Inability to Understand that FTF's aren't 'Real'

September 17, 2011

Here's a cache that was recently published. http://coord.info/GC343QA This is the third cache the CO has published with the 'ftf logging requirement'.

1)I understand completely that FTF's/Co-FTF's/50thTF's/etc. are completely a side game and anyone can play it how they like and it doesn't matter. Claim what you want/don't claim, it doesn't bother me.

2)Is this an ALR?

Last, as with all of my caches, there will be only one First to
Find by cachers have separate and distinct usernames. The first

cacher having a separate and distinct username to find this cache

is FIRST and all others are 2nd, 3rd, etc. Co First to Find logs by

cachers having separate and distinct usernames will have their logs

deleted.

Yes I understand I can ignore it, but the entire reason I'm asking is twice now this CO has made his cache page into a discussion forum, the one I link to even had a note from an out of area cacher saying how he didn't think think the above paragraph was kosher (the note has been deleted), and the CO has sent us a 2 page e-mail (in all caps) about how we can and can't play the game. He thinks there is 'only one true FTF' and it taints the game to have Co-FTF's.

The issue at hand is...can the CO actually delete peoples logs based on FTF/Co-FTF claims?

5.3k · September 17, 2011

The issue at hand is...can the CO actually delete peoples logs based on FTF/Co-FTF claims?

The CO can basically do what he wants.

I think a better question would be: Can the CO grow up?

FWIW, I keep track of my FTFs privately. It's just for fun anyway. I never, ever, ever put that combination of letters in a cache log.

2k · September 17, 2011

well, in my opinion, contrary to what his note says about the local reviewer may understand....if he deletes any log for the sheer mention of saying Co-FTF, I think it would be an easy complaint to GS to have that log reinstated and locked.

Why make this much of a fuss as a CO I would say?

Sounds like someone who does not like his peas and his mashed potatoes mixing up, has to be his way or the highway even if the entire town likes their peas and potatoes mixed up. And if they do so at his restaurant, he feels he would kick them out.

Edited September 17, 2011 by lamoracke

1.2k · September 17, 2011

oh boy...

7.9k · September 17, 2011

It's an ALR.

If I find the cache three weeks from now, and claim co-FTF, they are gonna delete my log?

Seriously?

It's just text someone typed in. FTF. Co-FTF. Whatever.

The CO needs to get a grip on reality.

2.6k · September 17, 2011

Sounds like another reason to have the ability to ignore caches by hider.

19k · September 17, 2011

From what I understand from spending way too much time here, there's no way he can delete those logs without at least getting a good knuckle-rap from Groundspeak, and finding himself in deep doo-doo if he keeps it up. A find is a find. If the finder chooses to use the acronym FTF in his found log, so be it. Nothing the cache owner can do about that, aside from asking very nicely.

5k · September 17, 2011

I don't see this as an ALR issue but more on an issue of how much control a CO may have over the content of logs on their caches. This CO obvious sees "Co FTF" to be a falsehood and for some reason that I'll probably never understand, wishes such a falsehood not be posted on his cache pages. It's all silly to me, but it is not an ALR.

I'd be more concerned about the other obvious issues. Presumably intentional soft coordinates. Cache partially buried. Private lane with permission to only drive part way up it, (what if you miss the landmark that you're supposed to turn around at?), and cache listing being used as a personal forum. I honestly can't see my self rushing out to find any of this guys caches so the FTF issue would never be a factor.

7k · September 17, 2011

Sounds like the opposite of an ALR to me. Something you must not do in order to be allowed a find log. Is that an ALNR (additional logging non-requirement)?

7.9k · September 17, 2011

but it is not an ALR.

Attempting to control what text you enter, or what photo you upload with your 'Found It' log is unquestionably an ALR.

I can understand politely requesting a finder to edit their statement that the cache is 'under the third tree to the west of the fencepost'.

Demanding that the text 'co-ftf' not be used in a log is most certainly an ALR.

2k · September 17, 2011

Reviewers don't care squat about FTF. They have enough on their plate as it is. However, I'm sure the reviewer is not aware of the threat to delete Co FTF logs. If siggy is in booky, logger gets findy.

7k · September 17, 2011

but it is not an ALR.

