, but it sure is logical.

[+NeverSummer]

So what do FTF numbers prove?

Nothing. So chill, cx1. Please. If it isn't a big deal to you, then let it go. Scubasonic even says that they know it's just a number, not unlike any other find. Getting there first is fun for many cachers for many different reasons. Sharing that they have 1500+ ftfs tells me nothing other than they have more time than I do to cache, and likely have better equipment than I do. And that's ok with me. I hope you can find a way for it to be ok with you, too.

[+geodarts]

Is it ethical to claim and find and a FTF on a cache and then set in motion events that cause the cache to get archived so no one else has the opportunity to also claim a find while retaining credit to your own find count?

 

The real question is about if you can have a legitimate find on a cache that you know is not legitimate.

 

Does the cache not being legitimate preclude it from being a legitimate find? . . . If technically the cache should not be there then it is not a properly listed cache. Finds should only count for properly listed caches.

 

I found a cache the other day that was more than a half mile from the posted coordinates. Based upon the title and the hint, the exact location of the cache was easy to determine. I was about the third or fourth to sign the log and other cachers had noted that its correct location created a problem with proximity to an existing cache. I recorded a find and then wrote to the reviewer to verify that the actual coordinates were 250 feet or so from an existing cache.

 

I found a cache over the weekend that is placed 15-20 feet past a "no trespassing" sign. The cache has been there over two years - and has gotten at least one favorite vote. I am not sure whether I will try to set any events in motion, since it has been there for awhile and the last time I contacted a reviewer with this kind of issue, I was told to work it out with the CO. But I claimed it as a find despite my doubts about its listing.

 

As to the cache where I contacted the reviewer, I chose not to look for it because I had to cross a fence on property that was posted. Other cachers decided to seek it out and I have no problem with them claiming a find for it.

 

I have found caches on national park property where the current administration has stated that no caching is allowed. I had no problem with claiming them as finds before I notified the reviewer of the problem, particularly since I had to go to the area to be certain that the cache was on federal land.

 

I cannot imagine how many caches I have found on private property that seem to be placed there without permission. I suppose they are not properly listed either. But I simply claim the find and leave the issue for another day.

 

In short, the determination of whether a cache is "properly listed" is often not mine to make. I can offer an opinion. I can decide, based upon my opinion, whether I will look for a cache. My logs simply indicate that I found a cache that is listed, and the question of whether it is proper or not is a separate issue.

 

That the OP was the first to log a particular cache is of no importance to this question. The "first" is a statement of fact. The importance of the factual statement is in the cacher's own mind. Although I wonder if the forum is a proper place to resolve proximity issues, the three initials that the OP chooses to use are not of any consequence.

Edited July 12, 2011 by mulvaney

[knowschad]

I see no ethical issue at all.

 

How else would someone know there is a problem with the cache if they didn't actually find it?

 

Whether the person who reported the issue is FTF is irrelevant.

 

Actually being FTF is very relevant because they could have prevented this from becoming an issue at all.

They were first to know that there was an issue with the cache. They could have immediately contacted the cache owner and/or a reviewer with their concerns. Instead they log a find and then later bring the issue up on a forum. So now the reviewer and cache owner are blindsided by this becoming an issue on an international forum. Accusations have been raised against the cache reviewer and cache owner all because it was more important for someone to get their 'smiley' then to address the listing issue first.

The only part of that that I might agree with is that there may have been no need to bring it to the forums. But as for claiming a find for it, I think that most of us, I certainly, would have kept my find, even if I did deal with it by going to the owner and/or reviewer instead.

[+Scubasonic]

 

I just looked at your profile, and saw how many FTFs you have, this explains why you just don't get it.

 

SS

Oh I get it, to you the following of the rules and listing guidelines only matters AFTER you get your precious FTF. You have no problem upsetting a cache owner and causing issues for a reviewer all on a forum instead of following proper channels as long as you get to keep the smiley.

Now as to why the FTF is so precious the rules shouldn't matter....yeah I don't get that.

5 friends with a few sock-puppet accounts could get me FTF numbers higher then yours in a matter of a few months. So what do FTF numbers prove?

 

One word CLUELESS !!! Published...... found end of story, all finds FTF or not should count prior to Archive status.

 

SS

[knowschad]

Please don't read any more into my posts than I put in them.

 

Oh gimme a break you are the King of Improve my friend

 

To put that in context:

WOW. Especially when it's such an easy mistake to fix once discovered.

