Publisher hunting FTF

[+Helbren]

Hi everyone,

I was just wondering if there are any guidelines/rules to a publisher hunting FTFs? It's causing a bit of upset at the moment in our little geocaching group. Our new publisher is a FTF hunter but said when he took on the role that he would wait 24 hours after a cache being published before hunting for it himself. I'm not an FTF hunter myself but would really like some peace back in my little geocaching network. Please help!

[Pup Patrol]

Hi everyone,

I was just wondering if there are any guidelines/rules to a publisher hunting FTFs? It's causing a bit of upset at the moment in our little geocaching group. Our new publisher is a FTF hunter but said when he took on the role that he would wait 24 hours after a cache being published before hunting for it himself. I'm not an FTF hunter myself but would really like some peace back in my little geocaching network. Please help!

 

When you say "publisher", do you mean "reviewer"?

 

I have no idea if reviewers are under any guidelines/rules/protocol when it comes to searching for caches they have published.

 

Interesting topic, hadn't thought about it much.

 

 

B.

[+The Jester]

Are they waiting the 24 hours they said? Or are they getting FTF on caches they published that same day? The only real advantage they would have is on puzzles and multi's (knowing where the final is).

[+Alkhalikoi]

I'm sorry, the cache *reviewer* wants to wait 24 hours and then claim an FTF on his own hide? Whatever one thinks of FTFs, this seems a violation of the privileged status held by a volunteer reviewer.

[+Helbren]

No they are finding several within an hour.

[+Helbren]

I'm sorry, the cache *reviewer* wants to wait 24 hours and then claim an FTF on his own hide? Whatever one thinks of FTFs, this seems a violation of the privileged status held by a volunteer reviewer.

This is how our group feels to, but I don't want to say anything if there are no official rules on the subject.

[Pup Patrol]

I'm sorry, the cache *reviewer* wants to wait 24 hours and then claim an FTF on his own hide? Whatever one thinks of FTFs, this seems a violation of the privileged status held by a volunteer reviewer.

 

Uh, that's completely different than what I thought you meant.

 

Claim FTF on a cache that one has hidden???? That is completely whacko.

 

Reviewer or not, that's just crazy.

 

I can't understand the notion of the cache owner logging "found it" on their own caches in the first place, never mind FTF.

 

And, yes, I agree with you that is not kosher for a reviewer to do.

 

 

B.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Pup Patrol

[+Helbren]

Oops sorry I did mean reviewer

[+Helbren]

Sorry let me clarify. It's not his cache, but he's the reviewer that says it ok to go and then the notifications come out

[Pup Patrol]

Sorry let me clarify. It's not his cache, but he's the reviewer that says it ok to go and then the notifications come out

 

Oh, sorry, my misunderstanding.

 

I'm not sure how it works. Maybe the reviewers have their own code of conduct?

 

If the caches are multis and puzzles, then the reviewers have a distinct advantage over everyone else, since they know the coordinates of stages and final locations and how to solve puzzles.

 

I dunno. It doesn't seem right to restrict the reviewer from the FTF side-game, but it does seem unfair for him/her to give everyone else only 24 hours.

 

If the FTF game is hotly contested in your area, the reviewer should be aware of the consternation he/she is causing.

 

Has he/she been a reviewer for very long?

 

 

B.

[+Helbren]

I don't want to keep him out of the FTF race altogether which is why I would like to know if there are any rules. FTFs are big in my area so it is causing a bit of upset, but if there is no rule saying he can't do well our little community will have to let it go. He's been doing the role for a couple of months and he's been asked several times about his involvement in FTFs with his response being ill give 24 hours. But this has not been the case.

[+pppingme]

Since gc basically refuses to even acknowledge ftf, doubt you'll get them to take any kind of stand on an issue related to it.

[Keystone]

If you think about it, in a world with instant notifications sent instantly to cellphones, the reviewer who publishes a cache has very little advantage over anyone else, except perhaps to pack their kit and have car keys at the ready. Now, if the reviewer drove to the City Park and published the cache from their smartphone while parked 200 feet away, that would be different.

 

Reviewers refrain from being first to find on mystery/puzzle caches or multicaches that they publish, until enough time has gone by to give others a chance. By then, the reviewer has likely forgotten the details they studied while reviewing the listing.

