FTF or beta testing or...

[+-CJ-]

Yesterday one of our local geocachers asked me to visit his new cache (placed Feb 22), try to find it and tell him my thoughts/suggestions before he published it at gc.com. He provided me with the coordinates and the hint. I was happy to help, drove there (Feb 23), successfully found the cache and signed the logbook. The satisfied CO then completed translation of his cache into English and published it at gc.com early this morning (Feb 24).

 

I haven't logged the cache yet because when I switched my computer on and opened my mailbox I read a message from my friend (that CO) who seemed to be a bit confused. It happened that one guy, also a geocacher, read the new listing soon after it appeared at the website and rushed to the new cache. He seemed to be disappointed to see my FTF in the logsheet. He sent a message to the CO asking how it could happen that the cache appeared at gc.com on Feb 24 and the FTF log was of Feb 23. After my friend explained this situation that guy logged the cache as "the second FTF" (calling my FTF to be "actually a beta testing") and wrote it was [a proud number] FTF in his personal FTF statistics.

 

I don't care about my FTFs at all. But I know that some people do. I was about just to log the cache as found, write TFTC and forget about this story. However I would ask for opinions at this forum. Is it acceptable from your point of view to log a cache as FTF before the cache is published at gc.com? (In a situation like that I described above?) Are there any traditions regarding FTFs within the game or maybe in your area?

Edited February 24, 2013 by -CJ-

[+palmetto]

Don't sign the log when you're beta testing.

 

The CO knows you found it, and isn't going to delete your find over the fact that you left the log unsigned as a courtesy.

 

This works well for everybody.

[+briansnat]

Not a "getting started" issue. Moving to a more appropriate forum

Edited February 24, 2013 by briansnat

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

I think the correct response is to pour another cup of coffee and search GC.com for another cache to find.

Some people have an addiction to that FTF rush. Some are very particular about how they play the game.

Live and let live on this issue. Your friend asked you to check the cache out before it was published. You're able to claim the find and you don't care about the FTF madness like the guy claiming FTF does.

Edited February 24, 2013 by bramasoleiowa

[+lamoracke]

I would sign the log and just say beta testing so folks know you are not claiming any FTFs. Suppose signing it is up to you and the CO.

[+roundnround we go]

beta testing or not FTF is FTF. The second finder can call it what ever he wants but his name is still second in the log. This to me is no different than when someone does't publish his caches until after an event that he gave out the coords to those that attended to have first crack at finding

[AZcachemeister]

You found the cache using the co-ordinates and your GPSr, just like everyone else does.

Definitely a find.

You were there first, so technically it's a 'First to Find'.

How you got the co-ordinates is between you and the owner.

If the other guy chooses to be upset by this, that is his choice, and his problem.

 

Around here, some caches can be placed as 'treats' for event attendees, and the cache only gets published after the attendees (who want to) have found the cache(s). By the time they are published, there may be 15-20 signatures on the log!

 

At one event, the 'rights' to the FTF for some of the new caches were raffled off at the end of the event.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

We don't play FTF aggressively, but it is a valid part of the game for many (GC promotes FTF regularly) I wouldn't sign a log if I was Beta testing. I like many of the cachers in the area who play FTF.

[+Roman!]

We don't play FTF aggressively, but it is a valid part of the game for many (GC promotes FTF regularly) I wouldn't sign a log if I was Beta testing. I like many of the cachers in the area who play FTF.

 

I agree, I have beta tested a night cache and I went back a week after, after it was found many times, to sign the log and log it on GC.

[+roundnround we go]

We don't play FTF aggressively, but it is a valid part of the game for many (GC promotes FTF regularly) I wouldn't sign a log if I was Beta testing. I like many of the cachers in the area who play FTF.

 

I agree, I have beta tested a night cache and I went back a week after, after it was found many times, to sign the log and log it on GC.

 

I agree with what you both said but if the beta tester chose to sign the log then he was FTF. someone can't come behind him and sign on the second line and still claim FTF. As has been said on here many times before everyone plays a little different, so if the beta tester chooses to sign the log then those after him just need to deal with it and move and wait for the next cache to be published and try again

[+-CJ-]

Thank you for these interesting and different opinions.

 

I agree that FTF may be a valid part of the game but I'd say beta testing is more valuable and important because it's an effort to help each other to place/publish better geocaches. As I see it, FTF hunters can try any geocaches that appear on the map while beta testing is needed in a limited number of situations when a CO needs some advice/assistance. To satisfy everyone's expectations I think the suggestion by palmetto is good enough. Anyway, beta testing is more an exclusion from the common game, not everyday practice.