I'm not so sure the owner of the archived cache would feel the same way, though.

 

You and Alabama Rambler go ahead and string the reviewer up by his toe nails if it makes you feel better. I learned something about rocks and glass houses growing up. Since I tend to make a lot of dumb mistakes I am willing to give the reviewer a little slack on this one. He did archive the too close cache once it was pointed out.

 

Now if he has a history of making these kind of mistakes you guys may be onto something. But I haven't heard any mention of that yet.

 

I didn't "string the reviewer up by the toe nails". I simply said what I said. Please don't read any more into my posts than I put in them.

 

No improvisation there. I was accused of stringing the reviewer up by the toe nails. I said (and did in no way intend to say) anything about the reviewer. I was simply and purely making a statement about how the cache owner felt... that this was 'an easy mistake to fix' for everybody but the owner of the cache that had to be archived. Please excuse my empathy.

[+Michaelcycle]

"Clueless" might be too strong a word.

 

The track that this discussion is now on does raise an ethical question as to whether a cache that is clearly illegal is truely a cache.

 

To illustrate:

 

A while back I was the first to find a cache that clearly violated the guidelines (irrefutable, I do not want to go into details but no one here would have argued) I signed and dated the log and gathered the necessary evidence to document the "illegality" of the cache.

I sent the evidence to the reviewer and then pondered what to put in the log. I settled for a note indicating that I had found it as I did not think it constituted a legitimate cache. Meanwhile, other cachers found it and logged smilies (some even after it had been archived.)Some time later, a more experienced cacher told me to convert my note to a find as it was not my fault that the cache had violated the guilelines. I did so but I've always felt a little uneasy about that find/FTF.

 

Everyone plays the game a little differently, we all have differences of understanding of what is "fair"

[knowschad]

"Clueless" might be too strong a word.

 

The track that this discussion is now on does raise an ethical question as to whether a cache that is clearly illegal is truely a cache.

 

To illustrate:

 

A while back I was the first to find a cache that clearly violated the guidelines (irrefutable, I do not want to go into details but no one here would have argued) I signed and dated the log and gathered the necessary evidence to document the "illegality" of the cache.

I sent the evidence to the reviewer and then pondered what to put in the log. I settled for a note indicating that I had found it as I did not think it constituted a legitimate cache. Meanwhile, other cachers found it and logged smilies (some even after it had been archived.)Some time later, a more experienced cacher told me to convert my note to a find as it was not my fault that the cache had violated the guilelines. I did so but I've always felt a little uneasy about that find/FTF.

 

Everyone plays the game a little differently, we all have differences of understanding of what is "fair"

 

I can see some situations that would be like that. For instance, say I was heading for a cache when I came to a No Trespassing sign. Exploring a bit made it clear that the cache was certainly on private property and there was no legal way to get to it. I would be wrong to trespass, sign the log, and then claim a find, because to do so would be breaking a law (assuming the cache page didn't say anything about permission, of course).

[+NeverSummer]

"Clueless" might be too strong a word.

 

The track that this discussion is now on does raise an ethical question as to whether a cache that is clearly illegal is truely a cache.

 

To illustrate:

 

A while back I was the first to find a cache that clearly violated the guidelines (irrefutable, I do not want to go into details but no one here would have argued) I signed and dated the log and gathered the necessary evidence to document the "illegality" of the cache.

I sent the evidence to the reviewer and then pondered what to put in the log. I settled for a note indicating that I had found it as I did not think it constituted a legitimate cache. Meanwhile, other cachers found it and logged smilies (some even after it had been archived.)Some time later, a more experienced cacher told me to convert my note to a find as it was not my fault that the cache had violated the guilelines. I did so but I've always felt a little uneasy about that find/FTF.

 

Everyone plays the game a little differently, we all have differences of understanding of what is "fair"

 

I can see some situations that would be like that. For instance, say I was heading for a cache when I came to a No Trespassing sign. Exploring a bit made it clear that the cache was certainly on private property and there was no legal way to get to it. I would be wrong to trespass, sign the log, and then claim a find, because to do so would be breaking a law (assuming the cache page didn't say anything about permission, of course).

+1. Good points of clarification, knowschad.

[knowschad]

+1. Good points of clarification, knowschad.

Thanks, NeverSummer. I just made that up, though. After all, I'm the King of Improve.

 

(wait... I just noticed... " the King of Improve"? I thought he said "Improv") I'll take the King of Improve any day!