[+Chwiliwr]

To answer the OP. There is nothing to stop a reviewer going to find a traditional cache immediately after it gets published. What was said was that I would generally wait 24 hours to do so not that I WILL do so in EVERY case. Of the 650+ caches published since I became a reviewer I have found 27 of them before any other cacher. 5 the same day with the rest ranging from overnight to 9 days with more than half already looked for by other cachers who didn't find them. Only one was under an hour and there were at least 5 other cachers that could have got to the cache before me considering the distance involved. I think that I have genrally kept to what I said that I would do.

 

The puzzle and the multi that I was first on in this period were specifically created to allow me to try for first and had no information on the listing that could help me with them. (Thanks to the CO's that thought of this for me.)

 

I am not directing this to the OP personally but to the faceless private FB posters that caused this question of my integrity to be raised.

 

Saying one thing to my face and then making inuendoes and accusations about my integrity in a private forum should not happen. If you have a problem with my caching the way I do then talk to me about it and stop hiding behind private FB posts. I thought that the caching community in this state were a wonderful group. Now I start to wonder if I was wrong.

 

Corrected some spelling

Edited September 2, 2013 by Chwiliwr

[+amryall]

My last entry on the facebook thread.. just so I'm not being seen as bitching behind anyone's back. (coz I don't think I am anyway...)

 

"if there is no difference in information given and he goes out after notification, personally I have no problem. Sometimes when I publish I add further info of the hide to clarify the hiding guidelines. That may be perceived as an advantage. We all need to remember this is a game and it's purpose is to have fun. If it becomes more than that to some people and it upsets others, we may need to step back and re-evaluate why we do this. Maybe the "vibe" of him finding so many so quickly is a bit iffy? but I'm thankful for his contribution to the game for all of us. Personally no real skin off my nose but that's just my opinion."

 

Chwiliwr, in response to your reply above, I was led to think it was happening way more than it was. I think it's more of a small storm in a tea cup but each to their own I guess. I think people are just curious of any guidelines and hopefully not to damning of your way that you play this cool game.

If or when I see you out there I'm still going to smile and chat and say thanks for doing all the behind the scene stuff! (but also thankful you are not too close to where I live so I get a bit of a start, on a newly published hide...hehe)

 

Hope that isn't too much of a ramble, not my intention to try to "out anyone".

[+Helbren]

Thanks for clearing all of that up Chwiliwr (even looking at your username, I can't be sure I got the spelling right)

I actually got confirmation from Groundspeak as well.

I honestly wasn't having a go at you, I just wanted to know the rules so this subject can be closed, that's why I didn't mention any names/usernames. And I will be posting the info i got from Groundspeak on the Facebook group so hopefully this will be clear to everyone.! It is a touchy subject I must admit, but if the rules aren't being broken then I have no issue.

[+Helbren]

Amryall, I agree with you. I think most people (including me) thought there was an unfair advantage but there really isn't. And I apologise to you Chwiliwr. (Your username is now in my auto correct so I hope I got the spelling right haha)

Edited September 2, 2013 by Helbren

[+Just a Trifle]

I think the fair thing would be for a Reviewer not to be responsible for publishing caches in the same state in which they reside, given they can have all the information loaded into their GPS and time the publish log to coincide with when it suits them to go for the FTF. I understand the caches of concern were published at 10.20pm at night so knowledge of when publishing will occur will give a Reviewer an advantage over everyone else with a smartphone.

[+Walts Hunting]

I have to agree with Keystone. Since the FTF hounds get the notification on their phone and are usually primed and ready to go 24/7 if the reviewer waits 5-10 minutes he is already at a disadvantage.

[+BelKen]

I think the fair thing would be for a Reviewer not to be responsible for publishing caches in the same state in which they reside, given they can have all the information loaded into their GPS and time the publish log to coincide with when it suits them to go for the FTF. I understand the caches of concern were published at 10.20pm at night so knowledge of when publishing will occur will give a Reviewer an advantage over everyone else with a smartphone.

 

The are a couple of problems that I have with your statement. One is you mention what a reviewer might be able to do. I don't believe this reviewer does that at all. T

 

The reviewer in question loaded the caches in his GPS and drove to the 1st cache in the series. (As per log). He got a FTF on that cache. He then moved on to the second cache in that series where he met another couple of teams who had completed and were FTF on the 4th . 3rd and second caches in that series. So 2 teams had completed 3 caches since publication. He then went with this couple of teams to another cache called bubbles and helped locate that. Then went on to find the 5th and 6th caches in the original series and was FTF on both of those and as of earlier today the only finder of those two caches on Sunday. I have been unable to fathom who the injured party is in all of this is.

 

There is no question that he was a FTF hound having over 1700 FTF in his 5,000 or so cache finds. However in the last 6 months since he was a reviewer he has had 27 FTF. Anyone who knows the Perth scene would know he has not hogged any FTF in the Perth Area at all. Before he was a reviewer he would have accumulated most of these published caches as the FTF.

 

Lastly there is the repeating theme of a 24 hour grace period. Why? Why not 1 or 10 or some other number? Or is there ever a number that will satisfy some people.

 

Lastly people may wonder what our role in this fight is and I should point out that I am related to the reviewer in question. After returning to Perth we did have a discussion about my returning to the FTF game. My comment to him at the time was "could you imagine all the scuttlebutt that would cause" and it feels I would have been correct

Edited September 2, 2013 by BelKen

[4wheelin_fool]

I think you guys are being a bit unfair to the reviewer by alleging he is using unfair advantages without any proof of it.

[+wimseyguy]

I think the fair thing would be for a Reviewer not to be responsible for publishing caches in the same state in which they reside, given they can have all the information loaded into their GPS and time the publish log to coincide with when it suits them to go for the FTF. I understand the caches of concern were published at 10.20pm at night so knowledge of when publishing will occur will give a Reviewer an advantage over everyone else with a smartphone.

 

I think you have this completely backwards. It is to everyone's advantage to have a local or regional volunteer reviewer within your community. They are more likely to be involved in discussions with land managers on behalf of the local/regional organization. They are more likely to be aware of certain laws/policies that only exist in that area and to understand the locations that these apply to. They are more likely to be involved past or present in the local/regional caching groups and organizations.

 

As Keystone already posted, they will refrain from going after non-traditional caches where there is a possibility that inside information could be used to aid their search or skip doing the puzzle. And most of them cover territories that are hundreds of miles across.

 

So unless you really think that your reviewer is the sort who would publish from his smart phone while (s)he's sitting 100' away from the cache at 10:20 PM your presumptions are baseless. If you do think this is the case, you should bring it to Grounspeak's attention as this is not the sort of person who should be a volunteer reviewer.

[+TriciaG]

I think you guys are being a bit unfair to the reviewer by alleging he is using unfair advantages without any proof of it.

+1

 

The way I picture the activity:

- Reviewer publishes the cache(s)

- Notification gets sent out to all FTF hounds

- Reviewer downloads caches to his/her unit, turns off his/her computer, and heads out. At the same time, FTF hounds are also downloading the caches and heading out

- Thus all (reviewer and hounds) leave the house around the same time

- Who gets there first depends upon location and in which order the caches are being sought by each person

 

On traditional caches, the reviewer has no more information or advantage over the regular FTF hound, unless the CO submitted a photo of the cache in its hiding spot, which is rare.

Edited September 2, 2013 by TriciaG

[+Glenn]

If you think about it, in a world with instant notifications sent instantly to cellphones, the reviewer who publishes a cache has very little advantage over anyone else, except perhaps to pack their kit and have car keys at the ready. Now, if the reviewer drove to the City Park and published the cache from their smartphone while parked 200 feet away, that would be different.

 

Reviewers refrain from being first to find on mystery/puzzle caches or multicaches that they publish, until enough time has gone by to give others a chance. By then, the reviewer has likely forgotten the details they studied while reviewing the listing.

 

I'm playing the Devils Advocate here. This is purely a hypothetical situation. With the state of technology today couldn't a reviewer view a cache up for review on their smartphone, tablet or other portable device. Go and find the cache. Then click on publish on the portable device as they are signing the log.

[+dprovan]

I think you guys are being a bit unfair to the reviewer by alleging he is using unfair advantages without any proof of it.

My opinion is exactly the opposite: since no one else has any idea what advantage the reviewer might have, for example from the private discussions with the CO during the review period which might well include a concise description of how the cache is hidden, I'm actually kinda shocked that a reviewer wouldn't give up the FTF game from his own sense of fair play. And that's before I even consider whether this reviewer's addiction to FTFs might cause COs to be less open in what information they provide the reviewer to help in the review. I've always assumed that reviewers would, on their own accord, bend over backwards to avoid any situation where anyone would be worried about them abusing their position, no matter how honest and fair everyone thought they were.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I think you guys are being a bit unfair to the reviewer by alleging he is using unfair advantages without any proof of it.

What? You mean like all those folks discussing "facts" at the bar whilst sucking on a few Coopers?

 

That's what I thought this sounded like at first glance....

[4wheelin_fool]

I think you guys are being a bit unfair to the reviewer by alleging he is using unfair advantages without any proof of it.

My opinion is exactly the opposite: since no one else has any idea what advantage the reviewer might have, for example from the private discussions with the CO during the review period which might well include a concise description of how the cache is hidden, I'm actually kinda shocked that a reviewer wouldn't give up the FTF game from his own sense of fair play. And that's before I even consider whether this reviewer's addiction to FTFs might cause COs to be less open in what information they provide the reviewer to help in the review. I've always assumed that reviewers would, on their own accord, bend over backwards to avoid any situation where anyone would be worried about them abusing their position, no matter how honest and fair everyone thought they were.

 

What you guys are doing is immediately assuming he is "cheating" without any evidence at all. Over 90% of the time, any FTF advantage would to be arriving there first, and that would help him with exactly one cache or series. It is more like shooing away the competition to make it easier. Guilty until proven innocent?

Edited September 2, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+K13]

I think you guys are being a bit unfair to the reviewer by alleging he is using unfair advantages without any proof of it.

My opinion is exactly the opposite: since no one else has any idea what advantage the reviewer might have, for example from the private discussions with the CO during the review period which might well include a concise description of how the cache is hidden, I'm actually kinda shocked that a reviewer wouldn't give up the FTF game from his own sense of fair play. And that's before I even consider whether this reviewer's addiction to FTFs might cause COs to be less open in what information they provide the reviewer to help in the review. I've always assumed that reviewers would, on their own accord, bend over backwards to avoid any situation where anyone would be worried about them abusing their position, no matter how honest and fair everyone thought they were.

 

+1 this^

 

In the public eye, perception is reality. If the locals see the reviewer getting the FTF, then he 'must' be using his insider information to obtain them.

The reviewer may want to step back from the FTF race, to avoid the negative feelings from the local community. or at least give the 'head start' to the community he is reportedly agreed to do at ALL times, not just when it is his pleasure to do so.

[+Ambrosia]

I think you guys are being a bit unfair to the reviewer by alleging he is using unfair advantages without any proof of it.

My opinion is exactly the opposite: since no one else has any idea what advantage the reviewer might have, for example from the private discussions with the CO during the review period which might well include a concise description of how the cache is hidden, I'm actually kinda shocked that a reviewer wouldn't give up the FTF game from his own sense of fair play. And that's before I even consider whether this reviewer's addiction to FTFs might cause COs to be less open in what information they provide the reviewer to help in the review. I've always assumed that reviewers would, on their own accord, bend over backwards to avoid any situation where anyone would be worried about them abusing their position, no matter how honest and fair everyone thought they were.

Do you know how many cache reviews actually involve concise descriptions of how the cache is hidden? Very few.

 

As another poster pointed out, it sounds like this reviewer has been a ftf hound in the past, and has only found a few ftf since becoming a reviewer, so they must be trying to slow it down because of being a reviewer.

[+Ladybug Kids]

While it may appear that Reviewers have an advantage, they really don't unless they intend to cheat by publishing caches from close proximity, peeking at multi-, puzzle, and Wherigo cache final coordinates, and other nefarious activities.

 

However, the reality is that most Reviewers (working as volunteers for Groundspeak) check the review queue during their free time at home, office, or hotel when traveling (few Reviewers take a vacation from reviewing duties). More often than not, there is more than one cache in the queue to review, so the Reviewer works his/her way through the list, publishing what is publishable and posting notes to Cache Owners for caches with guideline issues. Then, the Reviewer checks on the Needs Archived and Modify Coordinates logs that have come in, replying to e-mail queries, and other Reviewer tasks. Finally, once all the daily reviewing duties are done, the Reviewer may load any new caches for which the instant notifications have been received (except for new multis and puzzles) into the GPS and go caching (Reviewers play the game, too) or go home to scratch the kids' ears and help the dogs with their homework.

 

This routine has led to a FTF every couple of months at most for the Alaskan Reviewer. The more rabid FTF hounds are typically well on their way to the new cache while the local Reviewer is still mopping up. However, there is nothing that keeps a Reviewer from chasing the FTF on traditional caches as soon as the instant notification hits the inbox. Rarely does a Cache Owner share details about exactly how a cache is hidden, so the Reviewer doesn't have any more information than the typical cacher to go on. In those rare cases the Cache Owner does divulge information that is not on the cache page, that information most likely gets lost in the swirl of other details that come with the Reviewer's role. The local Reviewer is maintaining line of sight for thousands of caches in the area, not just the newest caches.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Ladybug Kids

[+Dogmeat*]

I don't see what's unfair about it. They play the game too. The reviewers around my parts are all not from here, but I still wouldn't see a big deal about it. They have just as much information as you and I.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think the world would be a better place if the reviewer was FTF on every cache.

[+Glenn]

In the public eye, perception is reality.

 

Bingo! This review isn't the first to have been accused of using the position to gain an "unfair" advantage. I doubt this will be last reviewer accused especially with technology making everything more mobile and convenient.

[+dprovan]

What you guys are doing is immediately assuming he is "cheating" without any evidence at all.

Not at all. I'm not saying I think the reviewer is cheating. I'm saying that I'm surprised -- very surprised, actually -- that the reviewer isn't worried about me thinking he's cheating. I'd expect him to do everything in his power to make sure I'm not worried about it. Frankly, I don't even care if he's cheating, but as a über fair and impartial reviewer of the type we're all used to, I would assume he's worried about the worst case of someone that cares and is paranoid about it, not the friendly case of someone like me that would find any such cheating amusingly pathetic.

 

Do you know how many cache reviews actually involve concise descriptions of how the cache is hidden? Very few.

First, the correct question is, "Are there ever any cache reviews that involve concise descriptions?" Because if there are, that's the end of the story. The statistical likelihood of the reveiwer being in a position to cheat on any given cache is moot.

 

Second, if COs become worried that concise descriptions could be abused, then there will be even fewer concise descriptions, so even more caches that pass review even though there are some problems the reviewer could have helped resolve.

 

Third, it doesn't matter how many concise descriptions are available today if we imagine a reviewer that actually does want to cheat -- not actually a practical possibility, of course, but my whole point is the perception -- saying, "Hey, I think you need to give me more precise information about how this cache is hidden before I'll be able to approve it."

 

As another poster pointed out, it sounds like this reviewer has been a ftf hound in the past, and has only found a few ftf since becoming a reviewer, so they must be trying to slow it down because of being a reviewer.

As I've been suggesting, I would expect him to give it up entirely now that he's decided to become a reviewer. Getting an FTF after a couple days of nothing is fine, of course, but I would assume he would give up doing anything that could even be remotely interpreted as being engaged in the FTF race.

 

I don't see what's unfair about it. They play the game too. The reviewers around my parts are all not from here, but I still wouldn't see a big deal about it. They have just as much information as you and I.

No, they have more information than you and I, and, in addition, we have no idea how much additional information they have. They also have precious minutes of advantage over you and I having to wait for our mail to arriving, loading the cache, and having to pull up the map to check out the location and figure out the correct approach, something to reviewer did already during the normal review process.

 

The point, of course, isn't that this will give them an insurmountable advantage. The point is that it gives them an unfair advantage which they may or may not take advantage of, and which may or may not help them be more successful. The bottom line is that I'm worried about a reviewer that wouldn't be embarrassed to be caught signing in the FTF slot by the 2TF. If he can't really help himself from running out for FTFs, the least he could do is sign the back of the log and leave the actual FTF honors to the first non-reviewer to find it.

 

I'm actually surprised this has come up since in my limited experience with reviewers, they obvious and continuously take great pains to avoid anything that could possibly be seen as being an unfair use of their power.

[+Helbren]

I'd like to say I have no doubts about our reviewer and could never imagine him cheating at all. I just wanted to know if there was a rule as people were getting upset about it.

[jholly]

I'd like to say I have no doubts about our reviewer and could never imagine him cheating at all. I just wanted to know if there was a rule as people were getting upset about it.

Rule? For an imaginary game? It's like Calvin ball, what ever rule fits the situation at the time is the rule.

[Clan Riffster]

I think the world would be a better place if the reviewer was FTF on every cache.

Exactly. As best I can tell, having the Reviewer get every FTF is the only way to stop all the self entitled whining that the local FTF hounds do whenever they were too slow to nab the coveted spot at the top of the log. I really don't get why this Reviewer agreed to wait 24 hours before hunting caches. If they wait 24 seconds, then the whole idiotic FTF game is compromised beyond redemption.

[+SirDonB]

I think the world would be a better place if the reviewer was FTF on every cache.

 

Agreed ^^^ What better way to review a cache than to have boots on ground. Then instead of FTF on the log, it could be for the reviewer to find and sign. Once the reviewer can physically see that it meets the policy requirements, then it can be published... no reviewer signed log, cache gets archived.

 

I understand that this would take more reviewers than there are currently, but it would certainly lead to better placed cachers and maybe less getting denied because of a perceived rule violation that in reality is not just because the areal map says there is a bridge there.

 

I would be more than happy to be a reviewer for my area if it means having boots on the ground and actually finding the cache before it gets published.

 

I personally have been FTF on a few caches by chance. Yes I recieve the notifications, but not for the ability to get FTF, I just want to know when a new cache is published near my home to find. If it works out that I am FTF fine, if not, I still found it, and I am just as happy.

[+Dogmeat*]

No, they have more information than you and I, and, in addition, we have no idea how much additional information they have. They also have precious minutes of advantage over you and I having to wait for our mail to arriving, loading the cache, and having to pull up the map to check out the location and figure out the correct approach, something to reviewer did already during the normal review process.

 

The point, of course, isn't that this will give them an insurmountable advantage. The point is that it gives them an unfair advantage which they may or may not take advantage of, and which may or may not help them be more successful. The bottom line is that I'm worried about a reviewer that wouldn't be embarrassed to be caught signing in the FTF slot by the 2TF. If he can't really help himself from running out for FTFs, the least he could do is sign the back of the log and leave the actual FTF honors to the first non-reviewer to find it.

 

I'm actually surprised this has come up since in my limited experience with reviewers, they obvious and continuously take great pains to avoid anything that could possibly be seen as being an unfair use of their power.

 

They only have what the person who placed the cache gives them, which is often nothing other than "it's a small container in ____"

 

Is it unfair that emails get sent directly to my phone, and I can then open them right into the app from that email on my phone, and then conveniently walk right over to it and read the hint and description without having to use a computer to load anything at all? He's playing the same game we're all playing. The only difference is he gets the coordinates slightly before us. I highly doubt he's that obsessed that he's out finding anything before he publishes it. Come on, now.

[+SHENNY-TLC]

Be nice if ALL reviewers were FTF. Then when I went out I wouldn't be tromping across someone's front lawn because cords are off 150' or placed in a "private property" area. Ya I think the rule should be ALL reviewers are FORCED to go and be FTF. LOL

[GrandPotentate]

One of the reviewers in my area managed to get an FTF after driving almost completely across the state on business and just happened to be driving by the cache, I don't think anyone even suspected foul play, only thought that it was really cool that he was able to do that.

 

Not at all. I'm not saying I think the reviewer is cheating. I'm saying that I'm surprised -- very surprised, actually -- that the reviewer isn't worried about me thinking he's cheating. I'd expect him to do everything in his power to make sure I'm not worried about it.

{emphasis added}

What?!? Really? You expect a reviewer to know how you are going to react to the way they play the game? Really? I'm just floored by this thought process. Sounds like someone needs some Extra Strength ButtHurt Cream.

[+SirDonB]

I think the world would be a better place if the reviewer was FTF on every cache.

 

Agreed ^^^ What better way to review a cache than to have boots on ground. Then instead of FTF on the log, it could be for the reviewer to find and sign. Once the reviewer can physically see that it meets the policy requirements, then it can be published... no reviewer signed log, cache gets archived.

 

I understand that this would take more reviewers than there are currently, but it would certainly lead to better placed cachers and maybe less getting denied because of a perceived rule violation that in reality is not just because the areal map says there is a bridge there.

 

I would be more than happy to be a reviewer for my area if it means having boots on the ground and actually finding the cache before it gets published.

 

I personally have been FTF on a few caches by chance. Yes I recieve the notifications, but not for the ability to get FTF, I just want to know when a new cache is published near my home to find. If it works out that I am FTF fine, if not, I still found it, and I am just as happy.

 

I had done some thinking about this after I posted my thoughts and wanted to add something else... The FTF game would not go away just because the reviewer was the first one to sign the log... in fact the FTF game would continue on oblivious to that fact. What you would gain from reviewers being FTF would be as the following states:

Be nice if ALL reviewers were FTF. Then when I went out I wouldn't be tromping across someone's front lawn because cords are off 150' or placed in a "private property" area. Ya I think the rule should be ALL reviewers are FORCED to go and be FTF. LOL

 

and as I stated in my posting, IF this where to happen, I would be more than happy to volunteer to be a reviewer and put boots on ground before publishing a cache.

[+kunarion]

Be nice if ALL reviewers were FTF. Then when I went out I wouldn't be tromping across someone's front lawn because cords are off 150' or placed in a "private property" area. Ya I think the rule should be ALL reviewers are FORCED to go and be FTF. LOL

 

and as I stated in my posting, IF this where to happen, I would be more than happy to volunteer to be a reviewer and put boots on ground before publishing a cache.

I would have liked to be the required FTF on the local "31 Days Of August" caches. There was prize to the cacher with the most FTFs on those.

[+dprovan]

 

Not at all. I'm not saying I think the reviewer is cheating. I'm saying that I'm surprised -- very surprised, actually -- that the reviewer isn't worried about me thinking he's cheating. I'd expect him to do everything in his power to make sure I'm not worried about it.

{emphasis added}

What?!? Really? You expect a reviewer to know how you are going to react to the way they play the game? Really? I'm just floored by this thought process.

I really can't imagine how I can make this clearer since it's really such a simple concept, but my point is that I would think the reviewer would be concerned about any possible reaction to his behavior, not about what any individual, including me, actually does think.

 

You know how promotional contests always say, "Contest not open to employees of company X or their families"? That's not because they actually expect employees to cheat, it's because they don't want it to be possible for an employee to win because their customers might think they cheated.

 

One of the reviewers in my area managed to get an FTF after driving almost completely across the state on business and just happened to be driving by the cache, I don't think anyone even suspected foul play, only thought that it was really cool that he was able to do that.

A perfect example of a reasonable FTF find by a reviewer. The OP was talking about FTFs where the reviewer participated in and won the FTF dash.

 

Sounds like someone needs some Extra Strength ButtHurt Cream.

I have no idea what that means, but it makes me think you should consider the possibility that you have absolutely no idea what I'm saying.

[+SwineFlew]

I think the world would be a better place if the reviewer was FTF on every cache.

It would solved many problems or issues that a reviewer cant see from his throne.

[+The_Incredibles_]

There are no official Groundspeak rules.

 

I don't personally see the problem with a reviewer going for a FTF as long as he's not taking advantage of his position.

 

For instance, if he wanted to, he could publish caches at a time that suited him when he knew the FTF hounds were occupied or he could sit in his car at GZ and publish the cache via his smartphone. Heck, he could even go sign the logbook, then come home and publish it. Don't know him, but I don't think a reviewer would take advantage like that.

 

Like others have said, most FTF hounds will get notification on their smartphone right away. They'll be leaving their homes the same time as the reviewer and possibly a little earlier if the reviewer is busy publishing a bunch of caches.

 

I think it's great that your reviewer is local. People will definitely be more likely to follow the guidelines.

Edited September 3, 2013 by The_Incredibles_

[+Don_J]

No, they have more information than you and I, and, in addition, we have no idea how much additional information they have. They also have precious minutes of advantage over you and I having to wait for our mail to arriving, loading the cache, and having to pull up the map to check out the location and figure out the correct approach, something to reviewer did already during the normal review process.

 

The point, of course, isn't that this will give them an insurmountable advantage. The point is that it gives them an unfair advantage which they may or may not take advantage of, and which may or may not help them be more successful. The bottom line is that I'm worried about a reviewer that wouldn't be embarrassed to be caught signing in the FTF slot by the 2TF. If he can't really help himself from running out for FTFs, the least he could do is sign the back of the log and leave the actual FTF honors to the first non-reviewer to find it.

 

I'm actually surprised this has come up since in my limited experience with reviewers, they obvious and continuously take great pains to avoid anything that could possibly be seen as being an unfair use of their power.

 

They only have what the person who placed the cache gives them, which is often nothing other than "it's a small container in ____"

 

Is it unfair that emails get sent directly to my phone, and I can then open them right into the app from that email on my phone, and then conveniently walk right over to it and read the hint and description without having to use a computer to load anything at all? He's playing the same game we're all playing. The only difference is he gets the coordinates slightly before us. I highly doubt he's that obsessed that he's out finding anything before he publishes it. Come on, now.

 

Are you serious? He gets the coordinates as soon as the cache is submitted and then is in total control of when you get the coordinates. If a reviewer wanted to cheat for a FTF, he would have the ultimate advantage. He could spend a week looking for the cache until he finally finds it, signs the log and then hits the Publish button.

[+SirDonB]

I also forgot to say this in my last post...

 

IF Groundspeak did not acknowledge or support(in some capacity) the FTF game we play, then why are there FTF coins and related trackables sold in the Geocaching.com Store? Groundspeak, IN MY OPINION, does in fact acknowledge and support (even if in a limited way) the FTF game played within the geocaching game.

 

On a more personal note, I would think that a reviewer would be at more of a disadvantage than the FTF hounds since the reviewer has to sit at home and publish a group of caches that have been submitted for review before heading out the door. I guess they could "take a break" and head out before all reviewer duties are done for the day... But as others have stated, that unless a reviewer is sitting at GZ on a smartphone or other connected device, they would be no better off than the average cacher with a smartphone hunting for FTF on a traditional. As to Mysteries and multi caches, that could be a different story all together.

 

So unless as speculated above, if a reviewer is using their power to gain an advantage to log mystery or multi caches without having to go through all the stages or solving the puzzle, I do not see any problems with a reviewer being FTF since the instant technology of today's age puts all who use it on the same playing field. Or unless they are publishing the cache while sitting a couple of feet away or already with cache in hand.

 

The real game to be played is finding a cache that is hidden awaiting to be discovered. FTF is a byproduct of the game that someone started as bragging rights to his/her friends. I have grabbed a couple of FTF's by pure chance to see what the big deal was. I personally did not get any more enjoyment from the 2 or so FTF's than I did the rest of my caches that I found. My enjoyment was finding the the cache container not being FTF.

[+cheech gang]

This is exactly the reason I have rebuffed the countless incessant invitations from Groundspeak to be a reviewer. No way can I allow my stellar FTF career to be curtailed.

[GrandPotentate]

Not at all. I'm not saying I think the reviewer is cheating. I'm saying that I'm surprised -- very surprised, actually -- that the reviewer isn't worried about me thinking he's cheating. I'd expect him to do everything in his power to make sure I'm not worried about it.

{emphasis added}

What?!? Really? You expect a reviewer to know how you are going to react to the way they play the game? Really? I'm just floored by this thought process.

I really can't imagine how I can make this clearer since it's really such a simple concept, but my point is that I would think the reviewer would be concerned about any possible reaction to his behavior, not about what any individual, including me, actually does think.

 

You know how promotional contests always say, "Contest not open to employees of company X or their families"? That's not because they actually expect employees to cheat, it's because they don't want it to be possible for an employee to win because their customers might think they cheated.

 

One of the reviewers in my area managed to get an FTF after driving almost completely across the state on business and just happened to be driving by the cache, I don't think anyone even suspected foul play, only thought that it was really cool that he was able to do that.

A perfect example of a reasonable FTF find by a reviewer. The OP was talking about FTFs where the reviewer participated in and won the FTF dash.

 

Sounds like someone needs some Extra Strength ButtHurt Cream.

I have no idea what that means, but it makes me think you should consider the possibility that you have absolutely no idea what I'm saying.

 

First off, only YOU can control your own thoughts, actions, and expectations. When you are referring to what OTHER players are thinking, we should really assume that you are talking about yourself. If you are actually referring to someone else then I go back to my first statement and ask why are you worried about how other players are reacting, you can only control your own thought, actions, and expectations.

 

Secondly, I already provided you a link to the definition of butthurt, but here you go:

An inappropriately strong negative emotional response from a perceived personal insult. Characterized by strong feelings of shame. Frequently associated with a cessation of communication and overt hostility towards the "aggressor."

 

Now lets look at this situation from the outside: You are expecting the reviewer, who is choosing play the game the way he/she enjoys it, to change their actions because someone might hypothetically think they have an unfair advantage because their notification doesn't have to travel through all of the internets before reaching them. I would have to say that publicly accusing someone of cheating in a public forum is an overtly hostile act and is due to a perceived personal personal insult from a person who feels shame for not receiving the most high and glorious honors of FTF and all of the eternal bragging rights. Personally, I would be completely comfortable accepting Cheech Honors (STF) behind any of the reviewers in my area.