Publisher hunting FTF

7.3k · September 4, 2013

I've been having a generic academic discussion about reviewers and haven't been saying anything about this reviewer.

Huh, that's not the impression that I got from some of the posts in this thread.

My posts? Could you be specific? I'm having a devil of a time understanding how this fundamental point is being so completely missed, so it would help me a lot if you could show me what I said that gave you the opposite impression.

Ok, now I was forced to look through all your posts more carefully. I guess you weren't saying that the reviewer was being a hound still, but that they should completely stop getting any ftf to be completely above suspicion. You have mentioned the reviewer, but not quite in the context that I was thinking recently.

3.1k · September 4, 2013

So you want Groundspeak to make rules and regulations for Reviewers on being FTF simply because some people can or can't be trusted to do the right thing in an unofficial side game that some cachers play that Groundspeak has no official stand on?

I'm saying blind trust is silly, just as blind distrust is silly. I'm saying it wouldn't be unreasonable for Groundspeak to create a code of conduct for Volunteer Reviewers that covered issues that are important to Groundspeak.

According to Keystone, "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." I don't know if that's something they refrain from doing on their own, or if Groundspeak has asked them to refrain from doing this.

Even though the FTF competition is an unofficial side game, that doesn't mean a significant number of geocachers could be upset if they felt (rightfully or wrongfully) that some Groundspeak representatives might be taking advantage of their positions to get an edge in this competition. If Groundspeak believed such a perception might harm their business, then I think it's quite reasonable for them to put limits on Volunteer Reviewers participating in that side game.

How will that solve the problem?

It won't solve the problem. But it could reduce the likelihood that a significant number of geocachers might perceive Volunteer Reviewers as potentially acting unfairly.

You will still have people whining about it no matter what.

Yep. But there might well be fewer people whining.

So in other words, the need of the one out weighs the need of the many?

Nope. If that were the case, then it's unlikely that the needs of the relatively few Volunteer Reviewers would outweigh the needs of the significantly more non-reviewer FTF hunters.

I don't see it as a big deal if a reviewer gets a FTF before me or not

I don't either. But then, I'm not a serious FTF hound.

September 4, 2013

I don't see why reviewers can't rightfully go visit a cache before it was published and sign the log.

Some of us would actually appreciate such effort. They should avoid saying anything about FTF in their log, which would leave that open for those that care about that.

September 4, 2013

So if a person becomes a reviewer they have to cut into their valuable caching time by reviewing and publishing other peoples caches?

Refrain from FTF hunts (assuming you are into that), or have people assume you may be taking advantage of your position.

Gee, makes me want to be a reviewer

1.2k · September 5, 2013

I'm still sitting in Keystone's church parking lot with the engine running waiting for him to publish the next cache.

5.3k · September 5, 2013

A simple solution to the problem would be for Groundspeak not to ask FTF hounds to become reviewers, or to require that they no longer mark their FTFs. If it were me, I would be glad to do so, but then I don't mark any FTFs for others to see anyway.

I think it is unreasonable to expect someone to avoid hunting a cache if it has not been found when you would have been caching nearby anyway. It is, however, reasonable to ask them not to rush out of their house in the middle of the night to grab FTFs.

September 5, 2013

So you want Groundspeak to make rules and regulations for Reviewers on being FTF simply because some people can or can't be trusted to do the right thing in an unofficial side game that some cachers play that Groundspeak has no official stand on?

I'm saying blind trust is silly, just as blind distrust is silly. I'm saying it wouldn't be unreasonable for Groundspeak to create a code of conduct for Volunteer Reviewers that covered issues that are important to Groundspeak.

I could be mistaken, but I beleive that this is already a part of becoming a reviewer, agreeing to a code of conduct that covers important issues to Groundspeak.

Even though the FTF competition is an unofficial side game, that doesn't mean a significant number of geocachers could be upset if they felt (rightfully or wrongfully) that some Groundspeak representatives might be taking advantage of their positions to get an edge in this competition. If Groundspeak believed such a perception might harm their business, then I think it's quite reasonable for them to put limits on Volunteer Reviewers participating in that side game.

Let's say Groundspeak does decide to put limitations on the reviewers in regards to the side game, it could hypothetically affect the number of caches or the quality of caches, or even the cache placing rules. Groundspeak has it's standing in regards to the FTF side game for a reason, we may never know that reason, but it is there. Unless there is a benefit to Groundspeak, I don't see them changing their corporate view of the FTF side game.

According to Keystone, "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." I don't know if that's something they refrain from doing on their own, or if Groundspeak has asked them to refrain from doing this.

I am gonna go out on a limb and say this is something that the reviewers do of their own accord seeing as Groundspeak does not take and official side or stand with the FTF side game. So that being said, I am sure from time to time a reviewer or 2 may use their position to gain an advantage on a cache or 2, but most adhere to this unspoken code of conduct. Heck, there is a particularly difficult mystery cache I would like to gain an advantage on to solve, but being a person of honor, even if I had the ability, I would still try and solve it like everyone else.

So getting back the the OP, it seems to me that the question being asked was if there were any specific rules that apply to a reviewer being allowed or able to be FTF on caches that they review and publish. From my reading and involvement in this thread, that answer seems to be, NO there are no specific rules covering this issue at this time and that Groundspeak does not officially acknowledge the FTF game. In addition, there is an understood code of conduct that the reviewers themselves adhere to on their own as a courtesy to the other cachers.

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!

What I get from this is:

The OP wanted to know if there were any rules as to reviewers and FTFs.
The OP's area got a new reviewer.
The new reviewer was know to be an avid FTF hunter
This fact of the new review has caused some of the local FTF hunters to be alarmed
The OP is asking about reviewers and FTF's for personal piece of mind

I believe all points have been answered several times over and the heart of the matter keeps getting overlooked and skewed. So I will say it again from my understanding and point of view...

No, there are no specific rules or guidelines as far as reviewers and the FTF side game
The reviewers have their own understood code of conduct that they follow
The unofficial code of conduct allows for FTFs on traditional caches but they are to wait a reasonable amount of time for multi and mystery caches.
FTF is a side game of geocacheing that some cachers play and take to heart, while Groundspeak chooses at this time to take no official stand on it and does not acknowledge the FTF game though they are aware of its existence.
Some people think that reviewers should all but remove themselves from the game to avoid suspicion that they may be taking advantage of their position to be FTF on caches while most seem to not care about it.

I am sure I missed something along the way, but I think that about sums it up.

6.5k · September 5, 2013

Why not just sort the discussion with altering the logbooks? put 2 lines with FTF.. first one saying FTF Reviewer and second line FTF Player, then the reviewers can fight for FTF amongst themselfs with the extra info and advantages they have and the players gets their fair FTF with the normal info lol

Well that's just silly. Everyone knows that There Can Be Only One!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRWH_seUNRo

4.5k · September 5, 2013

Let's say Groundspeak does decide to put limitations on the reviewers in regards to the side game, it could hypothetically affect the number of caches or the quality of caches, or even the cache placing rules. Groundspeak has it's standing in regards to the FTF side game for a reason, we may never know that reason, but it is there. Unless there is a benefit to Groundspeak, I don't see them changing their corporate view of the FTF side game.