Attempting to control what text you enter, or what photo you upload with your 'Found It' log is unquestionably an ALR.

I can understand politely requesting a finder to edit their statement that the cache is 'under the third tree to the west of the fencepost'.

Demanding that the text 'co-ftf' not be used in a log is most certainly an ALR.

Nope, even Groundspeak endorses and encourages log deletion under certain circumstances. The often cited "log sheet signed = found log online" clause only guarantees that a cacher may have an online found log when the log was signed, but it does not guarantee that they can put any content into that log that they wish to put. The clause only says that some found log must be allowed by the CO, not that any found log must be allowed.

4.2k · September 17, 2011

i would claim FTF, he only says he will delete any co-FTF

how can he/she tell from home who was FTF, let him go out to the cache and determine that :anibad: :lol:

2k · September 17, 2011

but it is not an ALR.

Attempting to control what text you enter, or what photo you upload with your 'Found It' log is unquestionably an ALR.

I can understand politely requesting a finder to edit their statement that the cache is 'under the third tree to the west of the fencepost'.

Demanding that the text 'co-ftf' not be used in a log is most certainly an ALR.

Nope, even Groundspeak endorses and encourages log deletion under certain circumstances. The often cited "log sheet signed = found log online" clause only guarantees that a cacher may have an online found log when the log was signed, but it does not guarantee that they can put any content into that log that they wish to put. The clause only says that some found log must be allowed by the CO, not that any found log must be allowed.

I'll put $5 on "Co-FTF" log by someone with a siggy in logbook being reinstated. Too bad I'm not close by to test it.

7.9k · September 17, 2011

Nope, even Groundspeak endorses and encourages log deletion under certain circumstances. The often cited "log sheet signed = found log online" clause only guarantees that a cacher may have an online found log when the log was signed, but it does not guarantee that they can put any content into that log that they wish to put. The clause only says that some found log must be allowed by the CO, not that any found log must be allowed.

I seriously doubt that a deleted log would not be re-instated if this sort of tripe was the 'reason' for deletion.

Certainly derogatory or otherwise generally offensive logs can (and should) be deleted.

The logger should then be allowed to re-log not using the offensive terminology.

I'm pretty sure Groundspeak would reinstate (and lock) a log that claimed 'CO-FTF' with no problems, since only the CO finds the terminology offensive.

19k · September 17, 2011

If Groundspeak will endorse blank logs, they will certainly support any log that claims to be FTF, even if it is posted three years after the cache was hidden.

September 17, 2011

Two words come to mind that adequately describe this CO...but I'm not sure I'm allowed to say them on the board...so I won't.

8k · September 17, 2011

but it is not an ALR.

Attempting to control what text you enter, or what photo you upload with your 'Found It' log is unquestionably an ALR.

I can understand politely requesting a finder to edit their statement that the cache is 'under the third tree to the west of the fencepost'.

Demanding that the text 'co-ftf' not be used in a log is most certainly an ALR.

So your saying the cache owner can't delete a spoiler? How about a log that is off-topic or that is obscene? I think Don_J has it right. If the cache owner believes that a co-FTF claim is bogus since only one person can be the first to sign the log (I'm assuming that this is how the CO will resolve who was first) he can delete the log. While Groundspeak might not like it that the CO is deleting logs over such a petty issue, they might just tell the people whose log got deleted to just relog the cache without making any FTF claim. There are other ways to keep track of your FTFs, including, if you are a premium member, creating a bookmark list of them. If a cache owner chooses to be be childish, he or she can be childish.

2k · September 17, 2011

but it is not an ALR.

Attempting to control what text you enter, or what photo you upload with your 'Found It' log is unquestionably an ALR.

I can understand politely requesting a finder to edit their statement that the cache is 'under the third tree to the west of the fencepost'.

Demanding that the text 'co-ftf' not be used in a log is most certainly an ALR.

So your saying the cache owner can't delete a spoiler? How about a log that is off-topic or that is obscene? I think Don_J has it right. If the cache owner believes that a co-FTF claim is bogus since only one person can be the first to sign the log (I'm assuming that this is how the CO will resolve who was first) he can delete the log. While Groundspeak might not like it that the CO is deleting logs over such a petty issue, they might just tell the people whose log got deleted to just relog the cache without making any FTF claim. There are other ways to keep track of your FTFs, including, if you are a premium member, creating a bookmark list of them. If a cache owner chooses to be be childish, he or she can be childish.

This is not about spoilers and if two people find the cache together and both claim Co-FTF, there is nothing bogus about that log. The CO will lose if/when someone decides to test it with a buddy.

September 17, 2011

Looks like the guy that got FTF didn't care and the second to log even put FTF on his log doesn't seem he cared. Why would the 3rd to find care. Unless the CO changed the description after it published it doesn't seem Heartland Cacher the reviewer cared! And so what if an out of area cacher posted a log voicing his or her displeasure, has that out of area cacher cached in that area or did he or she just happen to hear of the cache and just happen to post a log! Sounds like you should just ignore the cache and move on!

September 17, 2011

If I was even the 127th finder of that cache I would write..... "Yay! Co-FTF on this cache!!" I am normally not one to start trouble, but the CO invites that by his statement. However I would likely not even bother finding that cache.

3k · September 17, 2011

His concern about co-FTFs seems rather...excessive.

From the profile of the CO in question:

"I usually type logs in CAPS. Please do not be offended. I am not YELLING at you. I just do not wish to be bothered with using the SHIFT key."

I hope he's either joking or arthritis in his fingers...

Edited September 17, 2011 by Joshism

7k · September 17, 2011

I'll put $5 on "Co-FTF" log by someone with a siggy in logbook being reinstated. Too bad I'm not close by to test it.

I seriously doubt that a deleted log would not be re-instated if this sort of tripe was the 'reason' for deletion.
Certainly derogatory or otherwise generally offensive logs can (and should) be deleted.

The logger should then be allowed to re-log not using the offensive terminology.

I'm pretty sure Groundspeak would reinstate (and lock) a log that claimed 'CO-FTF' with no problems, since only the CO finds the terminology offensive.

If Groundspeak will endorse blank logs, they will certainly support any log that claims to be FTF, even if it is posted three years after the cache was hidden.

You're all probably right, but that doesn't automatically make it an ALR. It just means that GS didn't think that the reasons for the log deletion were valid (and I'd have to agree with them).

9.2k · September 17, 2011

HE EMAILED BACK AND SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

I once went to the bank and asked the manager if I could take £1,000.

He sort of said something like it was OK.

What he actually said was "If you want to have a loan, over XX months, with an interest rate of £XX, that's what we can arrange."

Being pedantic, if you get co-FTF's, the next finder would be the Third to Find, or even Forth, Fifth, etc...

I have no problem with cachers agree to be First To Find a cache.

7.9k · September 17, 2011

I guess I should put a statement on my cache pages that any logs entered in ALL CAPS will be deleted.

And perhaps logs with poor grammar, bad spelling, or missing punctuation as well. <_<

September 17, 2011

I have no FTF as it is not my thing. I have noticed though that on a few occasions I have been the FTF . Came home and went to log sure enough someone has claimed FTF but never signed the log.

19k · September 17, 2011

Two words come to mind that adequately describe this CO...but I'm not sure I'm allowed to say them on the board...so I won't.

I think that would be just a single, compound word.

September 17, 2011

Considering the OP on this thread is the cacher in question and that this topic is already discussed beginning about 2/3rds of the way down, perhaps these should be merged:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=274449

19k · September 17, 2011

but it is not an ALR.

Attempting to control what text you enter, or what photo you upload with your 'Found It' log is unquestionably an ALR.

I can understand politely requesting a finder to edit their statement that the cache is 'under the third tree to the west of the fencepost'.

Demanding that the text 'co-ftf' not be used in a log is most certainly an ALR.

So your saying the cache owner can't delete a spoiler? How about a log that is off-topic or that is obscene? I think Don_J has it right. If the cache owner believes that a co-FTF claim is bogus since only one person can be the first to sign the log (I'm assuming that this is how the CO will resolve who was first) he can delete the log. While Groundspeak might not like it that the CO is deleting logs over such a petty issue, they might just tell the people whose log got deleted to just relog the cache without making any FTF claim. There are other ways to keep track of your FTFs, including, if you are a premium member, creating a bookmark list of them. If a cache owner chooses to be be childish, he or she can be childish.

Nothing bogus about a Found It log, just because it claims co-FTF. I'm sure the intention of the "bogus log" clause is to delete logs where the cacher never found the cache, thus it is a bogus online log. If deleting logs that said something bogus, millions of "nice hide!" logs could go bye-bye. Logs on old liar's caches could be deleted wholesale.

7.9k · September 17, 2011

...creating a bookmark list of them. If a cache owner chooses to be be childish, he or she can be childish.

Hmmm, that's a great idea!

I could create a public Bookmark list of all his caches and call it:

Caches I would have been Co-FTF if I had the chance.

September 17, 2011

His concern about co-FTFs seems rather...excessive.

From the profile of the CO in question:

"I usually type logs in CAPS. Please do not be offended. I am not YELLING at you. I just do not wish to be bothered with using the SHIFT key."

I hope he's either joking or arthritis in his fingers...

I can push the caps lock key with my nose. No really, I can! :blink:

If he would make use of that really cool key, then the CO won't be shouting anymore...but then will anyone forgive him for not capitalizing his sentences or proper nouns? Probably not, but it's better than shouting. :rolleyes:

It's sort of like a person yelling in a church because they refuse to wear their hearing aid. <_<

September 17, 2011

Would be nice to see Heartland Cacher's thoughts shared here.

2.4k · September 17, 2011

The Cache Owner will probably have a bad day when one of his (or all) new caches are found by very large teams for the FTF...

And what will he do if the FTF stands for Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth and so on.. To Find.

Doug 7rxc

3.6k · September 17, 2011

ALR all the way. No but about it.

1.2k · September 17, 2011

There's a local cacher that has a similar statement, claiming that there can only be one FTF. I disagree, and if it came to hit I would still claim co-FTF. If the log was deleted a quick email to GS would have it reinstated. Or I wouldn't mention FTF and just mark it in GSAK. Basically I would just ignore it

1.2k · September 18, 2011

Ain't such thing as a co FTF. Some one has to spot it first. Co FTF is as lame as a LPC! I'm with the CO all the way!

8k · September 18, 2011

This FTF log might be suspicious http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=f4655802-e314-4c94-a47e-d32e704d4d8d

I would favorite the cache if I gave out favorite votes!

Notice that Hemlock's log does not violate the the cache owners rule since he doesn't claim a co-FTF. However if this is a bogus log the cache owner can delete it. Unlike my Co-FTF bookmark list.

2k · September 18, 2011

Ain't such thing as a co FTF. Some one has to spot it first. Co FTF is as lame as a LPC! I'm with the CO all the way!

Is that some more of that dissension for the joy of dissension you mentioned the other day? <_<

It is possible for 2 people to find something at the same time. But regardless, FTF is generally just a fun side game. Around these parts it's mostly for 1 of 2 things. Either it results in several of us getting together impromptu or it gives us a reason to rag the real FTF hound who refuses to admit his illness. :laughing:

2k · September 18, 2011

This FTF log might be suspicious http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=f4655802-e314-4c94-a47e-d32e704d4d8d

I would favorite the cache if I gave out favorite votes!

:laughing:

Too bad he didn't log Co-FTF.

2.4k · September 18, 2011

If I arrived on site, met up with other cachers, I would suggest we join forces, become Team COFTF and in the online log state "found as Team COFTF, SL TFTC." Why? Just to be b***** minded. What if someone writes "joint FTF" - I suppose that's a no-no too.

Still, it isn't my cache - next one of mine that goes out can have as many co-FTFs as are on the search party and signatures in the log book.

2.4k · September 18, 2011

This FTF log might be suspicious http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=f4655802-e314-4c94-a47e-d32e704d4d8d

I would favorite the cache if I gave out favorite votes!

That is hilarious!!!

7.9k · September 18, 2011

If he would make use of that really cool key

He caches around here sometimes, and I believe he is using a cellphone...

All his logs start out:

Found using the Geocache Navigator By Trimble.

Followed by a few words of his own in all caps.

Just a bit lamer than a co-FTF log, IMNSHO. :laughing:

4.2k · September 18, 2011

Ain't such thing as a co FTF. Some one has to spot it first. Co FTF is as lame as a LPC! I'm with the CO all the way!

why, just because we cache as a couple under different names?...how is it any different than caching under a team name?

afaic is up to those in the group to agree to share a FTF...besides FTF is not even officially recognized so why does anyone care if i want to share it with my husband, dog or cup of coffee?

7.9k · September 18, 2011

Has anyone that has a problem with the offending cache owner or has the OP contacted the CO to discuss his violations, according to his profile he only has 1 post in the forums, so if his local community isn't saying anything to him he might not know of the outrage! Although we know what one reviewer thinks the other reviewer that published the cache hasn't commented unless I missed it.

There is now a note on the cache originally linked above stating:

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT ADDITIONAL LOGGING REQUIREMENTS, I HAVE PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE WITH HEARTLAND CACHER.

I EMAILED HIM AND SPECIFICALLY ASKED IF MY REQUIREMENT OF ONLY ONE "FIRST TO FIND" AND ALL OTHERS ARE 2ND, 3RD, ETC. IS "AN ADDITIONAL LOGGING REQUIREMENT". HE EMAILED BACK AND SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. THUS, AS LONG AS HEARTLAND CACHER IS OKAY WITH IT, I WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE THAT A REQUIREMENT ON ANY CACHE THAT I HIDE.

CACHE ON AND HAVE FUN!

I think now all we need to know is if he really can enforce this, or would logs get reinstated like I expect they would. I suspect the reviewer stated that he could put any such text in there that he pleased, and certainly he can.

Enforcing Attempting to enforce this 'reverse ALR' is another matter entirely.

10.2k · September 18, 2011

This FTF log might be suspicious http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=f4655802-e314-4c94-a47e-d32e704d4d8d

I would favorite the cache if I gave out favorite votes!

:laughing:

Too bad he didn't log Co-FTF.

That's interesting. Is two different people claiming FTF the same as Co-FTF? Well, according to his profile, the CO is retired. Retired guys are grumpy, and opinionated. You'll probably want to stay off his lawn, too. :huh:

2k · September 18, 2011

This FTF log might be suspicious http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=f4655802-e314-4c94-a47e-d32e704d4d8d

I would favorite the cache if I gave out favorite votes!

:laughing:

Too bad he didn't log Co-FTF.

That's interesting. Is two different people claiming FTF the same as Co-FTF? Well, according to his profile, the CO is retired. Retired guys are grumpy, and opinionated. You'll probably want to stay off his lawn, too.

As long as he stays off mine we'll do just fine.

1.3k · September 18, 2011

I will remove anybody claiming to be Co-occupants of my lawn.

1.2k · September 18, 2011

Ain't such thing as a co FTF. Some one has to spot it first. Co FTF is as lame as a LPC! I'm with the CO all the way!

Is that some more of that dissension for the joy of dissension you mentioned the other day?

It is possible for 2 people to find something at the same time. But regardless, FTF is generally just a fun side game. Around these parts it's mostly for 1 of 2 things. Either it results in several of us getting together impromptu or it gives us a reason to rag the real FTF hound who refuses to admit his illness.

shhhhhhhhhhh!

1.2k · September 18, 2011

Ain't such thing as a co FTF. Some one has to spot it first. Co FTF is as lame as a LPC! I'm with the CO all the way!

why, just because we cache as a couple under different names?...how is it any different than caching under a team name?

afaic is up to those in the group to agree to share a FTF...besides FTF is not even officially recognized so why does anyone care if i want to share it with my husband, dog or cup of coffee?

zooommmm zip .....did you not see it? haha

1.2k · September 18, 2011

This FTF log might be suspicious http://www.geocachin...7e-d32e704d4d8d

I would favorite the cache if I gave out favorite votes!

:laughing:

Too bad he didn't log Co-FTF.

That's interesting. Is two different people claiming FTF the same as Co-FTF? Well, according to his profile, the CO is retired. Retired guys are grumpy, and opinionated. You'll probably want to stay off his lawn, too.

hahaha and non retired people are not as you say? Some of the happiest nicest people I know are retired! and like wise some of the grumpiest are working still!

Inability to Understand that FTF's aren't 'Real'

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment