FTF or beta testing or...

[+niraD]

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.

My common sense tells me that FTF means First To Find. Publication on geocaching.com (or any other listing site) is not required. On the other hand, FTFAP means First To Find After Publication, which I think sounds closer to the game you and others seem to be playing. Except you keep calling it FTF, rather than FTFAP.

[+-CJ-]

this is just a game but a person should have respect for others playing the game

 

From what experience a geocacher should know that FTF competition means so much in geocaching? There are no guidelines and (as it was said earlier) our common sense may be not exactly what other people think and believe in. Until recently I used to think about a FTF mark just as one of popular logs like TFTC or TNLN. I didn't think there were so many emotions and competition behind this.

 

Does anyone know any unofficial guidelines, recommendations, explanations on the FTF competition? I believe I could translate them into my language or use them to write some short article for our local community.

[+Mudfrog]

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.

My common sense tells me that FTF means First To Find. Publication on geocaching.com (or any other listing site) is not required. On the other hand, FTFAP means First To Find After Publication, which I think sounds closer to the game you and others seem to be playing. Except you keep calling it FTF, rather than FTFAP.

 

I agree with you 100% in that first to find happens, published or not. It's a statement of fact that can't be argued.

 

What i'm getting at is that this is a side game that many geocachers enjoy. Being first on a cache that only the finder knows about doesn't affect those who aren't playing the game. It does mess up the game for those who enjoy it since there is NO game at all when this happens.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Mudfrog

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

this is just a game but a person should have respect for others playing the game

 

From what experience a geocacher should know that FTF competition means so much in geocaching? There are no guidelines and (as it was said earlier) our common sense may be not exactly what other people think and believe in. Until recently I used to think about a FTF mark just as one of popular logs like TFTC or TNLN. I didn't think there were so many emotions and competition behind this.

 

Does anyone know any unofficial guidelines, recommendations, explanations on the FTF competition? I believe I could translate them into my language or use them to write some short article for our local community.

 

I don't think there is enough for an article. A certain part of the community enjoys signing a blank log. Sometimes they take it pretty seriously like the guy who found the cache after you beta tested. It's the blank log that is the prize. When a beta tester signs the log before it is published, the cache is tainted from a FTF seeker's standpoint. Nothing more than that.

[+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.

 

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.

 

I'm pretty sure that I understood what you're trying to say but my point was basically that "rules" are useless they A.) come from an authoritative source, and B.) are enforceable.

 

Since Groundspeak will never (IMHO) take on the role as the authoritative body for creating rules or guidelines for how the FTF games should be played, any "rules" that one might follow are generally based upon generally accepted practices by the local community. Some communities might adopt the practice of not "claiming" a FTF if you were involved in the hide or some how were able to find the cache prior to publication. In some areas, the practice of a CO acknowledging the FTF on the cache page is common. In other other areas neither of those "rules" nor other commonly practiced aspects of the game might be followed, and even if there was some set of basic guidelines that were more universally practiced, they're not enforceable.

 

Key to that is that there isn't a common tracking mechanism for identifying who was FTF on any particular cache. Those that are interested that aspect of the game might use GSAK or some other waypoint manager that will "count" FTFs, others will keep a bookmark, while others might just write some text in a file that they keep on their computer. If someone states that they've had 115 FTFs that's because they've used some sort of personally chosen mechanism for counting 115 cache with *they* feel they could claim to be FTF. If someone else claims that they have 48 FTFs, they're keeping track of which caches are on their list using whatever mechanism they choose. If both caches "claim" FTF on the same cache neither of the lists is decremented by one. A lot of the drama about FTF games seems to happen, not because they're unable to claim FTF, but because someone else is trying to claim it as well. Even though someone can add cache to the their list of FTFs and it's never going to get deleted unless they do it themselves, for someone reason people seem to get really upset if someone else add that same cache to a different list.

 

...and there isn't anyone (though apparently some people seem to come to the forums for validation) that resolve those disputes.

 

 

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.

 

In regards to going for a FTF on a cache that nobody (other than the CO and the review) knows exists, we can only control we we do, but we can't control what anyone else does. It's not like someone has to move to the back to all the cars in a race if they jump the starting gun.

 

Whenever a cache is published there is always going to be someone that is closer to where it's located at the time it's published then everyone else. Someone is always going to be closer to the finish line than everyone else.

 

Then there is the sequential nature of being informed when the race has started. I've personally developed a bulk email notification service so I understand the process pretty well. Although it's theoretically possible to send out some number of notifications in parallel it's just not feasible at the scale GS deals with for new cache notifications. Even if they *could* send out notifications to everyone simultaneously, that's not where the "head start" issue has a significant impact. Every notification has to be received by various email servers (and the gmail servers might take less time than a message sent to a hotmail account). Some of those servers might be configured to process incoming messages every 15 minutes. Once the message is on the destination server it still has to be "downloaded" to the email client which then might have some sort of visual or audio alert, and how often that happens might depend on how the client is configured. For example, the email app on my iPhone can be set up to "poll" the server every 15 minutes, 30 minutes, hourly, or manually (i.e. when the app is launched).

 

From the time that a reviewer pushed the publish button to when a person receive an visual or audible alert that a new message can be seen can be dependent upon numerous factors that could easily make the different between FTF and 2TF.

 

Finally, there is just the factor of "real life" which might dictate exactly when someone can start the race. A couple of years ago I got an email message for a cache that was located about 500' from my office (it was about 50' from where my car was parked). At the time, I was responding to a work related email message and finished up a paragraph, sent the message, and was heading out of my office no more than 12 minutes after I received the notification. I got to GZ a few minutes later, found the cache, and discovered that someone had already found it. She worked a little bit closer to me but she got the notification as she was walking from her car to her office and instead of going in she went for the cache, found it, and was heading back to her office before I got to GZ.

[+dprovan]

If someone states that they've had 115 FTFs that's because they've used some sort of personally chosen mechanism for counting 115 cache with *they* feel they could claim to be FTF. If someone else claims that they have 48 FTFs, they're keeping track of which caches are on their list using whatever mechanism they choose. If both caches "claim" FTF on the same cache neither of the lists is decremented by one. A lot of the drama about FTF games seems to happen, not because they're unable to claim FTF, but because someone else is trying to claim it as well.

The simple way to eliminate this problem is to adopt the rule "there can be more than one FTF". Now both people can remain happy with their own lists based on their own justifications, but they have no reason to object to anyone else's list because the cache being in someone else's list doesn't conflict with it also being in their list.

 

But do people really fight over these things? I can't imagine going over someones FTF list to see if there was any overlap with mine.

[+briansnat]

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.

 

 

 

 

This is only a listing service. It's the cache owner's cache and it really isn't anybody's business how and when he wants to advertize the coords. He can give them to friends, list the cache on another site, post the cords in a blog or put them in the newspaper classifieds if he wants; all before he lists the cache here. There is nothing unfair about it. Some people chose to create a side game and some cache owners aren't interested in that side game or catering to the participants.

Edited February 28, 2013 by briansnat

[+wmpastor]

*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.

Even if we accept your idea that simultaneous notification of all players is not an "even playing field," does that mean we should make the playing field more uneven by have the CO's buddies get advance notification a day or two ahead of time??

 

By the way, you say a that unless all of the "racers" are at the same starting line, the playing field isn't level. Well then I guess every sailboat race in the world is unfair, because the sailboat racers move around in their boats until the starting gun. (The goal is to time your arrival at the starting line.) The way the boats move around resembles the way the cars of FTF-freaks drive around on a Saturday morning!

[Natica]

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?

 

Perhaps, I don’t belong to “guys” but I’ve got my own opinion and believe that it can be freely expressed here. I don’t think that it’s a great problem who signs the logbook first in case you go caching with your fellow cacher or a group of cachers. But it’s true only if you feel that you’re real fellows, friends. Then it doesn’t matter much. For example, when last autumn we – me and Sergei B. (geocachers from a local group well known to CJ) were trying to find one of his caches (Seven Sisters #4: Skyscraper at Kotelnicheskaya) it was me who actually found it. But I gave the opportunity to my younger fellow cacher to sign the logsheet and he put his nick first and then added my nick be means of the sign &. I think, such kind of log shows that you found the cache not as individual cachers but in a friendly company.

Besides as to FTF, I completely agree with cacher wpastor and also believe that the only fair FTF is after publication, when everyone has an equal chance.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Natica

[+Ambrosia]

 

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.

 

 

FTF is a side game. Why do I have to "respect" people who are playing that game, by altering the way that I geocache? If I find a cache before publication, that is a reality. If I pretend that reality doesn't exist, just to "respect" other cachers, that is just pretending so I don't hurt other's feelings. Why not respect me and my way of playing (which, by the way, is not a side game and is perfectly acceptable), by not making me change reality for your side game?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

*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.

Even if we accept your idea that simultaneous notification of all players is not an "even playing field," does that mean we should make the playing field more uneven by have the CO's buddies get advance notification a day or two ahead of time??

 

No. I haven't suggested that a CO giving out coordinates to a buddy is something to be condoned, but I think I am being realistic by recognizing that there isn't anything that can be done to prevent it.

 

 

By the way, you say a that unless all of the "racers" are at the same starting line, the playing field isn't level. Well then I guess every sailboat race in the world is unfair, because the sailboat racers move around in their boats until the starting gun. (The goal is to time your arrival at the starting line.) The way the boats move around resembles the way the cars of FTF-freaks drive around on a Saturday morning!

 

An interesting analogy. I wouldn't consider that pre-race strategy "unfair". Although that maneuvering happens before the the starting horn is blown, it's part of the race. A similar analogy might be how a defensive football (american football) will try to "time the snap" so that they reach the scrimmage line with a full head of steam in an attempt to sack the quarterback.

 

Where both of these analogies fail, however, is that in geocaching, there is no possible way to know where the next starting (or finish) line is going to be. Unless someone is "in the huddle" and has inside information about when//where someone might have placed a cache, it's mostly pure luck if you happen to be close to GZ for a cache at the time it's published. Timing your arrival at the starting line in a sailboat race doesn't help much if you don't which direction you'll be going before the race starts.

[tomowens]

I think someone should hide a cache named FTF or something like that. The cache should be filled with many single-signature log sheets so everyone who signs it can have a pristine log to sign. The cache page could state that everyone who signs is First.

 

It may be first that day, first that hour, first that month, etc. but everyone is first.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think someone should hide a cache named FTF or something like that. The cache should be filled with many single-signature log sheets so everyone who signs it can have a pristine log to sign. The cache page could state that everyone who signs is First.

 

It may be first that day, first that hour, first that month, etc. but everyone is first.

 

I've seen a liars cache where everyone was asked (but not requred) to write their log as if they were FTF.

[+K13]

<snip>

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.

 

The ftf competition by your rules above, can only recognize the first to find after publication. What about the cacher who stumbles across it while planning a hide of their own? What about those sets or coordinates given at events, with a few days before publishing? There are always going to be arbitrary or extenuating circumstances that will affect your rules.

 

If it is simply first to sign the log = FTF, then there is no need for someone to try to apply their 'common sense' to the issue.