[+cx1]

 

 

Really? Really. A find is a find. It's published. It got found. The logbook was signed. Like A&JT said, there would be few cache finds left for me if I had to delete after that kind of weird litmus test.

 

-<snip>-

 

If a finder discovers that a cache does not meet local law, guideline or gc.com TOU, then it is their responsibility to bring it to the attention of the cache owner and local reviewer. (Lest the muggle authorities get involved) If they found the cache, they found the cache.

 

I could publish a hide today, let it get found by someone and archive it immediately following. It happens in many different forms, and there is no need to get undies in a bundle about FTF jealousy or "loopholes". A find is a find.

 

First there is no FTF jealousy on my part. The OP brought the FTF issue to the thread well after the first post. I mentioned FTF in my recap of the thread as just another 'fact' of the issue (at that time it had the same relevance as the gender of the reviewer). SS and others want to make this about the FTF thing which to me this is really not about. While being FTF may have some bearing on how widespread an issue can become it has no effect on the point I have been attempting to make. I omitted the names of all the direct parties involved in my recap to make my question about the general ideas presented and not about a specific person or event. Apparently that concept was misunderstood by my target audience and I will try to be more clear in the future.

 

I completely agree that as a cacher I have somewhat of a duty to bring cache issues to the attention of the appropriate people. I make that judgment call on every cache I attempt to visit. Thankfully it is hardly ever an issue. Most issues I discover are simple maintenance issues which I can often repair myself and make a note of it in my on-line log.

 

Bringing a specific cache to this forum is akin to dangling a piece of meat in front of a pack of hungry wild animals. Those animals end up attacking you, the meat and each other in the wild feeding frenzy of public discourse. It is just the nature of the beast so to speak. It does not take a person very long to discover this.

 

Now it seems very hypocritical to me for a person to gain the benefit of a cache, be it a smiley, a FTF prize, enjoyment of a wonderful view or whatever and then turn around and feed that cache and in turn the reviewer and the cache owner to the pack knowing full well that the cache will now be devoured and no one after me will be allowed to have their own enjoyment of the cache. I could not in good conscious do such a thing while maintaining enjoyment of the benefit I received.

 

This is in no way the same as being finder number 25 on a cache and then 15 cachers later a problem has been discovered and the cache archived. The crucial difference is my knowledge at the time of my find and my actions afterwords. My knowledge nor my actions caused the cache to be archived therefore I do not feel responsible and my 'find' still is legitimate to me.

 

This is also not the same as being the first on the scene of a freshly published cache, discovering an issue that you feel will probably cause the cache to be archived or at least some corrections or clarifications made and contacting the cache owner or reviewer about it prior to logging it and just using a note as a placeholder until the issue can be resolved at the local reviewer/cache owner level.

[+NeverSummer]

 

 

Really? Really. A find is a find. It's published. It got found. The logbook was signed. Like A&JT said, there would be few cache finds left for me if I had to delete after that kind of weird litmus test.

 

-<snip>-

 

If a finder discovers that a cache does not meet local law, guideline or gc.com TOU, then it is their responsibility to bring it to the attention of the cache owner and local reviewer. (Lest the muggle authorities get involved) If they found the cache, they found the cache.

 

I could publish a hide today, let it get found by someone and archive it immediately following. It happens in many different forms, and there is no need to get undies in a bundle about FTF jealousy or "loopholes". A find is a find.

 

First there is no FTF jealousy on my part. The OP brought the FTF issue to the thread well after the first post. I mentioned FTF in my recap of the thread as just another 'fact' of the issue (at that time it had the same relevance as the gender of the reviewer). SS and others want to make this about the FTF thing which to me this is really not about. While being FTF may have some bearing on how widespread an issue can become it has no effect on the point I have been attempting to make. I omitted the names of all the direct parties involved in my recap to make my question about the general ideas presented and not about a specific person or event. Apparently that concept was misunderstood by my target audience and I will try to be more clear in the future.

 

I completely agree that as a cacher I have somewhat of a duty to bring cache issues to the attention of the appropriate people. I make that judgment call on every cache I attempt to visit. Thankfully it is hardly ever an issue. Most issues I discover are simple maintenance issues which I can often repair myself and make a note of it in my on-line log.

 

Bringing a specific cache to this forum is akin to dangling a piece of meat in front of a pack of hungry wild animals. Those animals end up attacking you, the meat and each other in the wild feeding frenzy of public discourse. It is just the nature of the beast so to speak. It does not take a person very long to discover this.