I think i remember Jeremy himself saying something about how gc.com didn't recognize or promote the ftf game a while back. But i believe this is changing since there is money to be made from it. Go look in the gc.com store and you'll see that they now offer FTF geocoins. The benefit to Groundspeak is more money so i would think they might frown a bit if they found out a reviewer was causing angst for paying customers.

September 5, 2013

Let's say Groundspeak does decide to put limitations on the reviewers in regards to the side game, it could hypothetically affect the number of caches or the quality of caches, or even the cache placing rules. Groundspeak has it's standing in regards to the FTF side game for a reason, we may never know that reason, but it is there. Unless there is a benefit to Groundspeak, I don't see them changing their corporate view of the FTF side game.

I think i remember Jeremy himself saying something about how gc.com didn't recognize or promote the ftf game a while back. But i believe this is changing since there is money to be made from it. Go look in the gc.com store and you'll see that they now offer FTF geocoins. The benefit to Groundspeak is more money so i would think they might frown a bit if they found out a reviewer was causing angst for paying customers.

So what would the benefit be to making it an official stat on your profile therefore officially acknowledging the side game? By offering FTF Coins and such, they saying they are aware that the game exists but they still do not acknowledge it like they do the caches themselves or the trackable items. In fact, I could be wrong, but I believe that the coins are intended more so to be a FTF prize option that a cache hider can leave in the container for the FTF cacher. I am blessed enough that I can hand make my FTF prize for the caches I will be hiding and the one I have already hid.

FTF to me is like trying to brag about how many batteries you go through in a month for the sake of geocaching. I will admit there was one cache I had gone back out for in the middle of the night after getting home since it was close. I had gone out after this one for the possible FTF, if I had not gotten it, I would not have been upset over it or cried foul play if it happened to end up being a reviewer that beat me to it. There is always the next one. I have been FTF on a few caches purely by chance, no change in excitement between FTF or hundredth to find

7.5k · September 5, 2013

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!

What I get from this is:

The OP wanted to know if there were any rules as to reviewers and FTFs.

The OP's area got a new reviewer.

The new reviewer was know to be an avid FTF hunter

This fact of the new review has caused some of the local FTF hunters to be alarmed

The OP is asking about reviewers and FTF's for personal piece of mind

...

I am sure I missed something along the way, but I think that about sums it up.

A few posts later, the OP added that the reviewer wasn't doing as he had promised:

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).

No they are finding several within an hour.

Delaying 24 hours is a reasonable way to avoid any appearance of impropriety, and I wouldn't have even blinked if that had been the case. 24 hours is the difference between an FTF hound and a normal cacher. The example on hand is a reviewer that is still competing for FTFs, hence the concern.

9.3k · September 5, 2013

A few posts later, the OP added that the reviewer wasn't doing as he had promised:

I thought the Reviewer in question promised to wait 24 hours on most caches, not all caches.

If that's the case, they are doing exactly what they promised.

Delaying 24 hours is a reasonable way to avoid any appearance of impropriety

Delaying 24 hours, or 24 minutes, or 24 seconds, is an idiotic way to affirm paranoid self entitlement.

Once a cache is published, it is fair game to everyone, including Reviewers.

September 5, 2013

Delaying 24 hours is a reasonable way to avoid any appearance of impropriety, and I wouldn't have even blinked if that had been the case. 24 hours is the difference between an FTF hound and a normal cacher. The example on hand is a reviewer that is still competing for FTFs, hence the concern.

I am not a FTF hound and yet there have been some recent published caches in my area that by pure chance the new cache was published as I was leaving from work and not that far away. I got the email on my smartphone, from the same device, got all the cache page info in my caching app, and within minutes of receiving the notice, had the cache container found and in hand signing the physical log as the FTF. Then after getting back in my vehicle, I signed the digital log as well before leaving the site. So tell me again how a reviewer would have any advantage over me in getting a FTF with traditional caches!?!?!?

Now what we don't know and actually has not been directly addressed by either the the OP or the reviewer (since the reviewer being referenced has posted in this thread)is: What type of caches are the reviewer being the FTF on that are causing the concern? Based off of all available info, mainly the reviewers post in reply to this thread, the reviewer still gets the occasional FTF on a traditional cache and only logged FTF on a mystery or multi that the CO had specially designed for the reviewer so the reviewer would have no advantage in finding it. So again, where is the problem?

As it has been stated multiple times over, there is no real advantage gained by a reviewer when it comes to a traditional cache. And I have no problems with reviewers claiming a FTF on these. If the reviewer is claiming FTF on multi's or mystery caches, then there may be cause for concern and question.

AS I said, the reviewer being refereed to in this thread had chimed in very early on in this discussion:

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 do not see the reviewer doing anything wrong, and the local FTF hounds trying to be cutthroat and take out one more person from the unofficial side game for their own personal gain. If a CO specially designs a cache with the reviewer in mind so they can be FTF on it, then I applaud the CO for going the extra mile to allow a reviewer the chance to be FTF on a type of cache they may have normally refrained from because of the reviewer advantage perception. Though in this case the local FTF hounds are still whining.

September 5, 2013

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!

What I get from this is:

The OP wanted to know if there were any rules as to reviewers and FTFs.

The OP's area got a new reviewer.

The new reviewer was know to be an avid FTF hunter

This fact of the new review has caused some of the local FTF hunters to be alarmed

The OP is asking about reviewers and FTF's for personal piece of mind

...

I am sure I missed something along the way, but I think that about sums it up.

A few posts later, the OP added that the reviewer wasn't doing as he had promised:

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).

No they are finding several within an hour.

Delaying 24 hours is a reasonable way to avoid any appearance of impropriety, and I wouldn't have even blinked if that had been the case. 24 hours is the difference between an FTF hound and a normal cacher. The example on hand is a reviewer that is still competing for FTFs, hence the concern.

Whilst OP asked a few questions some of the facts given by the reviewer in question seems to be ignored. They are a new reviewer who has now been reviewing for about 5 months. In that time there could only be about 5 occasions on 650 published caches where it may be said he may have "competed" for a FTF with any FTF hounds on the same day. Asd far as I can tell this is th eonly occasion where the question has arisen that the reviewer was caching within an hour. So the reality is 1 occasion in 5 months on 650 caches.

But if a cache is not found for the first time within a day does it suddenly not become a FTF race. As far as stats go a FTF to a FTF hound is the same.

Whilst he reviewer in question claimed 3 FTF on the day. No other cachers had logged those very same caches within 24 hours of publishing. Who was he racing?

Another incorrect thing mentioned early was the time. The caches were published at 10.20 am on a Sunday. Not PM.

Perception is not reality. Perception is what builds your own reality. I have yet to meet someone who will actually admit that they use their positions of trust inappropriately. Yet I seem to meet and read that there are a few people who believe other people will always use their positions of trust to cheat. Why the disparity. I trust people. So in my reality I don't see impropriety unless it actually exists. I like my reality.

4.5k · September 5, 2013

As it has been stated multiple times over, there is no real advantage gained by a reviewer when it comes to a traditional cache. And I have no problems with reviewers claiming a FTF on these. If the reviewer is claiming FTF on multi's or mystery caches, then there may be cause for concern and question.

Not sure why you say this. A reviewer could look at a cache then go find it before hitting the publish button. He could hit publish right before he arrived to ground zero. Or he could load up his gpsr with the coordinates and be ready to jump in the car just before hitting the publish button. He can take his time looking the cache up on GE. I'm sure there are other ways he could take advantage.