 

Another issue is that if I tested someone's geocache and there's no other cacher to FTF in weeks/months (very likely in our region) it would look silly. In this case I think I would suggest the CO to publish geocache so I could go there without anyone blaming me (half a year later) that he didn't get his prize.

 

May I ask one more question (without starting a new topic): how do you log a cache if you placed it together with the cache owner? Do you just write a note, or log it as found, or what?

[+jellis]

If you beta test it's best to sign near the bottom of the sheet. It isn't fair for the real FTF to arrive to find the log signed by someone who found it before it was published by the help of the CO.

 

It is a different story if you accidentally find a cache before it is published. Still not fair to the FTF hounds but it is fair game.

Edited February 24, 2013 by jellis

[stebu]

Over here in Finland it is customary to sign at the bottom/back of the log book and claim a FBA (Found Before Approval). It is considered polite to let the FTF log first on the web.

[+The_Incredibles_]

When I was hiding one of my caches, another cacher happened to be there so I let him sign the log. He didn't sign on the FTF spot and wrote in brackets, something like "found while cache being hidden".

 

I also made a note of this on the cache page to let people know the FTF honors were still up for grabs.

 

To me 'FTF' means 'FTF after publishing'. Otherwise, if we really want to get technical, any of my family members could be considered FTF.

[+-CJ-]

Found Before Approval

 

Finnish experience sounds interesting (FBA), how did you manage to agree altogether to use this approach? Do you have any geocaching organisation/association that made it easy or was it just a tradition?

 

He didn't sign on the FTF spot and wrote in brackets, something like "found while cache being hidden".

 

Sounds good. I was a bit worried that purists would say: "You cannot sign the cache as found if you didn't actually find it but "only" helped the CO to place/publish it".

[+Mudfrog]

Allthough it is technically a ftf, it's not one i'd ever say i got. For me, a cache needs to be published before i log a find on it so i'd probably opt to go out again after it was published to sign the logbook. Yes, this seems kinda silly in a way since i know i already found it but i figure it would help to keep any hard feelings from coming up.

 

I have never considered having someone beta test one of my caches but if i ever did, i'd make sure to get a person who didn't care anything about claiming ftf on it.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Quote

He didn't sign on the FTF spot and wrote in brackets, something like "found while cache being hidden".

 

Sounds good. I was a bit worried that purists would say: "You cannot sign the cache as found if you didn't actually find it but "only" helped the CO to place/publish it".

 

He didn't really help me to hide it. We had arrived at a nearby cache at the same time. Then I walked off to go hide my cache. He walked by while I was looking for a spot. So I figured it made sense for him to sign the logbook while he was there, especially as he was an out-of-towner.

[+CanadianRockies]

He didn't sign on the FTF spot and wrote in brackets, something like "found while cache being hidden".

Sounds good. I was a bit worried that purists would say: "You cannot sign the cache as found if you didn't actually find it but "only" helped the CO to place/publish it".

I guess I must be a purist. I helped one person hide his cache. I didn't sign the log book and didn't claim a find. I just put the cache on my Ignore List. I didn't feel any need for one more smiley.

[+-CJ-]

One more smiley, right. It's different however in situation when you have not so many caches around and very limited chances to seek for a new cache. And very few geocachers too. It's simple: if a newbie is invited to join a team to place a new geocache it's a great chance to learn how to do this (and there are not many other chances, as I said). However if he finds out that he would be suggested not to log this cache he will most probably hesitate or decline the invitation - just to have a chance to log the cache as found later.

 

You all own some geocaches as I can see from your profiles. Did any other geocacher ever joined you when you placed a new cache? I mean, not just slept in a car waiting for you but took active part, maybe assisted with cache description, or provided photos, anything? Were there newbies among your assistants? How did they log these caches afterwards?

Edited February 24, 2013 by -CJ-

[+Roman!]

I helped a friend place a 50 cache trail, it was 25 km out and back and there was no short way, after all the caches were found I went out and found them all and signed the logs and logged them. If I'm with someone when they place a cache I will never sign the log nor will I go after the FTF but I will go and find, sign and log them after they have been found.

[+CanadianRockies]

You all own some geocaches as I can see from your profiles. Did any other geocacher ever joined you when you placed a new cache? I mean, not just slept in a car waiting for you but took active part, maybe assisted with cache description, or provided photos, anything? Were there newbies among your assistants? How did they log these caches afterwards?

My wife, who has an individual account and also is part of our CanadianRockies account, has helped me build and place many of our caches. She didn't log any of these on either account -- not online and not offline.

[+Mudfrog]

I helped a friend place a 50 cache trail, it was 25 km out and back and there was no short way, after all the caches were found I went out and found them all and signed the logs and logged them. If I'm with someone when they place a cache I will never sign the log nor will I go after the FTF but I will go and find, sign and log them after they have been found.

 

Oooops, but i fixed it for ya.

[+Roman!]

I helped a friend place a 50 cache trail, it was 25 km out and back and there was no short way, after all the caches were found I went out and found them all and signed the logs and logged them. If I'm with someone when they place a cache I will never sign the log nor will I go after the FTF but I will go and find, sign and log them after they have been found.

 

Oooops, but i fixed it for ya.

 

After 2 or 3 cachers have found a cache odds are you'll have to search for it.

 

Actually I've never watched another cacher hide a cache, when he did the trail I'd ride out ahead .1 miles and find an area, he'd then come, hide it and take coorinates while I went ahead. So I still did have to find them.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Roman!

[+baloo&bd]

Yesterday one of our local geocachers asked me to visit his new cache (placed Feb 22), try to find it and tell him my thoughts/suggestions before he published it at gc.com. He provided me with the coordinates and the hint. I was happy to help, drove there (Feb 23), successfully found the cache and signed the logbook. The satisfied CO then completed translation of his cache into English and published it at gc.com early this morning (Feb 24).

 

I haven't logged the cache yet because when I switched my computer on and opened my mailbox I read a message from my friend (that CO) who seemed to be a bit confused. It happened that one guy, also a geocacher, read the new listing soon after it appeared at the website and rushed to the new cache. He seemed to be disappointed to see my FTF in the logsheet. He sent a message to the CO asking how it could happen that the cache appeared at gc.com on Feb 24 and the FTF log was of Feb 23. After my friend explained this situation that guy logged the cache as "the second FTF" (calling my FTF to be "actually a beta testing") and wrote it was [a proud number] FTF in his personal FTF statistics.

 

I don't care about my FTFs at all. But I know that some people do. I was about just to log the cache as found, write TFTC and forget about this story. However I would ask for opinions at this forum. Is it acceptable from your point of view to log a cache as FTF before the cache is published at gc.com? (In a situation like that I described above?) Are there any traditions regarding FTFs within the game or maybe in your area?

 

After reading the first few incorrect responses to your post, I just skipped to reply, however this has probably been said before. FtF is a binary state, either you were or you were not. Publish date, weather, park rules, etc. have no effect on that state. You either are or you are not.

 

Had you stated you were with him or he guided you there by the hand, then it could be said you didn't "find it", however that does not appear to be the case here.Many CO's, myself included h, hand out the coords to friends and other cachers while waiting for it to be published. It is also common for events to hand out the coords for caches they have requested to not be published till after the event. Both acceptable practices.

[+simpjkee]

The OP is first to find. The second cacher who came along is second to find, but if he wants to claim it as a FTF for himself then he can do that even if he is wrong.

[+wmpastor]

This situation of a pre-publication cache find happened near Philadelphia recently. There was major backlash, note posting, etc., and the reviewer froze the listing for a three-day "cool-down" period. The pre-publication finder deleted his found-posting. I emphatically believe that the only fair FTF is after publication, where everyone has an equal chance. Otherwise, FTF is meaningless, & it will mean not that you are quick & skillful, but only that you got advance inside information from a buddy.

[+Roman!]

Yesterday one of our local geocachers asked me to visit his new cache (placed Feb 22), try to find it and tell him my thoughts/suggestions before he published it at gc.com. He provided me with the coordinates and the hint. I was happy to help, drove there (Feb 23), successfully found the cache and signed the logbook. The satisfied CO then completed translation of his cache into English and published it at gc.com early this morning (Feb 24).

 

I haven't logged the cache yet because when I switched my computer on and opened my mailbox I read a message from my friend (that CO) who seemed to be a bit confused. It happened that one guy, also a geocacher, read the new listing soon after it appeared at the website and rushed to the new cache. He seemed to be disappointed to see my FTF in the logsheet. He sent a message to the CO asking how it could happen that the cache appeared at gc.com on Feb 24 and the FTF log was of Feb 23. After my friend explained this situation that guy logged the cache as "the second FTF" (calling my FTF to be "actually a beta testing") and wrote it was [a proud number] FTF in his personal FTF statistics.

 

I don't care about my FTFs at all. But I know that some people do. I was about just to log the cache as found, write TFTC and forget about this story. However I would ask for opinions at this forum. Is it acceptable from your point of view to log a cache as FTF before the cache is published at gc.com? (In a situation like that I described above?) Are there any traditions regarding FTFs within the game or maybe in your area?

 

After reading the first few incorrect responses to your post, I just skipped to reply, however this has probably been said before. FtF is a binary state, either you were or you were not. Publish date, weather, park rules, etc. have no effect on that state. You either are or you are not.

 

Had you stated you were with him or he guided you there by the hand, then it could be said you didn't "find it", however that does not appear to be the case here.Many CO's, myself included h, hand out the coords to friends and other cachers while waiting for it to be published. It is also common for events to hand out the coords for caches they have requested to not be published till after the event. Both acceptable practices.

 

To claim a find according to GS rules one must sign the log thus to be FTF one must sign the log first thus if someone beta tests a cache and doesn't sign the log (which I think is the right thing to do) FTF is still up for grabs.

[+baloo&bd]

Yesterday one of our local geocachers asked me to visit his new cache (placed Feb 22), try to find it and tell him my thoughts/suggestions before he published it at gc.com. He provided me with the coordinates and the hint. I was happy to help, drove there (Feb 23), successfully found the cache and signed the logbook. The satisfied CO then completed translation of his cache into English and published it at gc.com early this morning (Feb 24).

 

I haven't logged the cache yet because when I switched my computer on and opened my mailbox I read a message from my friend (that CO) who seemed to be a bit confused. It happened that one guy, also a geocacher, read the new listing soon after it appeared at the website and rushed to the new cache. He seemed to be disappointed to see my FTF in the logsheet. He sent a message to the CO asking how it could happen that the cache appeared at gc.com on Feb 24 and the FTF log was of Feb 23. After my friend explained this situation that guy logged the cache as "the second FTF" (calling my FTF to be "actually a beta testing") and wrote it was [a proud number] FTF in his personal FTF statistics.

 

I don't care about my FTFs at all. But I know that some people do. I was about just to log the cache as found, write TFTC and forget about this story. However I would ask for opinions at this forum. Is it acceptable from your point of view to log a cache as FTF before the cache is published at gc.com? (In a situation like that I described above?) Are there any traditions regarding FTFs within the game or maybe in your area?

 

After reading the first few incorrect responses to your post, I just skipped to reply, however this has probably been said before. FtF is a binary state, either you were or you were not. Publish date, weather, park rules, etc. have no effect on that state. You either are or you are not.

 

Had you stated you were with him or he guided you there by the hand, then it could be said you didn't "find it", however that does not appear to be the case here.Many CO's, myself included h, hand out the coords to friends and other cachers while waiting for it to be published. It is also common for events to hand out the coords for caches they have requested to not be published till after the event. Both acceptable practices.

 

To claim a find according to GS rules one must sign the log thus to be FTF one must sign the log first thus if someone beta tests a cache and doesn't sign the log (which I think is the right thing to do) FTF is still up for grabs.

 

Not sure what you are responding to. The OP signed the log and the rest of what you said is simply repeating the obvious, well, with the exception of there being some GS rule.

[+geodarts]

This situation of a pre-publication cache find happened near Philadelphia recently. There was major backlash, note posting, etc., and the reviewer froze the listing for a three-day "cool-down" period. The pre-publication finder deleted his found-posting. I emphatically believe that the only fair FTF is after publication, where everyone has an equal chance. Otherwise, FTF is meaningless, & it will mean not that you are quick & skillful, but only that you got advance inside information from a buddy.

 

It is not like the three initials have any intrinsic meaning. Which is why I never use them. But in my area it is common for beta testers and those who were with the CO to sign the log several lines down and wait until at least three finders to log it online. It saves a lot of angst.

[+simpjkee]

FTF is meaningless

BINGO!

[+-CJ-]

It saves a lot of angst.

 

See, this is what I really would like that the "FTF game" comes to my area as late as possible. As I see from various examples, it raises too many useless and negative ambitions.

[+J the Goat]

One more smiley, right. It's different however in situation when you have not so many caches around and very limited chances to seek for a new cache. And very few geocachers too. It's simple: if a newbie is invited to join a team to place a new geocache it's a great chance to learn how to do this (and there are not many other chances, as I said). However if he finds out that he would be suggested not to log this cache he will most probably hesitate or decline the invitation - just to have a chance to log the cache as found later.

 

You all own some geocaches as I can see from your profiles. Did any other geocacher ever joined you when you placed a new cache? I mean, not just slept in a car waiting for you but took active part, maybe assisted with cache description, or provided photos, anything? Were there newbies among your assistants? How did they log these caches afterwards?

 

I've helped hide caches on more than one occasion, and have had people help me hide them as well. Doesn't bother me at all if they claim a find when they help me hide, but I won't claim a find if I was there for the hide. I'm a purist who says I didn't find anything, and neither did you if you were there

 

That being said, there's nothing that says you can't do it. There are just those of us who think it's tacky, and won't do it ourselves. Either way you go, if you're enjoying yourself and not ruining things for anyone else, knock yourself out.

[+Off Grid]

I would sign the log and just say beta testing so folks know you are not claiming any FTFs. Suppose signing it is up to you and the CO.

]

i agree !

[+Off Grid]

FTF is meaningless

BINGO!

double bingo

[+Off Grid]

Yesterday one of our local geocachers asked me to visit his new cache (placed Feb 22), try to find it and tell him my thoughts/suggestions before he published it at gc.com. He provided me with the coordinates and the hint. I was happy to help, drove there (Feb 23), successfully found the cache and signed the logbook. The satisfied CO then completed translation of his cache into English and published it at gc.com early this morning (Feb 24).

 

I haven't logged the cache yet because when I switched my computer on and opened my mailbox I read a message from my friend (that CO) who seemed to be a bit confused. It happened that one guy, also a geocacher, read the new listing soon after it appeared at the website and rushed to the new cache. He seemed to be disappointed to see my FTF in the logsheet. He sent a message to the CO asking how it could happen that the cache appeared at gc.com on Feb 24 and the FTF log was of Feb 23. After my friend explained this situation that guy logged the cache as "the second FTF" (calling my FTF to be "actually a beta testing") and wrote it was [a proud number] FTF in his personal FTF statistics.

 

I don't care about my FTFs at all. But I know that some people do. I was about just to log the cache as found, write TFTC and forget about this story. However I would ask for opinions at this forum. Is it acceptable from your point of view to log a cache as FTF before the cache is published at gc.com? (In a situation like that I described above?) Are there any traditions regarding FTFs within the game or maybe in your area?

 

to me i dont see what the big issue is you helped a friend confim his geocache was okay logged it just like you would have done if he didnt ask you to check. but as you learned some people are all about this first to find and it has caused so many issues with certain caches

[+wmpastor]

FTF is meaningless

BINGO!

Just because you and i strongly disagree, doesn't give you the right to misquote me by taking three words out of context.

 

FTF means a lot to some. Nothing wrong with that - it's one aspect of the game.

 

I say keep FTF meaningful by not having pre-publication finds. That reeks of unfairness.

 

 

Edit: The beta-testing is commendable - it helps avoid glitches in coords, cache description, etc. But the pre-publication finder had no competition for FTF. Think of the consequences of Josh's view - if FTF matters to someone, they have much less incentive to seek out your cache when published, knowing the log already was signed by the CO's buddy.

Edited February 25, 2013 by wmpastor

[+wmpastor]

I would sign the log and just say beta testing so folks know you are not claiming any FTFs. Suppose signing it is up to you and the CO.

]

i agree !

Double agree!

[+-CJ-]

When you guys go geocaching with other cachers does it mean much who (of your company) signs the logbook first once the cache is found?

[+redsox_mark]

We all know that FTF is not officially part of the game. And many think it is meaningless, and/or actively dislike it.

But we also know that many enjoy this unofficial part of the game.

 

I've never asked someone to beta test (nor given out coordinates in advance for any other reason). But if I did - I like Palmetto's suggestion that the beta tester doesn't sign the log. Same would apply if an owner asked me to beta test one of theirs.

Edited February 25, 2013 by redsox_mark

[+wmpastor]

This situation of a pre-publication cache find happened near Philadelphia recently. There was major backlash, note posting, etc., and the reviewer froze the listing for a three-day "cool-down" period. The pre-publication finder deleted his found-posting. I emphatically believe that the only fair FTF is after publication, where everyone has an equal chance. Otherwise, FTF is meaningless, & it will mean not that you are quick & skillful, but only that you got advance inside information from a buddy.

 

It is not like the three initials have any intrinsic meaning. Which is why I never use them. But in my area it is common for beta testers and those who were with the CO to sign the log several lines down and wait until at least three finders to log it online. It saves a lot of angst.

 

That's a good solution all around.

 

I'm not a "FTF nut" like about 8-10 locals are. I have 1 FTF. Fun experience. Now it's "Been there, done that." By pure chance, I saw the listing 7 minutes after publication. I went right over. If I got there and saw a signature 2 days before publication claiming FTF, I would've been steamed!

[+TerraViators]

Two quarters and beta testing a geocache will buy you a soda pop from the machine on Main St....or some such.

[+-CJ-]

Perhaps it's time to say thank you all for your answers, suggestions and opinions.

[+redsox_mark]

When you guys go geocaching with other cachers does it mean much who (of your company) signs the logbook first once the cache is found?

 

No, not at all.

[+simpjkee]

FTF is meaningless

BINGO!

Just because you and i strongly disagree, doesn't give you the right to misquote me by taking three words out of context.

 

FTF means a lot to some. Nothing wrong with that - it's one aspect of the game.

 

I say keep FTF meaningful by not having pre-publication finds. That reeks of unfairness.

 

 

Edit: The beta-testing is commendable - it helps avoid glitches in coords, cache description, etc. But the pre-publication finder had no competition for FTF. Think of the consequences of Josh's view - if FTF matters to someone, they have much less incentive to seek out your cache when published, knowing the log already was signed by the CO's buddy.

but it is meaningless.

 

ok, what if I place a cache and someone stumbles upon it and signs the log before the reviewer gets around to publishing it. did the person not get FTF? What if my great grandpa put out a geocache 100 years ago and hundreds of people have found it. I decide to submit it on gc.com and it gets published. Is the next person to find it the FTF?

 

I think you are confusing 2 different things. Being the first to find a geocache and being first to find a geocache after it is published on gc.com. You can claim you were first to find the cache after it was published on gc.com, but if someone found it before you (as in the op's case), you are not first to find. The first to find is the person who found it first regardless of when it was published on gc.com. To suggest that the prepublication finder was cheating or something is absolutely ludicrous.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

FTF is meaningless

BINGO!

Just because you and i strongly disagree, doesn't give you the right to misquote me by taking three words out of context.

 

FTF means a lot to some. Nothing wrong with that - it's one aspect of the game.

 

I say keep FTF meaningful by not having pre-publication finds. That reeks of unfairness.

 

The problem is that this would never become enforceable. First of all, there is no authoritative body which keeps track of FTFs. and arbitrates disputes between who is FTF and who is second. A FTF is self-claimed and self-counted. If two people want to claim and count a cache as FTF there is nothing to prevent that from happening and, in fact, the concept of co-FTF is fairly common. Although GS recognizes the FTF game, and even has a tool (instant notifications) which can help cachers obtain a FTF and sells geocoins with FTF on them, there are no rules or guidelines related to the FTF game. There are only local customs, and how geocachers in one area play the game might differ with how it's played in other areas. In some areas, acknowledging (or giving credit) for the FTF is common but that isn't enforceable either. If GS ever created a guideline which required me, as a cache owner, to verify and acknowledge the FTF, I would never place another cache and I suspect that I'm not alone.

[+Mudfrog]

FTF is meaningless

BINGO!

Just because you and i strongly disagree, doesn't give you the right to misquote me by taking three words out of context.

 

FTF means a lot to some. Nothing wrong with that - it's one aspect of the game.

 

I say keep FTF meaningful by not having pre-publication finds. That reeks of unfairness.

 

The problem is that this would never become enforceable. First of all, there is no authoritative body which keeps track of FTFs. and arbitrates disputes between who is FTF and who is second. A FTF is self-claimed and self-counted. If two people want to claim and count a cache as FTF there is nothing to prevent that from happening and, in fact, the concept of co-FTF is fairly common. Although GS recognizes the FTF game, and even has a tool (instant notifications) which can help cachers obtain a FTF and sells geocoins with FTF on them, there are no rules or guidelines related to the FTF game. There are only local customs, and how geocachers in one area play the game might differ with how it's played in other areas. In some areas, acknowledging (or giving credit) for the FTF is common but that isn't enforceable either. If GS ever created a guideline which required me, as a cache owner, to verify and acknowledge the FTF, I would never place another cache and I suspect that I'm not alone.

 

Ftf is a side game of geocaching. Like any game, there has to be a rule/guideline or two that need to be followed in order to make it work. As far as i know, there are no written rules or guidelines, but in my mind, there really doesn't have to be. Playing it seems pretty simple since the main objective is to be first to find on a cache. But,,,,, there are some things that go along with the game that require a bit of common sense.

 

One of those is to maintain somewhat of an even playing field. In this case, the cache should be published on gc.com (or if not published, at least posted for all to see). I mean, there's no game, no competition, and in my mind, no fun playing if one person gets the heads up on a cache that no one else knows about.

 

People that don't like it or play it don't seem to get this. I would think that if they thought of a game that they did enjoy, then they would see similarities. Poker for instance, where the person across from you gets cards dealt from the bottom of a stacked deck. Or a race where one person gets a head start. This goes for any game out there. Of course there are times when it just doesn't matter such as when playing with your kids. But for the most part, you would probably like everything to be even at the start of a game you wanted to play.

 

In the OP's case, he was first to find the cache. That's a fact that cannont be changed. He was certainly not trying to play unfairly but it's something that has taken the fun out of the game for others who wanted to play. In my opinion, this is one of those situations where the ftf game shouldn't be played. There was no competition to speak of so there really was no game.

 

To be honest, i don't understand beta testing in the first place.

[+dprovan]

I think you are confusing 2 different things. Being the first to find a geocache and being first to find a geocache after it is published on gc.com.

No, that's not really what the FTF game is. It's not a physical thing, it's an honor. People proofing a cache for the CO would forgo the honor because they had a leg up on the field. Normally they indicate that by signing at the end of the log and not logging the find on-line after the first post publication FTF is logged.

 

The person stumbling on a cache pre-publication has no unfair advantage, so I have no problem with them claiming the honor.

 

I would not consider someone finding an old cache only recently published on gc.com to be FTF, but I wouldn't argue with them if they wanted to claim they were.

 

Happily, FTF isn't official, so there's no reason to worry about whether it's defined concretely.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

FTF is meaningless

BINGO!

Just because you and i strongly disagree, doesn't give you the right to misquote me by taking three words out of context.

 

FTF means a lot to some. Nothing wrong with that - it's one aspect of the game.

 

I say keep FTF meaningful by not having pre-publication finds. That reeks of unfairness.

 

The problem is that this would never become enforceable. First of all, there is no authoritative body which keeps track of FTFs. and arbitrates disputes between who is FTF and who is second. A FTF is self-claimed and self-counted. If two people want to claim and count a cache as FTF there is nothing to prevent that from happening and, in fact, the concept of co-FTF is fairly common. Although GS recognizes the FTF game, and even has a tool (instant notifications) which can help cachers obtain a FTF and sells geocoins with FTF on them, there are no rules or guidelines related to the FTF game. There are only local customs, and how geocachers in one area play the game might differ with how it's played in other areas. In some areas, acknowledging (or giving credit) for the FTF is common but that isn't enforceable either. If GS ever created a guideline which required me, as a cache owner, to verify and acknowledge the FTF, I would never place another cache and I suspect that I'm not alone.

 

Ftf is a side game of geocaching. Like any game, there has to be a rule/guideline or two that need to be followed in order to make it work. As far as i know, there are no written rules or guidelines, but in my mind, there really doesn't have to be. Playing it seems pretty simple since the main objective is to be first to find on a cache. But,,,,, there are some things that go along with the game that require a bit of common sense.

 

I'm not sure what to make of this. First you state that there has to guideslines/rules related to the FTF game, then acknowledge that the no written guidelines/rules exist, but that they're unnecessary if one uses common sense.

 

I think it's pretty evident from all the disputes we've seen about who was FTF that a reliance on common sense is not the answer. I think I can safely state that Groundspeak is never going to establish guidelines related to how the FTF game should be played. As soon as they did that they'd be put into a position of arbitrating disputes and I just don't see that happening. If they asked reviewers to resolve disputes, we'd probably lose reviewers faster than if virtual caches were reinstated using the wow factor criteria.

 

 

One of those is to maintain somewhat of an even playing field. In this case, the cache should be published on gc.com (or if not published, at least posted for all to see). I mean, there's no game, no competition, and in my mind, no fun playing if one person gets the heads up on a cache that no one else knows about.

 

People that don't like it or play it don't seem to get this. I would think that if they thought of a game that they did enjoy, then they would see similarities. Poker for instance, where the person across from you gets cards dealt from the bottom of a stacked deck. *Or a race where one person gets a head start.*

 

...

 

It's interesting that you would use that analogy because that's exactly what it is. Whenever a new cache is published every one that receives an instant notification is going to be at a different distance from the cache (as in, a different distance from the finish line) and the person closest will have the biggest head start. Although the FTF games is often referred to as a race, it's never going to be on an even playing field.

[+Mudfrog]

FTF is meaningless

BINGO!

Just because you and i strongly disagree, doesn't give you the right to misquote me by taking three words out of context.

 

FTF means a lot to some. Nothing wrong with that - it's one aspect of the game.

 

I say keep FTF meaningful by not having pre-publication finds. That reeks of unfairness.

 

The problem is that this would never become enforceable. First of all, there is no authoritative body which keeps track of FTFs. and arbitrates disputes between who is FTF and who is second. A FTF is self-claimed and self-counted. If two people want to claim and count a cache as FTF there is nothing to prevent that from happening and, in fact, the concept of co-FTF is fairly common. Although GS recognizes the FTF game, and even has a tool (instant notifications) which can help cachers obtain a FTF and sells geocoins with FTF on them, there are no rules or guidelines related to the FTF game. There are only local customs, and how geocachers in one area play the game might differ with how it's played in other areas. In some areas, acknowledging (or giving credit) for the FTF is common but that isn't enforceable either. If GS ever created a guideline which required me, as a cache owner, to verify and acknowledge the FTF, I would never place another cache and I suspect that I'm not alone.

 

Ftf is a side game of geocaching. Like any game, there has to be a rule/guideline or two that need to be followed in order to make it work. As far as i know, there are no written rules or guidelines, but in my mind, there really doesn't have to be. Playing it seems pretty simple since the main objective is to be first to find on a cache. But,,,,, there are some things that go along with the game that require a bit of common sense.

 

I'm not sure what to make of this. First you state that there has to guideslines/rules related to the FTF game, then acknowledge that the no written guidelines/rules exist, but that they're unnecessary if one uses common sense.

 

I think it's pretty evident from all the disputes we've seen about who was FTF that a reliance on common sense is not the answer. I think I can safely state that Groundspeak is never going to establish guidelines related to how the FTF game should be played. As soon as they did that they'd be put into a position of arbitrating disputes and I just don't see that happening. If they asked reviewers to resolve disputes, we'd probably lose reviewers faster than if virtual caches were reinstated using the wow factor criteria.

 

 

One of those is to maintain somewhat of an even playing field. In this case, the cache should be published on gc.com (or if not published, at least posted for all to see). I mean, there's no game, no competition, and in my mind, no fun playing if one person gets the heads up on a cache that no one else knows about.

 

People that don't like it or play it don't seem to get this. I would think that if they thought of a game that they did enjoy, then they would see similarities. Poker for instance, where the person across from you gets cards dealt from the bottom of a stacked deck. *Or a race where one person gets a head start.*

 

...

 

It's interesting that you would use that analogy because that's exactly what it is. Whenever a new cache is published every one that receives an instant notification is going to be at a different distance from the cache (as in, a different distance from the finish line) and the person closest will have the biggest head start. Although the FTF games is often referred to as a race, it's never going to be on an even playing field.

 

I sometimes have trouble getting my meaning across and this appears to be one of those times. I'll try again.

 

The ftf competition is a game and therefore needs to have some rules. But, i wouldn't think these rules would need to be in writing because of them being so simple. In my thinking, common sense is all a person should need to see them.

 

Basically, they are to be first to find the cache after the cache is published or is at least posted somewhere for all to see.

 

Sure, a person can go out and be ftf on a cache that no one else even knows about. Only thing is, there's not much of a game now since the person doing it would be the only one playing. Yes, this is just a game but a person should have respect for others playing the game.

 

On your second comment,

I do agree with you, to a point. There will never be a perfectly even playing field since there are so many variables out there which are beyond our control. The one that we can control is to not go for a ftf on a cache that we know no one else even realizes is out.

 

Btw, your example isn't totally correct since caches aren't usually all placed in one area. Sometimes they may be near a person, sometimes not,,, which kinda evens things out.

[+niraD]

When you guys go geocaching with other cachers does it mean much who (of your company) signs the logbook first once the cache is found?

No, not at all. Often the first person to sign the log was the last person to spot the cache (huckle buckle beanstalk), and sometimes the first person to spot the cache never actually touches it because someone else signs on his/her behalf.