 

Now it seems very hypocritical to me for a person to gain the benefit of a cache, be it a smiley, a FTF prize, enjoyment of a wonderful view or whatever and then turn around and feed that cache and in turn the reviewer and the cache owner to the pack knowing full well that the cache will now be devoured and no one after me will be allowed to have their own enjoyment of the cache. I could not in good conscious do such a thing while maintaining enjoyment of the benefit I received.

 

This is in no way the same as being finder number 25 on a cache and then 15 cachers later a problem has been discovered and the cache archived. The crucial difference is my knowledge at the time of my find and my actions afterwords. My knowledge nor my actions caused the cache to be archived therefore I do not feel responsible and my 'find' still is legitimate to me.

 

This is also not the same as being the first on the scene of a freshly published cache, discovering an issue that you feel will probably cause the cache to be archived or at least some corrections or clarifications made and contacting the cache owner or reviewer about it prior to logging it and just using a note as a placeholder until the issue can be resolved at the local reviewer/cache owner level.

Right, I get it. (And don't read my "FTF jealousy" comment to include you. You're more of the "loophole" crowd, right?)

 

See knowschad's post. Those are great reasons to not "find" a cache and then write a note instead. But to say that a cache that is just too close to another, and you didn't realize the issue clearly until getting home, and then realize that you have personal context with the reviewer about proximity issues...so you get in touch with the owner and reviewer to deal with it. Consistency, and helping the reviewer keep on top of an issue they admittedly missed. Nuf said. The find was a find, and nothing other than proximity was an issue. This hide could be moved 200+ feet and still exist, or it can be archived, right? So, SS did what they did, and you can do what you do. There wasn't any foul play or number inflation happening here...and certainly no hanging meat.

 

Speaking of hanging meat, it's time to fire up the grill.

[mresoteric]

Please don't read any more into my posts than I put in them.

 

Oh gimme a break you are the King of Improve my friend

 

To put that in context:

WOW. Especially when it's such an easy mistake to fix once discovered.

I'm not so sure the owner of the archived cache would feel the same way, though.

 

You and Alabama Rambler go ahead and string the reviewer up by his toe nails if it makes you feel better. I learned something about rocks and glass houses growing up. Since I tend to make a lot of dumb mistakes I am willing to give the reviewer a little slack on this one. He did archive the too close cache once it was pointed out.

 

Now if he has a history of making these kind of mistakes you guys may be onto something. But I haven't heard any mention of that yet.

 

I didn't "string the reviewer up by the toe nails". I simply said what I said. Please don't read any more into my posts than I put in them.

 

No improvisation there. I was accused of stringing the reviewer up by the toe nails. I said (and did in no way intend to say) anything about the reviewer. I was simply and purely making a statement about how the cache owner felt... that this was 'an easy mistake to fix' for everybody but the owner of the cache that had to be archived. Please excuse my empathy.

 

I did not accuse you of stringing the reviewer up by the toe nails. I said you could go ahead and do that if it made you feel better.

 

"Please don't read any more into my posts than I put in them."

[+DanOCan]

 

I see no ethical issue at all.

 

How else would someone know there is a problem with the cache if they didn't actually find it?

 

Whether the person who reported the issue is FTF is irrelevant.

Actually being FTF is very relevant because they could have prevented this from becoming an issue at all.

They were first to know that there was an issue with the cache. They could have immediately contacted the cache owner and/or a reviewer with their concerns. Instead they log a find and then later bring the issue up on a forum. So now the reviewer and cache owner are blindsided by this becoming an issue on an international forum. Accusations have been raised against the cache reviewer and cache owner all because it was more important for someone to get their 'smiley' then to address the listing issue first.

I can understand how bringing the issue up in the forums rather than privately with the reviewer and cache owners could be considered bad form, but I still don't see what the FTF has to do with it. What if the second finder was the one to report the issue? You still have the same concern about the method of reporting.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I know of two caches(traditional, and first stage of a multi) that are 100 feet apart. But, both are over ten-years old, and grandfathered.

Then there was the final of a multi (about ten years old, so the final coords were not in the data bank) Someone placed a traditional about ten feet away from the final of the multi. When the CO of the multi pointed that out (and updated it with the coords for the final) the newer cache was removed from the data base. Not archived, but (what's the word???) completely hidden from view.