Again, let me be clear in saying that i am not insinuating this reviewer or any other is doing these things. Just stating that there can be an advantage if a reviewer happens to be a bit unscrupulous.

3.1k · September 5, 2013

As it has been stated multiple times over, there is no real advantage gained by a reviewer when it comes to a traditional cache. And I have no problems with reviewers claiming a FTF on these. If the reviewer is claiming FTF on multi's or mystery caches, then there may be cause for concern and question.

Not sure why you say this. A reviewer could look at a cache then go find it before hitting the publish button. He could hit publish right before he arrived to ground zero. Or he could load up his gpsr with the coordinates and be ready to jump in the car just before hitting the publish button. He can take his time looking the cache up on GE. I'm sure there are other ways he could take advantage.

Again, let me be clear in saying that i am not insinuating this reviewer or any other is doing these things. Just stating that there can be an advantage if a reviewer happens to be a bit unscrupulous.

Agreed. Stating something (even multiple times) doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Here are some additional real advantages that unscrupulous Volunteer Reviewers could use to get an edge in the FTF race to traditional caches, if they were so inclined.

They could delay publication until a time that was convenient for them to go searching.

They occasionally receive private information (including spoiler photos) from cache owners regarding cache placements. If they don't receive such information and the cache's difficulty rating is on the high side, then they could visit the cache location and find the cache before returning home (or a nearby parking lot) and publishing the cache.

If the cache requires special equipment, then they could be sure to have that equipment at hand before publishing the cache.

6.1k · September 5, 2013

I don't trust that everybody drives safely out of the goodness of their hearts. Many drive carefully because driving into me would endanger themselves as well. Others drive carefully, because they don't want to be arrested for violating traffic laws. Even with these laws to help protect me, I still own a vehicle with airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones, laminated windows, and side-impact protection bars precisely because I do not trust with my life that all oncoming drivers will not drive into me.

With all those things, it could still happen. You do have a certain level of trust for hundreds, or thousands of complete strangers you have never met. Having a few safety items in your car will not stop it, and punishments after the fact will do absolutely nothing to help you in the hospital or bring you back from the dead. They are all psychological. Every time you drive, you take a gamble based on trust. The odds may be a little better in your favor, but they are still odds.

This thread is not about what a reviewer would do, it's about what he could have done. There is a huge difference between would and could. Saying someone could do something implies that you do not trust them. This is a reviewer we are talking about, in a game where people leave ammo boxes and other items outdoors, and trust others to replace them properly. There are those who can not trust him with obtaining a silly FTF title fairly? He has done nothing wrong at all, but he could? You know what a judge or police officer could do? There are those that do it every day, get caught, as well as plenty more that never get caught, but we still trust most of them. Your employer trusts you to a certain level, as you know in any job there is sabotage that anyone can get away with. We're not talking about trusting him with a few thousand dollars here, but a FTF title.

Yes, it's a combination of extreme paranoia, over inflated FTF value, and prejudging someone based on wild speculation. Perhaps reviewers should not have any friends. How do you know this delicate and sensitive geocaching info is not being passed to their caching buddies? :rolleyes:

Edited September 5, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

3.1k · September 5, 2013

I don't trust that everybody drives safely out of the goodness of their hearts. Many drive carefully because driving into me would endanger themselves as well. Others drive carefully, because they don't want to be arrested for violating traffic laws. Even with these laws to help protect me, I still own a vehicle with airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones, laminated windows, and side-impact protection bars precisely because I do not trust with my life that all oncoming drivers will not drive into me.

With all those things, it could still happen.

Yep. But my point (once again) is that it reduces the chances that it will happen. And that's a good thing. Padding and helmets don't eliminate the possibility of football injuries, but players still wear them because they reduce the chance of injuries. And that's a good thing.

You do have a certain level of trust for hundreds, or thousands of complete strangers you have never met. Having a few safety items in your car will not stop it, and punishments after the fact will do absolutely nothing to help you in the hospital or bring you back from the dead. They are all psychological.

Again, the point of vehicle safety equipment isn't to stop injuries and deaths; the point is to reduce them. And that's a good thing. Punishments don't stop people from ending up in hospitals or morgues, but they reduce the number of people who end up there. And that's a good thing.

Every time you drive, you take a gamble based on trust. The odds may be a little better in your favor, but they are still odds.

Yes, they are still odds. And I prefer to have better odds rather than worse odds. If you want to be guaranteed that you'll never be hurt while driving, then you'll never drive, no matter how much you trust other drivers, no matter how much safety equipment your vehicle has, and no matter how severe the traffic laws are.

3.1k · September 5, 2013

This thread is not about what a reviewer would do, it's about what he could have done. There is a huge difference between would and could. Saying someone could do something implies that you do not trust them.

It's not about whether I trust a particular Volunteer Reviewer (or even the whole group of Volunteer Reviewers). It's about whether a significant number of FTF participants have blind trust in their reviewers.

You might feel everyone should blindly trust their reviewers, but apparently that's not the case, at least in regards to the FTF hunt. That's the reality Groundspeak faces. The question is: What should they do about this situation?

If the number of upset "customers" isn't very large or they aren't terribly upset, then perhaps Groundspeak shouldn't do anything at all. But if their number is significant and they are quite upset, then perhaps Groundspeak should be concerned about how it might affect their business.

This is a reviewer we are talking about, in a game where people leave ammo boxes and other items outdoors, and trust others to replace them properly. There are those who can not trust him with obtaining a silly FTF title fairly?

You and I might not take the FTF side game very seriously, but there are some who do. And some of these people apparently are concerned that reviewers could take advantage of their position to get an edge in the competition and don't blindly trust the reviewers to play fairly.

According to Keystone, "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." If everybody had blind trust that all reviewers would do the right thing, then this wouldn't be necessary. But reviewers refrain from doing this because not everybody blindly trusts them.

7.5k · September 5, 2013

Yes, it's a combination of extreme paranoia, over inflated FTF value, and prejudging someone based on wild speculation.

No, it really isn't. It's a desire to eliminate conflict of interest, a very simple and well established principle that makes abuse impossible, hence avoiding any need to consider whether abuse is likely.

And, again, if anyone's over-inflating the FTF value here, it would be the reviewer that insists on pursuing FTFs despite the obvious conflict of interest that introduces.

September 5, 2013

As it has been stated multiple times over, there is no real advantage gained by a reviewer when it comes to a traditional cache. And I have no problems with reviewers claiming a FTF on these. If the reviewer is claiming FTF on multi's or mystery caches, then there may be cause for concern and question.

Not sure why you say this. A reviewer could look at a cache then go find it before hitting the publish button. He could hit publish right before he arrived to ground zero. Or he could load up his gpsr with the coordinates and be ready to jump in the car just before hitting the publish button. He can take his time looking the cache up on GE. I'm sure there are other ways he could take advantage.

Again, let me be clear in saying that i am not insinuating this reviewer or any other is doing these things. Just stating that there can be an advantage if a reviewer happens to be a bit unscrupulous.

Agreed. Stating something (even multiple times) doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Here are some additional real advantages that unscrupulous Volunteer Reviewers could use to get an edge in the FTF race to traditional caches, if they were so inclined.

They could delay publication until a time that was convenient for them to go searching.

They occasionally receive private information (including spoiler photos) from cache owners regarding cache placements. If they don't receive such information and the cache's difficulty rating is on the high side, then they could visit the cache location and find the cache before returning home (or a nearby parking lot) and publishing the cache.

If the cache requires special equipment, then they could be sure to have that equipment at hand before publishing the cache.

Mudfrog, I am stating what I see as the facts I see them based off of black and white words read in this thread. I see a bunch of delusional paranoid people getting their panties in a bunch and all based off of what they THINK COULD HAPPEN! It was never said that any reviewer was actually using their position to gain an unfair advantage to an unofficial side game that a few geocachers decided they want to play.

The reviewer that was unnamed and referenced in this thread even logged on, said their peace, added more info to the puzzle and was even very polite to the OP about his outrage over the whole issue. I applaud the reviewer for that.

CanadianRockies, as to you... yes, I agree that saying something even multiple times does not make it correct, however in this case, your delusion is based off of the implied fact that just because a reviewer COULD do something that they are guilty of doing it. Saying that a reviewer could find a cache then post it does not mean that they are. All that is being accomplished is seeding the minds of other geocachers and putting doubt in their faith of their reviewers. As to your reference to special equipment, who's to say they didn't already have that equipment in the first place? Again all speculation.

That seems to be the whole basis of this thread, delusional paranoia based off of wild speculation that something could happen.

For speculations sake, why don't we visit the positive side of this coin? Lets just say that you happen to have a reviewer that does decide they want to cheat and visit the cache site before they publish it. Lets also say that this particular cache they are trying to log before anyone else just happens to be on private property, and they have a run in with the property owner(s). Now lets just say that in the course conversation the reviewer finds out that the cache was place without permission, but if the CO has asked the land owner would have said yes. Now let us also say that that illegally placed cache's camouflage required the CO to dig into the land owners ground. And since we are speculating, lets just say that that particular CO just happened to leave out all sorts of info that would have kept their cache from being published because the CO wanted to get the cache published. Now all the info the reviewer gained from attempting to use their position to gain the advantage, can be used to work with the CO to ensure the placed cache follows the cache placing guidelines.

So what can you conclude from our speculation, nothing, because both the reviewer and CO were morally wrong in their acts, and you now have a land owner that could not look favorably on geocaching and geocachers in general. The plus of it all, what started out as bad deed, turned into a good situation and avoided further anguish on the cachers and land owner. Now lets just continue on for a moment with this, the reviewer lets the CO know of the problems, asks that they be fixed before the cache is published and covers their real reason by saying they were there for a random boots on ground pre-publish check. Remember it could happen right? But reviewers go on trust that the CO has placed the cache within the guidelines and doesn't feel the need to put boots on ground. Just as the CO goes on trust that the reviewer will not try to abuse their position in direct regards to the FTF game.

And since we are in the business of speculating, the cache placing guidelines are there because those that place caches are honest and would not lie or give misinformation about a cache they placed, right? But hey, it could happen so that's why the guidelines are there. The reality is that the cache placing guidelines are there because people have placed a cache without permission, have buried a cache, etc. And while we are on the subject, how many caches get placed and published without land owner permission? Everything is owned buy someone or some entity. But that is a subject for another thread all together.

From my point of view, there has been no evidence that I could find that would lead me to condemn a reviewer for being FTF on a few caches now and again.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Bandit1979

September 5, 2013

I am not familiar with the review process, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that "reviewing" the cache page for content, "reviewing" the cache location for validity and "reviewing" any reviewer notes for pertinent information not on the page (Information that others chasing the FTF would not have access to by the way!) are all a part of the process. So how could having "reviewed" that information ahead of all the others who might chase FTF's in the area not be an advantage?

I don't think most would care about this if there weren't cash and prizes involved, but there are. The FTF chase is the real treasure hunting part of this game. Not to mention the real competition, too!

September 5, 2013

I don't think most would care about this if there weren't cash and prizes involved, but there are. The FTF chase is the real treasure hunting part of this game. Not to mention the real competition, too!

so you are telling me that after a cache gets published, and the first person finds it, it should then be archived because the game and competition is now over and that there is nothing left to find? As to the real cash and prizes, where are they and where do I sign up? I want in so the cash if its really there. If it were a real competition, then why does Groundspeak not have FTF finds in the stats on your profile page?

If there are people competing for cash and other prizes, why is this not publicized more? The reality is that only a few small groups may be doing this amungst themselves, like a football poll or betting on a race or other game. In the bigger picture, the FTF game is not officially acknowledged by Groundspeak, even though they are aware that it is played.

September 5, 2013

I don't think most would care about this if there weren't cash and prizes involved, but there are. The FTF chase is the real treasure hunting part of this game. Not to mention the real competition, too!

so you are telling me that after a cache gets published, and the first person finds it, it should then be archived because the game and competition is now over and that there is nothing left to find? As to the real cash and prizes, where are they and where do I sign up? I want in so the cash if its really there. If it were a real competition, then why does Groundspeak not have FTF finds in the stats on your profile page?

If there are people competing for cash and other prizes, why is this not publicized more? The reality is that only a few small groups may be doing this amungst themselves, like a football poll or betting on a race or other game. In the bigger picture, the FTF game is not officially acknowledged by Groundspeak, even though they are aware that it is played.

I guess you've never heard of an FTF prize. Here's a thread with some examples of what you've been missing.

7.3k · September 5, 2013

I am not familiar with the review process, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that "reviewing" the cache page for content, "reviewing" the cache location for validity and "reviewing" any reviewer notes for pertinent information not on the page (Information that others chasing the FTF would not have access to by the way!) are all a part of the process. So how could having "reviewed" that information ahead of all the others who might chase FTF's in the area not be an advantage?

I don't think most would care about this if there weren't cash and prizes involved, but there are. The FTF chase is the real treasure hunting part of this game. Not to mention the real competition, too!

The information that a reviewer gets during the review process on most traditional caches really doesn't give them an advantage over anyone else.

September 5, 2013

I am not familiar with the review process, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that "reviewing" the cache page for content, "reviewing" the cache location for validity and "reviewing" any reviewer notes for pertinent information not on the page (Information that others chasing the FTF would not have access to by the way!) are all a part of the process. So how could having "reviewed" that information ahead of all the others who might chase FTF's in the area not be an advantage?

I don't think most would care about this if there weren't cash and prizes involved, but there are. The FTF chase is the real treasure hunting part of this game. Not to mention the real competition, too!

The information that a reviewer gets during the review process on most traditional caches really doesn't give them an advantage over anyone else.

But, getting that information ahead of all the others does! :laughing:

14k · September 5, 2013

I don't think most would care about this if there weren't cash and prizes involved, but there are. The FTF chase is the real treasure hunting part of this game. Not to mention the real competition, too!

Those are pretty naive statements for this globally played game. Granted it's understandable that you may be viewing the game and the FTF aspect from the local perspective but the fact is that the FTF chase is not universal, and in most places in the world the FTF game just does not exist. FTF, as a fact, happens but there isn't any real competition.

3.1k · September 5, 2013

I am not a FTF hound and yet there have been some recent published caches in my area that by pure chance the new cache was published as I was leaving from work and not that far away. I got the email on my smartphone, from the same device, got all the cache page info in my caching app, and within minutes of receiving the notice, had the cache container found and in hand signing the physical log as the FTF. Then after getting back in my vehicle, I signed the digital log as well before leaving the site. So tell me again how a reviewer would have any advantage over me in getting a FTF with traditional caches!?!?!?

...

As it has been stated multiple times over, there is no real advantage gained by a reviewer when it comes to a traditional cache. And I have no problems with reviewers claiming a FTF on these.

Not sure why you say this. A reviewer could look at a cache then go find it before hitting the publish button. He could hit publish right before he arrived to ground zero. Or he could load up his gpsr with the coordinates and be ready to jump in the car just before hitting the publish button. He can take his time looking the cache up on GE. I'm sure there are other ways he could take advantage.

Again, let me be clear in saying that i am not insinuating this reviewer or any other is doing these things. Just stating that there can be an advantage if a reviewer happens to be a bit unscrupulous.

Agreed. Stating something (even multiple times) doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Here are some additional real advantages that unscrupulous Volunteer Reviewers could use to get an edge in the FTF race to traditional caches, if they were so inclined.

They could delay publication until a time that was convenient for them to go searching.

They occasionally receive private information (including spoiler photos) from cache owners regarding cache placements. If they don't receive such information and the cache's difficulty rating is on the high side, then they could visit the cache location and find the cache before returning home (or a nearby parking lot) and publishing the cache.

If the cache requires special equipment, then they could be sure to have that equipment at hand before publishing the cache.

CanadianRockies, as to you... yes, I agree that saying something even multiple times does not make it correct, however in this case, your delusion is based off of the implied fact that just because a reviewer COULD do something that they are guilty of doing it.

I never implied that any reviewer was guilty of acting unfairly. It's you who made that seriously mistaken inference. Please refrain from twisting my words in this way.

My comments were not delusions. Mudfrog and I simply answered your questions about ways in which "a reviewer would have any advantage over me in getting a FTF with traditional caches" and that are a "real advantage gained by a reviewer when it comes to a traditional cache."

I noticed you didn't dispute these advantages.

Saying that a reviewer could find a cache then post it does not mean that they are.

Agreed. But your questions were whether reviewers could have an advantage, not whether reviewers actually have taken advantage of those edges.

As to your reference to special equipment, who's to say they didn't already have that equipment in the first place?

Yes, it's certainly possible that a reviewer could already have the necessary specialized equipment at hand. It's also certainly possible that they might not, in which case accessing that specialized equipment before publishing the cache would be an edge that they could take advantage of, if they were so inclined to do so.

7.3k · September 5, 2013

I am not familiar with the review process, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that "reviewing" the cache page for content, "reviewing" the cache location for validity and "reviewing" any reviewer notes for pertinent information not on the page (Information that others chasing the FTF would not have access to by the way!) are all a part of the process. So how could having "reviewed" that information ahead of all the others who might chase FTF's in the area not be an advantage?

I don't think most would care about this if there weren't cash and prizes involved, but there are. The FTF chase is the real treasure hunting part of this game. Not to mention the real competition, too!

The information that a reviewer gets during the review process on most traditional caches really doesn't give them an advantage over anyone else.

But, getting that information ahead of all the others does!

Only in the case of an unscrupulous reviewer. So yeah, they have coordinates, and can download them and use them earlier than others. That's it in most cases.

This argument is getting tedious. Really, all these potential rouge reviewers out there are going to ruin the game! :laughing:

7.5k · September 5, 2013

Mudfrog, I am stating what I see as the facts I see them based off of black and white words read in this thread. I see a bunch of delusional paranoid people getting their panties in a bunch...

Funniest post in the thread so far. Nice black and white facts. I'm sure your contribution will enourage mutual respect and help us come to an understanding.

If you think people are reacting that way, then that just reinforces the idea that the reviewer should avoid the FTF race to avoid making those people angry. After all, everyone supporting the reviewer keeps pointing out how unimportant FTFs are. Or is your opinion that it's OK to upset people for no good reason when you consider their position delusional?

4.5k · September 5, 2013

Mudfrog, I am stating what I see as the facts I see them based off of black and white words read in this thread. I see a bunch of delusional paranoid people getting their panties in a bunch and all based off of what they THINK COULD HAPPEN! It was never said that any reviewer was actually using their position to gain an unfair advantage to an unofficial side game that a few geocachers decided they want to play.

The black and white words we have here do not give us any idea of what is going on in the OP's area. Yes, the reviewer chimed with his side of the story. But we still have no idea what has prompted the cachers in that area to ask questions. Perhaps they have some facts, perhaps they see things that aren't kosher. You and i just don't know.

You could care less about the ftf game and that is fine. You think the ftf game is silly and that is fine too. But it's not fine to call those who do care about it, paranoid and delusional, when you don't have all the facts.

And you are right that,, "It was never said that any reviewer was actually using their position to gain an unfair advantage to an unofficial side game that a few geocachers decided they want to play". That's what the majority of posters in this thread have been saying all along. To be honest, i'm not exactly sure why you're so bent out of shape. :unsure:

September 5, 2013

I don't think most would care about this if there weren't cash and prizes involved, but there are. The FTF chase is the real treasure hunting part of this game. Not to mention the real competition, too!

Those are pretty naive statements for this globally played game. Granted it's understandable that you may be viewing the game and the FTF aspect from the local perspective but the fact is that the FTF chase is not universal, and in most places in the world the FTF game just does not exist. FTF, as a fact, happens but there isn't any real competition.

Now who's making naive statements? Please refrain from personal attacks as those will likely get this thread locked.

3.1k · September 5, 2013

For speculations sake, why don't we visit the positive side of this coin? Lets just say that you happen to have a reviewer that does decide they want to cheat and visit the cache site before they publish it. Lets also say that this particular cache they are trying to log before anyone else just happens to be on private property, and they have a run in with the property owner(s). Now lets just say that in the course conversation the reviewer finds out that the cache was place without permission, but if the CO has asked the land owner would have said yes. Now let us also say that that illegally placed cache's camouflage required the CO to dig into the land owners ground. And since we are speculating, lets just say that that particular CO just happened to leave out all sorts of info that would have kept their cache from being published because the CO wanted to get the cache published. Now all the info the reviewer gained from attempting to use their position to gain the advantage, can be used to work with the CO to ensure the placed cache follows the cache placing guidelines.

So what can you conclude from our speculation, nothing, because both the reviewer and CO were morally wrong in their acts, and you now have a land owner that could not look favorably on geocaching and geocachers in general. The plus of it all, what started out as bad deed, turned into a good situation and avoided further anguish on the cachers and land owner. Now lets just continue on for a moment with this, the reviewer lets the CO know of the problems, asks that they be fixed before the cache is published and covers their real reason by saying they were there for a random boots on ground pre-publish check. Remember it could happen right? But reviewers go on trust that the CO has placed the cache within the guidelines and doesn't feel the need to put boots on ground. Just as the CO goes on trust that the reviewer will not try to abuse their position in direct regards to the FTF game.

For various reasons, it's impractical to expect reviewers to find and inspect all caches on-site before publishing those caches. But if it could happen, then I think it would be great. And if it did happen (or a partial measure was implemented) and those reviewers signed the cache logs, then I suspect the FTF side game would change into something along the lines of a FTFAP (first-to-find-after-publication) game.

14k · September 5, 2013

I don't think most would care about this if there weren't cash and prizes involved, but there are. The FTF chase is the real treasure hunting part of this game. Not to mention the real competition, too!

Those are pretty naive statements for this globally played game. Granted it's understandable that you may be viewing the game and the FTF aspect from the local perspective but the fact is that the FTF chase is not universal, and in most places in the world the FTF game just does not exist. FTF, as a fact, happens but there isn't any real competition.

Now who's making naive statements? Please refrain from personal attacks as those will likely get this thread locked.

It wasn't a personal attack. The fact is, that this game isn't playing the same way everywhere, so making universal statements about the treasure hunting part of the game, or the level of competition, just won't apply in many places. If you live in a large U.S. city with dozens of new caches being published every day and dozens if not hundreds of local geocachers ready to go look for them, it's unlikely that the game is going to be played the same way as a location which might only get a handful (if that) new caches published a year and have only 2-3 geocachers living withing a hundred miles of those caches. I *have* geocached in large U.S. cities, as well as in locations where I could count the number of caches within 100 miles on one hand. The FTF game and a competitive aspect aspect that you see in large, cache dense environments just doesn't exist in some of the countries in which I have geocached.

7.5k · September 5, 2013

The FTF game and a competitive aspect aspect that you see in large, cache dense environments just doesn't exist in some of the countries in which I have geocached.

I don't understand why you're bringing this up since the case being discussed is in a area where the FTF game is taken quite seriously, including by the reviewer himself.

14k · September 5, 2013

The FTF game and a competitive aspect aspect that you see in large, cache dense environments just doesn't exist in some of the countries in which I have geocached.

I don't understand why you're bringing this up since the case being discussed is in a area where the FTF game is taken quite seriously, including by the reviewer himself.

The thread has drifted and statements were made about the FTF game and competitiveness in the context of the game of geocaching in general. The OP asked about guidelines/rules related to a publisher [sic] going after FTF. Of course, we know that there isn't but, when considering any guidelines related to an aspect of the game I think it's important to recognize that the guidelines are universal and not just for areas where a perceived issue might exist (i.e. an area where FTF is taken seriously).

September 5, 2013

I don't think most would care about this if there weren't cash and prizes involved, but there are. The FTF chase is the real treasure hunting part of this game. Not to mention the real competition, too!

Those are pretty naive statements for this globally played game. Granted it's understandable that you may be viewing the game and the FTF aspect from the local perspective but the fact is that the FTF chase is not universal, and in most places in the world the FTF game just does not exist. FTF, as a fact, happens but there isn't any real competition.

Now who's making naive statements? Please refrain from personal attacks as those will likely get this thread locked.

It wasn't a personal attack. The fact is, that this game isn't playing the same way everywhere, so making universal statements about the treasure hunting part of the game, or the level of competition, just won't apply in many places. If you live in a large U.S. city with dozens of new caches being published every day and dozens if not hundreds of local geocachers ready to go look for them, it's unlikely that the game is going to be played the same way as a location which might only get a handful (if that) new caches published a year and have only 2-3 geocachers living withing a hundred miles of those caches. I *have* geocached in large U.S. cities, as well as in locations where I could count the number of caches within 100 miles on one hand. The FTF game and a competitive aspect aspect that you see in large, cache dense environments just doesn't exist in some of the countries in which I have geocached.

I would suspect that many cachers in less cache dense areas would regard their FTF's even higher than others due to their rarity.

5k · September 5, 2013

Mudfrog, I am stating what I see as the facts I see them based off of black and white words read in this thread. I see a bunch of delusional paranoid people getting their panties in a bunch...

Funniest post in the thread so far. Nice black and white facts. I'm sure your contribution will enourage mutual respect and help us come to an understanding.

If you think people are reacting that way, then that just reinforces the idea that the reviewer should avoid the FTF race to avoid making those people angry. After all, everyone supporting the reviewer keeps pointing out how unimportant FTFs are. Or is your opinion that it's OK to upset people for no good reason when you consider their position delusional?

What I find interesting is how so many seem to not understand the simple concept of "conflict of interest", or those that do, but decide that it doesn't exist because the particular interest has no value or is unimportant to them.

Conflict of interest is based solely on what could happen, even if it never has. People who find themselves in these situations typically recuse themselves so that their integrity can not be questioned going forward. This reviewer tried to do this by putting a time delay on his future FTF activities.

I'm sure this reviewer is a great guy and I'm pretty convinced that he hasn't done anything wrong, but considering his history of being aggressive in the FTF game, the moment he decided to go for a FTF without honoring his self imposed time delay, he may as well left the house wearing a T-Shirt with a big bulls-eye on the back.

9.3k · September 5, 2013

Yes, it's a combination of extreme paranoia, over inflated FTF value, and prejudging someone based on wild speculation.

No, it really isn't. It's a desire to eliminate conflict of interest, a very simple and well established principle that makes abuse impossible, hence avoiding any need to consider whether abuse is likely.

And, again, if anyone's over-inflating the FTF value here, it would be the reviewer that insists on pursuing FTFs despite the obvious conflict of interest that introduces.

Yes, it really is.

1) Extreme paranoia, in that folks are inventing immoral acts.

2 ) Over inflated FTF value, in that folks are becoming visibly upset because someone else's name is above their name on a slip of paper.

3 ) Prejudging, in that the described scenario (FTF abuse), has not been demonstrated to have occurred.

4WF nailed it on all points.

The silly notion of requiring Reviewers to give up the FTF side game is akin to punishing them based upon what a small minority of the whole believe could happen. As to conflict of interest, to make such a claim you would first need to demonstrate that the reward had some substantive value. Bragging rights in a side game not even recognized or sanctioned by Groundspeak, and the occasional trinket hardly qualify as substantive. Just because a small minority of the whole place things like this in a position of esteem does not mean that there is any realistic value involved.

If abuse ever does occur, let's address it then.

Your guilty until proven innocent ideology has no merit here.

6.5k · September 5, 2013

Based on no scientific evidence, just observations made in here and out in the field over 11 years of geocaching.

I'll wager 3000 quatloos that this issue has been discussed in this thread more in the past 4 days than anywhere else in the geocaching universe. Even by those who cling hard to the fallacy that FTF is actually worth more than bragging rights and self congratulations.

September 5, 2013

I don't think most would care about this if there weren't cash and prizes involved, but there are. The FTF chase is the real treasure hunting part of this game. Not to mention the real competition, too!

so you are telling me that after a cache gets published, and the first person finds it, it should then be archived because the game and competition is now over and that there is nothing left to find? As to the real cash and prizes, where are they and where do I sign up? I want in so the cash if its really there. If it were a real competition, then why does Groundspeak not have FTF finds in the stats on your profile page?

If there are people competing for cash and other prizes, why is this not publicized more? The reality is that only a few small groups may be doing this amungst themselves, like a football poll or betting on a race or other game. In the bigger picture, the FTF game is not officially acknowledged by Groundspeak, even though they are aware that it is played.

I guess you've never heard of an FTF prize. Here's a thread with some examples of what you've been missing.

I have heard of a FTF prize. In fact as I hide caches, I plan on giving them myself. I am not advertising the fact that my caches will have a FTF prize on the cache page. I even have a post in that thread if you did not take notice. I have heard of FTF prizes being given in the past, but have not heard of it being done more recently nor have I had been a recipient of a FTF prize. I suspect that is because the current trend seems to be towards small to nano size caches placed where ever once can find a spot to hide one. The larger caches are becoming rarer as well as the creative ones and so goes the almighty FTF prize.

Again, I have been in the game for 2 years now with 90+ caches found and only a small hand full being FTF. I have not received a prize for being FTF on any of the ones I have been FTF for, that's not what I am in the game for. I have my reasons and priorities for playing. If I happen to be FTF and get a prize, that's great, it is not an expectation. I only expect that the cache container be there and there be a log to find. Me and TB's that's a different story and discussion.

But I have said what I felt I needed to say to this point on the subject the OP has asked about. It is an entertaining read, and I will continue to follow with popcorn in hand. I'm sure I will chime in again if I feel the need to, but there is not much more I can say that hasn't been already. If you have read any of my posts and thought I was upset or bent out of shape, there is nothing I can do about that, that's on you and your perception. I can assure you that at no point was I upset or bent out of shape over anything said by any poster in this thread. I have my thoughts, views, and opinions just like anyone here, and I voiced them. Nothing more, nothing less. If you agree with me, great, if not, that's great too. Either way take what you read from all sides and come to your own conclusion.

Till my next posting, Good Day to Y'all.

Bandit1979

September 5, 2013

Conflict of interest is based solely on what could happen, even if it never has. People who find themselves in these situations typically recuse themselves so that their integrity can not be questioned going forward. This reviewer tried to do this by putting a time delay on his future FTF activities.

Ok, so "conflict of interest" I fully know and understand better than most would know... on that note and keeping it on target with the OP, If Groundspeak had any rules or regulations in regards to reviewers being FTF, then that would tell me that they officially and openly acknowledged the FTF as a real and legit part of geocaching. Under that presumption, Groundspeak, I would think, would have a way to keep track of your FTF finds, like a secret code that the CO can email to the real FTF after it was confirmed via the physical log. I would think, again, that Groundspeak would then also have a spot in your profile stats that would then keep track of your FTF numbers like they do for your smiley count, cache type counts and percentages, etc.

If this were to be the case, then I would be in a higher agreement that a reviewer going for the FTF on a cache would constitute a "conflict of interest" and would be frowned upon. I would also agree that a reviewer should not be part of the FTF game IF Groundspeak had an official stand on the FTF game, which they don't at this point in time.

September 5, 2013

I don't think most would care about this if there weren't cash and prizes involved, but there are. The FTF chase is the real treasure hunting part of this game. Not to mention the real competition, too!

so you are telling me that after a cache gets published, and the first person finds it, it should then be archived because the game and competition is now over and that there is nothing left to find? As to the real cash and prizes, where are they and where do I sign up? I want in so the cash if its really there. If it were a real competition, then why does Groundspeak not have FTF finds in the stats on your profile page?

If there are people competing for cash and other prizes, why is this not publicized more? The reality is that only a few small groups may be doing this amungst themselves, like a football poll or betting on a race or other game. In the bigger picture, the FTF game is not officially acknowledged by Groundspeak, even though they are aware that it is played.

I guess you've never heard of an FTF prize. Here's a thread with some examples of what you've been missing.

I have heard of a FTF prize. In fact as I hide caches, I plan on giving them myself. I am not advertising the fact that my caches will have a FTF prize on the cache page. I even have a post in that thread if you did not take notice. I have heard of FTF prizes being given in the past, but have not heard of it being done more recently nor have I had been a recipient of a FTF prize. I suspect that is because the current trend seems to be towards small to nano size caches placed where ever once can find a spot to hide one. The larger caches are becoming rarer as well as the creative ones and so goes the almighty FTF prize.

Again, I have been in the game for 2 years now with 90+ caches found and only a small hand full being FTF. I have not received a prize for being FTF on any of the ones I have been FTF for, that's not what I am in the game for. I have my reasons and priorities for playing. If I happen to be FTF and get a prize, that's great, it is not an expectation. I only expect that the cache container be there and there be a log to find. Me and TB's that's a different story and discussion.

But I have said what I felt I needed to say to this point on the subject the OP has asked about. It is an entertaining read, and I will continue to follow with popcorn in hand. I'm sure I will chime in again if I feel the need to, but there is not much more I can say that hasn't been already. If you have read any of my posts and thought I was upset or bent out of shape, there is nothing I can do about that, that's on you and your perception. I can assure you that at no point was I upset or bent out of shape over anything said by any poster in this thread. I have my thoughts, views, and opinions just like anyone here, and I voiced them. Nothing more, nothing less. If you agree with me, great, if not, that's great too. Either way take what you read from all sides and come to your own conclusion.

Till my next posting, Good Day to Y'all.

Bandit1979

I find it interesting to see that while you are downplaying the significance of FTF in this thread for your recent hide you felt the need to include an FTF prize (Allthough, your earlier response in this thread suggested you were not familiar with the concept, hmmm...) and edited the cache page to congratulate the FTF'ers. Seems like a lot of hoopla over such an inconsequential portion of the game! :blink:

September 5, 2013

Or is your opinion that it's OK to upset people for no good reason when you consider their position delusional?

I think its funny that some people are getting upset for no reason other than that in their mind a reviewer should be banned from getting FTF on caches, because they think there is an unfair advantage. That is my opinion and what I consider to be the delusional aspect of it all.

Let me just through this out there as some food for thought... In my area, all caches are published by New York Admin, do you know how many people could have the password to that account? I sure don't, and who's to say that that reviewer is only one person? Just for arguments sake, lets say there are 7 actual people with access to that reviewer account, who's to say that the reviewer that finds and logs the FTF on a cache is the same physical person that published that cache? Also, where again would they have an advantage have access to that account with traditional caches anyway? If you think about it, if they wanted to cheat, they would have to log into the reviewer account, gather the "super secret squirrel" info they need, then proceed to GZ to try and log the FTF. By the time they logged into the reviewer account to get the info to cheat, they are out of the FTF race. And again, a mystery or multi cache, would yield them more time to gather the needed info to cheat if they so desired to. Hence the reason Keystone said that reviewers will refrain from being FTF on these types of caches until enough time has passed to give everyone else a fair chance at them.

September 5, 2013

I find it interesting to see that while you are downplaying the significance of FTF in this thread for your recent hide you felt the need to include an FTF prize (Allthough, your earlier response in this thread suggested you were not familiar with the concept, hmmm...) and edited the cache page to congratulate the FTF'ers. Seems like a lot of hoopla over such an inconsequential portion of the game!

How did I suggest that I am not familiar with the concept? Your post that I replied to seemed to suggest that there were groups out there competing for FTF cash and prizes in a similar fashion to a game show or reality TV race like "the amazing race." I was not familiar with or heard of competitions like those which I thought you were talking about.

It is my choice to offer a FTF prize and to edit my cache page to acknowledge the person(s) that were FTF on my hide. It is after all, my cache and cache page. I play the game my way, you play it your way. There is no wrong way to play the game nor is there a right way to either. I have my reasons for what I chose to do and why and they have nothing to do with the FTF side game. Many cachers have congratulated the FTF cacher(s) on the cache page. My impression was that was a kind gesture that is done in my area, and wanted to do the same. As to offering a FTF prize, my way of saying thank you to the first person(s) that find my cache. I had heard of them being given out and opted to do so with mine.

7.5k · September 5, 2013

The thread has drifted and statements were made about the FTF game and competitiveness in the context of the game of geocaching in general. The OP asked about guidelines/rules related to a publisher [sic] going after FTF. Of course, we know that there isn't but, when considering any guidelines related to an aspect of the game I think it's important to recognize that the guidelines are universal and not just for areas where a perceived issue might exist (i.e. an area where FTF is taken seriously).

OK, thanks for explaining. Of course, in an area where no one has any interest in FTFs, it wouldn't matter if the guidelines said reviewers shouldn't take any interest in FTFs, since the reveiweres wouldn't have any interest to begin with.

3.1k · September 5, 2013

Let me just through this out there as some food for thought... In my area, all caches are published by New York Admin, do you know how many people could have the password to that account? I sure don't, and who's to say that that reviewer is only one person? Just for arguments sake, lets say there are 7 actual people with access to that reviewer account, who's to say that the reviewer that finds and logs the FTF on a cache is the same physical person that published that cache? Also, where again would they have an advantage have access to that account with traditional caches anyway? If you think about it, if they wanted to cheat, they would have to log into the reviewer account, gather the "super secret squirrel" info they need, then proceed to GZ to try and log the FTF. By the time they logged into the reviewer account to get the info to cheat, they are out of the FTF race. And again, a mystery or multi cache, would yield them more time to gather the needed info to cheat if they so desired to. Hence the reason Keystone said that reviewers will refrain from being FTF on these types of caches until enough time has passed to give everyone else a fair chance at them.

It doesn't appear that you're familiar with the review process. Volunteer Reviewers have access to the "super secret squirrel" information before the caches are published. If, in your scenario, "New York Admin_3_of_7" wanted to gain an advantage in the FTF race, then they could log on to the "New York Admin" account, gather all the helpful information about nearby caches (assuming there are some nearby caches) that are in the review queue before they are published, take advantage of that information in various ways (described earlier), and be ahead in the FTF race once "New York Admin_6_of_7" publishes the caches (traditional, mystery, or multi).

Edit to add (so there's no possible misinterpretation): I'm not even remotely suggesting that "New York Admin" actually would act unfairly in any way.

Edited September 5, 2013 by CanadianRockies

7.5k · September 5, 2013

If abuse ever does occur, let's address it then.

We avoid conflict of interest precisely because it's impossible to know whether abuse has occurred, as is the case here.

Your guilty until proven innocent ideology has no merit here.

When someone suggests a judge recuse himself from a trial because there's a clear conflict of interest, is that saying he's guilty until proven innocent?

3.1k · September 5, 2013

... If Groundspeak had any rules or regulations in regards to reviewers being FTF, then that would tell me that they officially and openly acknowledged the FTF as a real and legit part of geocaching. Under that presumption, Groundspeak, I would think, would have a way to keep track of your FTF finds, like a secret code that the CO can email to the real FTF after it was confirmed via the physical log. I would think, again, that Groundspeak would then also have a spot in your profile stats that would then keep track of your FTF numbers like they do for your smiley count, cache type counts and percentages, etc.

Why would having a company policy regarding Volunteer Reviewers' FTF behaviors (which Keystone's earlier post indicates might currently exist) mean that Groundspeak would officially and openly acknowledge that FTFs are a legitimate part of geocaching? The NCAA can have a policy regarding wagering on college sports without considering gambling to be a legitimate part of college sports.

Just like the NCAA doesn't have to keep statistics on how often its member teams end up beating Las Vegas' various closing lines, Groundspeak wouldn't have to track FTF statistics. If they decided it might help their business, however, then they could sell FTF geocoins, tee shirts, and other marketable FTF-related items.

Edited September 5, 2013 by CanadianRockies

September 5, 2013

Let me just through this out there as some food for thought... In my area, all caches are published by New York Admin, do you know how many people could have the password to that account? I sure don't, and who's to say that that reviewer is only one person? Just for arguments sake, lets say there are 7 actual people with access to that reviewer account, who's to say that the reviewer that finds and logs the FTF on a cache is the same physical person that published that cache? Also, where again would they have an advantage have access to that account with traditional caches anyway? If you think about it, if they wanted to cheat, they would have to log into the reviewer account, gather the "super secret squirrel" info they need, then proceed to GZ to try and log the FTF. By the time they logged into the reviewer account to get the info to cheat, they are out of the FTF race. And again, a mystery or multi cache, would yield them more time to gather the needed info to cheat if they so desired to. Hence the reason Keystone said that reviewers will refrain from being FTF on these types of caches until enough time has passed to give everyone else a fair chance at them.

It doesn't appear that you're familiar with the review process. Volunteer Reviewers have access to the "super secret squirrel" information before the caches are published. If, in your scenario, "New York Admin_3_of_7" wanted to gain an advantage in the FTF race, then they could log on to the "New York Admin" account, gather all the helpful information about nearby caches (assuming there are some nearby caches) that are in the review queue before they are published, take advantage of that information in various ways (described earlier), and be ahead in the FTF race once "New York Admin_6_of_7" publishes the caches (traditional, mystery, or multi).

You would be 110% correct on that, I am not a reviewer and as such totally clueless as to how the actual process works. You are familiar with the current reviewer process?

Yes I suppose what you say could happen, but since this is a thread of what if's and things that are not proven but could happen... What if caches A, B, and C that the info was gathered on because they are near reviewer 3 of 7, then since reviewer 3 of 7's last login caches X, Y, and Z are submitted. So while reviewer 3 of 7 is at work or out and about, reviewer 6 of 7 publishes cache X that happens to be across the street from reviewer 3 of 7's current location? Reviewer 3 of 7 should not try and find it even though they were just as surprised as the rest of us because they would be FTF being the closest person to it?

And that is the problem with most of the posts in this thread... mine included... it is all speculation and assumptions based on something that could happen but has been yet to be proven to actually have occurred. With the exception of one, maybe 2, we do not know exactly what info is available to the reviewer. Those of us that have submitted caches for review only know what is asked for on the cache page. On a multi and mystery they should/would be able to see the hidden coords, that we have to discover, to make sure that placements are within Groundspeak's guidelines. But we don't know how many reviewers we have for our area or where they are located. There is a lot we do not know surrounding any one reviewer or their personal life, unless you happen to know them personally.

So should we say that reviewers should not hunt geocaches in general because they have the unfair advantage of seeing the secret info, even after a cache is published? I mean whose to say a reviewer did not keep that spoiler image you provided as part of the submission or any secret info about the cache and it location you gave them before publication? That is what it will eventually come to after the FTF debate get settled.

The hypothetical situations could go on forever on this. When will it stop being about what may or may not be happening and be about what is really happening? Does anyone even know where this is an issue at? After looking at some cache related info from the OP's profile page, this is all happening in Western Australia... So now there are even more unknown variables to throw into the mix.

So unless you are a current or recent reviewer, you can not accurately say exactly what info is at the reviewer's disposal. 95% of the arguments, both for and against reviewers participation in the FTF side game, are based off of what one thinks a reviewer could or could not see or do, not what they have actually done. Only a current or recent reviewer can tell us what they have to agree to as far as conflict of interest or code of conduct goes, and that is if there is anything to agree to.

Publisher hunting FTF

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment