FTF only after publish?

[+sbell111]

So my "rules" on claiming FTF are my own and fairly loose...but to me that third example is just getting ridiculous. If I were in the group and I was actually the person who found it, I'd probably take issue with others trying to claim FTF...but I probably wouldn't really MAKE an issue of it. It's one thing to think a certain way about it...another thing entirely to get in a debate or argument about which one of you can put those three letters in their log. All this is to say that no, it does not really matter...but don't be surprised when you discover that it really DOES matter to some people.

 

I know people taht go with the hiders, when they are hidding, and claim the FTF.

I know people that don´t even go with the hider, just sign the logbook at home before placing, and they claim FTF.

I know people that have a stamp from other geocachers and stamp the logbook before placing, and they claim the FTF.

 

So... Put your own rules or guidelines in your profile so others know how do you geocache because the FTF game is not part of the Geocaching.com game!

I would say that all of those are examples of cache owners who think the FTF game is dumb and is basically taking their caches out of it.

[+JPreto]

I know people taht go with the hiders, when they are hidding, and claim the FTF.

I know people that don´t even go with the hider, just sign the logbook at home before placing, and they claim FTF.

I know people that have a stamp from other geocachers and stamp the logbook before placing, and they claim the FTF.

 

So... Put your own rules or guidelines in your profile so others know how do you geocache because the FTF game is not part of the Geocaching.com game!

I would say that all of those are examples of cache owners who think the FTF game is dumb and is basically taking their caches out of it.

I actually consider that COs have friends or relatives that like the FTF game and this is just a great chance to have yet another FTF!!!! We really think differently...

[+sbell111]

I guess I would wonder why others would feel the intense NEED to claim an FTF on something they didn't even find. Not even necessarily just an FTF...but any find at all.

Because they care about numbers more than they care about being called cheaters?

You are very, very quick to call people cheaters. If my wife and I go to find a cache and we both sign the logbook and we both log our finds online, both of those find logs are valid.

 

If at ground zero, we agree that I'll look left and she looks right, regardless of who spots the container first, we found it as a team. As such, it is not inappropriate to have a co-FTF, if we cared about such things.

[+sbell111]

I know people taht go with the hiders, when they are hidding, and claim the FTF.

I know people that don´t even go with the hider, just sign the logbook at home before placing, and they claim FTF.

I know people that have a stamp from other geocachers and stamp the logbook before placing, and they claim the FTF.

 

So... Put your own rules or guidelines in your profile so others know how do you geocache because the FTF game is not part of the Geocaching.com game!

I would say that all of those are examples of cache owners who think the FTF game is dumb and is basically taking their caches out of it.

I actually consider that COs have friends or relatives that like the FTF game and this is just a great chance to have yet another FTF!!!! We really think differently...

Yes. You seem to see everyone else as a problem and I don't.

Edited September 2, 2014 by sbell111

[+narcissa]

I actually consider that COs have friends or relatives that like the FTF game and this is just a great chance to have yet another FTF!!!! We really think differently...

 

It's a side game with no established rules. Decide for yourself what constitutes a true FTF, and stick to it.

[+dprovan]

I guess what would maybe slightly bother me is if I spent the effort, made a find where nobody else was even looking and then five other people wrote in their log that they were FTF.

I have to admit, I've never cached with any sandbaggers. (Well, I suppose it happens in the occasional Venona mob retrieval where there literally aren't enough places to look for all the people that are there. When there are 25 people "looking", I don't mind some of them staying on the paved path to chat instead of diving into the bushes.) But if I ran into sandbaggers, I'd be fine with them claiming that their presence supplied necessary moral support required to make the FTF. The main thing is that what they claim doesn't change the value of the FTF to me the least little bit, so it's unimportant what they claim.

 

I guess I would wonder why others would feel the intense NEED to claim an FTF on something they didn't even find. Not even necessarily just an FTF...but any find at all.

How are you determining that it's an intense need? I assume they just feel that their participation is simply a fact that they're reporting. Most likely, they aren't aware that you're bothered by it, and, if they were, they'd be puzzled by your intense need to be the only one that claims FTF.

 

If I continue following your logic, then they shouldn't even claim the find, let alone the FTF, and, furthermore, they can never come back to find it for themselves, since now they know where it is. I don't mind you playing that way, but I'm neither puzzled nor bothered by the fact that no one else plays that way. It makes more sense to me for them to say they found it because they were in the group, and consequently it makes more sense to me for them to claim they were FTF along with everyone else in the group.

[+kunarion]

It's a side game with no established rules. Decide for yourself what constitutes a true FTF, and stick to it.

My caches tend to be in place for weeks, but with no log, empty until I'm ready to activate them. When it's ready to go, I place the log and an FTF Certificate, then submit the cache for review. During the time from submitting the cache to it becoming active, it's possible for anyone to find, sign, and get the document. That time is usually less than 30 minutes. We have an excellent reviewer in these parts!

 

 

I'd assume these certificates are then notarized and a copy is left with the proper officials and kept on file. And then the original is put in a lovely frame and displayed proudly. It's a pretty big deal.

[+J Grouchy]

If I continue following your logic, then they shouldn't even claim the find, let alone the FTF, and, furthermore, they can never come back to find it for themselves, since now they know where it is. I don't mind you playing that way, but I'm neither puzzled nor bothered by the fact that no one else plays that way. It makes more sense to me for them to say they found it because they were in the group, and consequently it makes more sense to me for them to claim they were FTF along with everyone else in the group.

 

Non sequitur.

[+wmpastor]

So my "rules" on claiming FTF are my own and fairly loose...but to me that third example is just getting ridiculous. If I were in the group and I was actually the person who found it, I'd probably take issue with others trying to claim FTF...but I probably wouldn't really MAKE an issue of it. It's one thing to think a certain way about it...another thing entirely to get in a debate or argument about which one of you can put those three letters in their log. All this is to say that no, it does not really matter...but don't be surprised when you discover that it really DOES matter to some people.

 

I know people taht go with the hiders, when they are hidding, and claim the FTF.

I know people that don´t even go with the hider, just sign the logbook at home before placing, and they claim FTF.

I know people that have a stamp from other geocachers and stamp the logbook before placing, and they claim the FTF.

 

So... Put your own rules or guidelines in your profile so others know how do you geocache because the FTF game is not part of the Geocaching.com game!

I would say that all of those are examples of cache owners who think the FTF game is dumb and is basically taking their caches out of it.

Some people see the FTF game as a fun "extra" in the game. In my area, it's a nice addition to the game, with nobody too serious or too cutthroat. Friendly rivalry. I think a CO who "takes their cache out of the FTF game" because of the CO'S views is a spoilsport.

[+GeoBain]

The FTF game is usually an opportunity for unofficial mini events around here.

[team tisri]

I define a geocache as a container hidden with the intent that others will find it using gps coordinates. publishing on a website is irrelevent.

 

And if nobody finds it, it's garbage. If one person finds it accidentally without GPS usage, it's not really a geocache.

 

So does it cease to be garbage if it's listed on a web site, even if nobody finds it?

[+wmpastor]

I define a geocache as a container hidden with the intent that others will find it using gps coordinates. publishing on a website is irrelevent.

 

And if nobody finds it, it's garbage. If one person finds it accidentally without GPS usage, it's not really a geocache.

 

So does it cease to be garbage if it's listed on a web site, even if nobody finds it?

Let's transfer this to the philosophy forum. And btw, how many angels can stand on the head of a pin?!

 

And btw, 4w, I did find a published cache w/o gps. It was a LPC, & the sat view image of the parking lot was all I needed. But I guess since my find was not "accidental," the cache was still a "cache" & I can keep my smiley!

Edited September 3, 2014 by wmpastor

[+NeverSummer]

Since there are no rules/guidelines on the FTF side-game, either/or both of you can claim it.

First post. Succinct. Accurate.

Leave the nuance and discussion between individual cachers, or caching communities that seem to create their own "rules". There are no guidelines for "the FTF game", as it isn't a sanctioned "game" by Groundspeak.

 

You found it first, even before publication? Then you found it first. It's all up to you how you want to represent the find. It is, at its core, nothing more than another find. You (or others) happened to be "first" to find it. If you race other people, great. If there is a prize for the FTF, great--take it. But this first post on this thread accurately sums up the same answer for this "problem" each time it comes up.

[+Alkhalikoi]

I have a rule set in mind for my own FTFs and I stick with that rule set. I suppose there are another 10 or so caches (beyond the 30 I count) where I could claim an FTF under a more lenient rule set, but I don't.

 

Choose a criteria and work off of that. I'm hardly against claiming an FTF, but the most important thing IMHO is to judge them against the same rule set so you know why you claimed it years down the road.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I guess that I will never understand how, only in geocaching, does first not mean first.

being before all others with respect to time, order, rank, importance, etc.

If you find it first, you are first. If you are there with the first, but do not find it first, then you are second! There is only one first.

"My horse was a nose behind, but he was there with the horse that won, so he should be first too!"

"The other candidate beat me by three votes, but I was right there with him. So, we are both first. We should both be mayor."

"Our team finished one game behind. We should be first too!"

No. First is first. Anyone else is second, or third, or one-hundred-twenty-fifth. There is only one first.

Only in geocaching does there appear to be more than one first.

Went hunting for an unfound cache with my caching partner. Another cacher came upon us whilst we were hunting, but sat back and watched. My caching partner's only FTF. I was second. The other cacher was third.

There is only one first! Except, it seems, in geocaching?

[+JPreto]

There is only one first! Except, it seems, in geocaching?

Great conclusion!!!! In geocaching many english words are interpreted differently, we could actually build a English-Geocaching dictionary, with example:

 

First = I was there for the FIRST time

Found it = I saw this listing online and FOUND IT great

 

I am sure you can help me with more examples!!!!

[+Ma & Pa]

There is only one first! Except, it seems, in geocaching?

 

There is a thread about the Big Bang Theory gang going geocaching

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=322612&st=0&p=5385876&fromsearch=1entry5385876

 

Here is what Sheldon thinks about claiming finds when caching as a group. So I suppose he would feel the same about everyone in a group claiming FTF

 

So the whole gang goes out geocaching and hence RobDJr's scene - Penny finds the cache the others couldn't which was right under their noses. The group goes through the stuff in the cache, and Leonard is rather dismayed at the lack of "treasure" in the cache. There is some cheap toys and a logbook, and a trackable. Then Howard says, "okay let's all sign it." Sheldon interrupts and says, "What are you doing? According to the rules you told me, the person who finds it gets to log it. Penny found it, therefore she gets to sign it. The rest of us didn't find it. We can't sign it." So Howard tries to explain that there are many ways to play, but generally how it works is that everyone present can log a "find" even though only one person actually "found" it. To which Sheldon replies, "I suppose you think that Watson, Crick and Wilkins all deserve to get the Nobel Prize for their work with DNA, then?" Howard, Leonard and Raj look at each other and Leonard says, "But Sheldon, they all did get the Nobel Prize." Sheldon says, "Yes, but that doesn't mean they all three should have!" Sheldon says, "Anyway this is a stupid sport. If I want to go all over the country looking for things other people don't want anymore (looking at the cheap toy), I'll just go to a yard sale."

 

[+thebruce0]

I guess that I will never understand how, only in geocaching, does first not mean first.

First does mean first. Yes, there is only one first.

 

But first what?

A "Find" means different things to different people.

As well established: first to see? first to touch? first to be in the vicinity? first to grab and run away with it? first to log online?

What qualifies as the "first to find"? There is no rule, no standard definition. Therefore, for yourself it can be anything you decide. Comparing to others, it is relative and community-relevant (you can enrage someone if you claim first by the same definition someone else believes they should claim first).

So... play that side-game how ya wanna play. *shrug* I believe generally speaking most people's idea of the FTF is very similar, and most people aren't insistent on strict rules. Clearly not everyone thinks that way

[+NeverSummer]

I guess that I will never understand how, only in geocaching, does first not mean first.

First does mean first. Yes, there is only one first.

 

But first what?

A "Find" means different things to different people.

As well established: first to see? first to touch? first to be in the vicinity? first to grab and run away with it? first to log online?

What qualifies as the "first to find"? There is no rule, no standard definition. Therefore, for yourself it can be anything you decide. Comparing to others, it is relative and community-relevant (you can enrage someone if you claim first by the same definition someone else believes they should claim first).

So... play that side-game how ya wanna play. *shrug* I believe generally speaking most people's idea of the FTF is very similar, and most people aren't insistent on strict rules. Clearly not everyone thinks that way

I thought a "find" was locating a cache at a location, and signing the logbook?

[+wmpastor]

I guess that I will never understand how, only in geocaching, does first not mean first.

First does mean first. Yes, there is only one first.

 

But first what?

A "Find" means different things to different people.

As well established: first to see? first to touch? first to be in the vicinity? first to grab and run away with it? first to log online?

What qualifies as the "first to find"? There is no rule, no standard definition. Therefore, for yourself it can be anything you decide. Comparing to others, it is relative and community-relevant (you can enrage someone if you claim first by the same definition someone else believes they should claim first).

So... play that side-game how ya wanna play. *shrug* I believe generally speaking most people's idea of the FTF is very similar, and most people aren't insistent on strict rules. Clearly not everyone thinks that way

I thought a "find" was locating a cache at a location, and signing the logbook?

 

Green = yes.

 

Maroon = no. Thumbs down on subjectivity.

[+thebruce0]

*sigh*

"For yourself" it certainly can be. Did you miss everything else I commented and just quote me out of context?

 

There is NO official first to find.

There is what the CO chooses to declare as FTF, if they wish, and there is what any individual cacher decides to claim as an FTF for their profile.

Your specific definition of what constitutes an FTF may be different than someone else's. As repeatedly defined in these threads: some will not claim an FTF in certain conditions even though others would allow them; some will claim an FTF in the loosest of conditions when others would deny it.

There is a generally accepted grey range of what people will consider an FTF.

If someone wants to claim an FTF because they truly believe they found it first, for whatever reason, they are allowed to do so (who will correct it?) - because there is no enforced rule. Others may disagree, obviously, but it's ultimately a difference of opinion.

 

When two people's requirements for an FTF are identical, and yet they disagree about who got it, THEN there's an issue - only one can actually be right. Even so, neither is breaking any rule were they to claim an FTF, in a log or in their profile. They both could. Who would complain? Probably both of them. Maybe the CO if they felt it was important or wants to recognize one or the other.

 

The argument over what is or is not an FTF is a pointless, angst-inducing debate with no solution, if each party is so insistent and stubborn at holding to the other person being wrong wrong wrong.

Who cares what someone else claims as an FTF? Let it go. If there's a prize, someone gets it. If not, big woop.

 

> "locating a cache at a location, and signing the logbook"

 

Sure, that's the FTF as defined by "locating a cache at a location, and signing the logbook".

What about a group? How do you define "locating"? First to spot? First to touch? What if someone joins you while you search? You may both disagree on what an FTF is. Who cares if someone claims and you disagree, or vice versa?

 

Surely you can't be serious in that you don't see how there is no definitive "rule" for the definition of an FTF on geocaching.com?

There is merely community etiquette, which is quite subjective and can change dramatically from one person to the next.

Just go caching. Have fun. Be friendly with and respectful of other cachers.

Claim an FTF by your standards if you want. If there's a prize, work it out with whoever else is there; perhaps even let that decision of who gets what determine the FTF.

 

Point: "First to Find" is vague and lacks sufficient definition to determine a standard for all geocachers. With no rule-setter, there is no rule. If the CO is the rule-setter, they make the call on the cache listing. If a cacher disagrees, they can still claim it as an FTF in their profile. So what.

Edited September 5, 2014 by thebruce0

[+narcissa]

See, this FTF in-fighting is exactly why my husband and I always let each other pre-log our caches before we place them. It just avoids all of these FTF problems.

[+wmpastor]

There is NO official first to find.

But there IS an official unofficial FTF!

 

Violate those (IMO) clear-cut community standards and you'll be viewed in the community as a charlatan, phony and perhaps a head case. It just ain't as subjective and fuzzy as some people want to make it out to be. Yeah, there are going to be a few borderline cases - about .001% of the time. The preprinted log sheets have a blank space for the FTF, marked "FTF." I have a few photos with my name in that spot. No one debated that I was, in fact, the first to find. The cache was placed, I found it, I logged it by signing, I was the first person to do so, and I was FTF. As I said, the fact that there may be a very few genuinely debatable cases doesn't change the clearly-understood rules.

[+thebruce0]

But there IS an official unofficial FTF!

 

Listen, I agree that there is a generally accepted etiquette for 'ftf'. And the logsheet with a marked "ftf" slot is essentially the CO advocating that whoever fills out that slot is considered the ftf, just as the CO can decide to recognize an FTFer (or more) on their own cache page.

But again, disputes about any ftf are entirely between geocachers. Even if someone does or does not write in the ftf slot on a logsheet, they could still claim FTF on their profile, or some other kind of FTF... and there's nothing anyone can do about it. If they don't care if people think they're "a charlatan", then what will you do about it? Absolutely nothing, because there's nothing to be done =P

 

the fact that there may be a very few genuinely debatable cases doesn't change the clearly-understood rules.

And I completely agree there is generally accepted etiquette. But that is not the point. If you want to debate that, you'll get raging threads of the people who want to say their definition, their rules, are better; while those who don't care don't care. So no, there is no point in trying to "define" the "first to find"; not until Groundspeak decides to either define it, or provide a measurable, universal metric.

 

Until then, there is no rule, no standard (and standard means a constant, regardless of popular opinion or etiquette)

[+narcissa]

There is NO official first to find.

But there IS an official unofficial FTF!

 

Violate those (IMO) clear-cut community standards and you'll be viewed in the community as a charlatan, phony and perhaps a head case. It just ain't as subjective and fuzzy as some people want to make it out to be. Yeah, there are going to be a few borderline cases - about .001% of the time. The preprinted log sheets have a blank space for the FTF, marked "FTF." I have a few photos with my name in that spot. No one debated that I was, in fact, the first to find. The cache was placed, I found it, I logged it by signing, I was the first person to do so, and I was FTF. As I said, the fact that there may be a very few genuinely debatable cases doesn't change the clearly-understood rules.

 

I dunno, in our community the head cases are the ones who run out at all hours for FTFs and then bicker about FTFs.

[+sbell111]

There is NO official first to find.

But there IS an official unofficial FTF!

 

Violate those (IMO) clear-cut community standards and you'll be viewed in the community as a charlatan, phony and perhaps a head case. It just ain't as subjective and fuzzy as some people want to make it out to be. Yeah, there are going to be a few borderline cases - about .001% of the time. The preprinted log sheets have a blank space for the FTF, marked "FTF." I have a few photos with my name in that spot. No one debated that I was, in fact, the first to find. The cache was placed, I found it, I logged it by signing, I was the first person to do so, and I was FTF. As I said, the fact that there may be a very few genuinely debatable cases doesn't change the clearly-understood rules.

Yes. You are absolutely correct that those obvious, black-and-white cases of FTF are indisputable. No one is saying that if a person gets a notification of a new cache, finds it, and signs the logbook before anyone else, that he's not FTF. The question is about those times when something else happens.

[+NeverSummer]

 

> "locating a cache at a location, and signing the logbook"

 

Sure, that's the FTF as defined by "locating a cache at a location, and signing the logbook".

What about a group? How do you define "locating"? First to spot? First to touch? What if someone joins you while you search? You may both disagree on what an FTF is. Who cares if someone claims and you disagree, or vice versa?

 

Right. Yes. Indeed. This is a prime example of how it doesn't matter, and at the same time only matters to those who believe it matters most.

 

The "FTF" hunt is entirely subjective, variable, and nuanced that we can all easily (Ha! Yeah right!) see why Groundspeak doesn't get involved in any kind of sanctioning of this side-game. Some people handle it one way, and others another way. Those same people may handle it one way by themselves, and another when with a group. Then they might handle it in another way if it is them versus someone else.

 

Again, it doesn't matter. If it gets people up in arms and upset, they should really evaluate their gameplay. People who want to get all puffed up and upset about the FTF game are the same people who I distance myself quickly from in the geocaching community. ...Again, that's how I handle it.

 

Surely you can't be serious in that you don't see how there is no definitive "rule" for the definition of an FTF on geocaching.com?

There is merely community etiquette, which is quite subjective and can change dramatically from one person to the next.

Just go caching. Have fun. Be friendly with and respectful of other cachers.

Claim an FTF by your standards if you want. If there's a prize, work it out with whoever else is there; perhaps even let that decision of who gets what determine the FTF.

 

Point: "First to Find" is vague and lacks sufficient definition to determine a standard for all geocachers. With no rule-setter, there is no rule. If the CO is the rule-setter, they make the call on the cache listing. If a cacher disagrees, they can still claim it as an FTF in their profile. So what.

 

Right. Exactly.

 

The battle we are all facing is that somehow this message of "the FTF game is a 'to each their own' side game" isn't sinking in with everyone. There isn't a consistent message that anyone can have for this side game, because it doesn't matter.

 

Once again, as I and others have said in other threads, the FTF side game was a different thing altogether years ago. When owners would have a cache published, they would sometimes include a FTF gift. As those were more and more common (at least where I played this game in Portland, Oregon on this website for the first time--apart from my original stash hunting experience elsewhere), there were more and more races once that notification hit your inbox. People would rush out and try to beat their friends to the site. As the game grew, people saw this behavior and perpetuated it. More gifts, and more racing, all by a more diverse and disconnected group of newer, local, yet unfamiliar cachers. (I was one of them for a while )

 

Add to this scenario that some cachers who had been at it for a while in an area had already mostly cleared out their neighborhood. Some had even cleared out all finds in a 5-10 mile radius of their home. So they resorted to running out the door to find a new cache before their contemporaries. Add in, once again, the new folks who would read the "FTF" entries on the caches, and they were suddenly more interested in joining in the race with those other, more prolific and well-known cachers in their area.

 

So the side game that started and a fun-loving way to get out and seek a new cache turned into a way for a new cacher to "beat" another--likely more prolific--cacher to a new cache listing. It was a fun way to meet new people, and a way to feel quite good about how fast your server sends you notifications.

 

Alas, FTF gifts are fewer and farther between, as the side game (and general game of Geocaching) has become ubiquitous across all areas. The race is still on in many places, but the way everyone plays it has been muddled by the expansion of the game itself. More new players who jump into the already-diluted FTF side-game will come to their own conclusions about how the game "should" be played. We see this all the time with "How To" questions about things like "How do I get better at FTFs?" or like here, "I found it first after a cache was published, but someone already signed the logbook. Who is FTF?"

 

The bottom line is still that the FTF side game is just for fun, and if you're not having fun, you're playing wrong. So much consternation about being the "official" FTF is just a distraction to the rest of the true game. We can all play a FTF game, but we need to be prepared for the cache owner who puts "Congrats to XXX for being FTF" on the cache page. We need to be prepared for the fact that someone might have already found the cache before you did. We need to be prepared for the fact that John Doe over there might not play the FTF side game the same way you do.

 

This is where one may find many cachers (especially on the forums) throwing their hands up and just letting this same topic get hashed out over and over with the same conclusion: The FTF "game" is a side game, and has no actual rules. Be prepared for others to play this side game differently than you, and accept the fact that someone else might "claim" to be FTF alongside of you. The world will keep spinning, and caches will keep being hidden. (Likely another nano on a bench, or a bison in a parking lot...each being hidden right now!!)

 

[+dprovan]

There is only one first! Except, it seems, in geocaching?

It is FTF, First To Find, not FITF, First Individual To Find. If I'm with a group, my group is the first to find the cache. Simple.

 

I'm OK with people that want to keep FTF to themselves even if they're with a group, and of course I'm also fine with people that don't consider themselves FTF if they're with a group when some other individual finds the physical container first.

 

What irks me a little is people thinking it's illogical to look at it any other way than as an individual achievement. I apologize to anyone who might have mistakenly concluded that me complaining about that means FTFs are somehow important to me.

[Andronicus]

There is only one first! Except, it seems, in geocaching?

It is FTF, First To Find, not FITF, First Individual To Find. If I'm with a group, my group is the first to find the cache. Simple.

 

I'm OK with people that want to keep FTF to themselves even if they're with a group, and of course I'm also fine with people that don't consider themselves FTF if they're with a group when some other individual finds the physical container first.

 

What irks me a little is people thinking it's illogical to look at it any other way than as an individual achievement. I apologize to anyone who might have mistakenly concluded that me complaining about that means FTFs are somehow important to me.

On that note, I don't care if anyone in a group wants to claim FTF when I find a cache, but I wont claim FTF if someone else in a group found it first. Infact, once my daugter and I were hunting for a FTF, and she found it first. I have never added that one to my FTF list.

[+NeverSummer]

And thus why I "keep track" of my FTFs in a bookmark list called "Primary Confirmation of Existence", not "NeverSummer's FTFs".

 

It's a way for me to keep track--for myself--of the caches where my name was first on the logbook, and I found it "first" according to how I personally "play" that game.

 

I had one time that became the straw the broke the camel's back for my FTF experiences. I got a notification, and raced some local friends out to look for the cache after the notification hit my inbox. The cache was in a dense stand of trees, and it was dark out. I arrived and started my search. As I looked, another car actually screeched to a stop at the bottom of the hill, and another cacher came lumbering up to start searching. I introduced myself, and kept looking. He went 100yds one way, and I stayed where my GPS was telling me to be. He, using his iPad, was not having the same luck as I had with my handheld GPSr. I found the cache first, while he was still trying to find it 100yds away. I let him know I had it in hand, and he came over. I had already signed the logbook, and he added his name below mine.

 

Later, after I had gone home to log my find, I notice that he claimed "FTF". I thought this odd, based on how it all went down. When I talked to this newer cacher about it via emails and in person at another event, he said that he didn't think it mattered, and that groups claim FTFs together all of the time. I mentioned that we were not a "group", and rather that I found it first, and he found it second. I also mentioned that it didn't really matter, because there was no FTF gift, and I already had added the cache to my personal list called "Primary Confirmation of Existence". He could claim a FTF if he wanted to, but I knew that how I defined the side game meant that I actually was the FTF at that cache. I later edited my log to state "co-FTF with..." and let it go. (Because it doesn't matter)

 

He played his way, I played mine. His was "new-school", and guided by perception, and my version was guided by my community's understanding--based on history, understanding, and established common practice for us in that area at that time. If another cacher wants to come along and play the FTF side game their way, so be it.

 

And that story was really the beginning of the end of me really caring at all about any sort of FTF race. Why would I bother for the heartburn when the cache was not notable, there was no reward for being first, and I had run out at night for nothing more than another tick on my "Finds" tally. "Meh," I said. And now I'm not too antsy in the pantsy to race anyone else for another cache after publication.

[+wmpastor]

Primary Confirmation of Existence

Catchy. But probably won't replace FTF.

[+MKFmly]

Went hunting for an unfound cache with my caching partner. Another cacher came upon us whilst we were hunting, but sat back and watched. My caching partner's only FTF. I was second. The other cacher was third.

Although, we agree with the general sentiment above, the situation does not always reduce to an individual accomplishment. Nor, does being first universally translate to one singular entity or person. Obviously, there are differences between a competitive and cooperative effort and an individual and team effort, and how society recognizes these respective efforts as "firsts". Geocaching spans those multiple approaches at times.

 

In the above example your caching partner was undoubtable the first to find. Were you and your partner in a competition or are you a formal or informal team? If you and your caching partner share a geocaching account how would the FTF be recognized? (i.e. who gets the credit)

 

Armstrong was undoubtedly the first man to walk on the moon, Armstrong and Aldrin were undoubtedly the first men to walk on the moon. Collins is somewhat lost to history but neither would have been first without his support, however he did not directly participate in the discrete event (walking on the moon).

 

Who was the first person to win a first tennis doubles chamionship, Stanley Cup, World Series, Superbowl, or FIFA World Cup? The achievement is not as crystal clear as generally presented above, as clearly these events are both a competitive event (two teams) and a cooperative event (within the team).

 

Unfortunately, concessions are made and semantics observed along the way to recognizing accomplishments.

There is only one first! Except, it seems, in geocaching?

True there is only one first however that does not correlate with only one person.

 

As for the OP, we don't subscribe to the "after publish", "GPS use", or any of the other silly semantic nonsense...the OP was the FTF.

 

Having said that if cachers feel the need to qualify their FTF "claims" with after publish, first to log, first in the group, or whatever we don't lose sleep over it.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

There is only one first! Except, it seems, in geocaching?

It is FTF, First To Find, not FITF, First Individual To Find. If I'm with a group, my group is the first to find the cache. Simple.

 

It's also not FAPTP (First After Publication To Find) yet there are some that will claim that First isn't really First until the cache has been published while others think FTF is actually FAHTF (First after HIdden To Find).

[+NeverSummer]

Primary Confirmation of Existence

Catchy. But probably won't replace FTF.

Har, har. Not my goal. It's just what I call it, because that's my personal philosophy about what a FTF is.

[+wmpastor]

And thus why I "keep track" of my FTFs in a bookmark list called "Primary Confirmation of Existence", not "NeverSummer's FTFs".

 

It's a way for me to keep track--for myself--of the caches where my name was first on the logbook, and I found it "first" according to how I personally "play" that game.

 

I had one time that became the straw the broke the camel's back for my FTF experiences. I got a notification, and raced some local friends out to look for the cache after the notification hit my inbox. The cache was in a dense stand of trees, and it was dark out. I arrived and started my search. As I looked, another car actually screeched to a stop at the bottom of the hill, and another cacher came lumbering up to start searching. I introduced myself, and kept looking. He went 100yds one way, and I stayed where my GPS was telling me to be. He, using his iPad, was not having the same luck as I had with my handheld GPSr. I found the cache first, while he was still trying to find it 100yds away. I let him know I had it in hand, and he came over. I had already signed the logbook, and he added his name below mine.

 

Later, after I had gone home to log my find, I notice that he claimed "FTF". I thought this odd, based on how it all went down. When I talked to this newer cacher about it via emails and in person at another event, he said that he didn't think it mattered, and that groups claim FTFs together all of the time. I mentioned that we were not a "group", and rather that I found it first, and he found it second. I also mentioned that it didn't really matter, because there was no FTF gift, and I already had added the cache to my personal list called "Primary Confirmation of Existence". He could claim a FTF if he wanted to, but I knew that how I defined the side game meant that I actually was the FTF at that cache. I later edited my log to state "co-FTF with..." and let it go. (Because it doesn't matter)

 

He played his way, I played mine. His was "new-school", and guided by perception, and my version was guided by my community's understanding--based on history, understanding, and established common practice for us in that area at that time. If another cacher wants to come along and play the FTF side game their way, so be it.

 

And that story was really the beginning of the end of me really caring at all about any sort of FTF race. Why would I bother for the heartburn when the cache was not notable, there was no reward for being first, and I had run out at night for nothing more than another tick on my "Finds" tally. "Meh," I said. And now I'm not too antsy in the pantsy to race anyone else for another cache after publication.

The boorish behavior of the n00b spoiled your experience. I arrived at GZ recently while the FTF still was signing the log. I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to suddenly create a "group find."

[+wmpastor]

There is only one first! Except, it seems, in geocaching?

It is FTF, First To Find, not FITF, First Individual To Find. If I'm with a group, my group is the first to find the cache. Simple.

 

It's also not FAPTP (First After Publication To Find) yet there are some that will claim that First isn't really First until the cache has been published while others think FTF is actually FAHTF (First after HIdden To Find).

Well said. It's really very straightforward unless someone chooses to muddy the waters.

[+thebruce0]

Places to receive recognition of a cache "FTF" (whatever that means):

1) Cache listing. Final word: Cache owner.

2) Finder profile. Final word: Finder.

3) Log history. Final word: on visibility, the cache owner (they can delete logs). If left alone, whoever reads the log history can judge for themselves, if they care.

 

Result?

Whatev...

[+wmpastor]

There is NO official first to find.

But there IS an official unofficial FTF!

 

Violate those (IMO) clear-cut community standards and you'll be viewed in the community as a charlatan, phony and perhaps a head case. It just ain't as subjective and fuzzy as some people want to make it out to be. Yeah, there are going to be a few borderline cases - about .001% of the time. The preprinted log sheets have a blank space for the FTF, marked "FTF." I have a few photos with my name in that spot. No one debated that I was, in fact, the first to find. The cache was placed, I found it, I logged it by signing, I was the first person to do so, and I was FTF. As I said, the fact that there may be a very few genuinely debatable cases doesn't change the clearly-understood rules.

 

I dunno, in our community the head cases are the ones who run out at all hours for FTFs and then bicker about FTFs.

 

Ha-ha! Yes, I'm sure that can happen.

[+wmpastor]

Places to receive recognition of a cache "FTF" (whatever that means):

1) Cache listing. Final word: Cache owner.

2) Finder profile. Final word: Finder.

3) Log history. Final word: on visibility, the cache owner (they can delete logs). If left alone, whoever reads the log history can judge for themselves, if they care.

 

Result?

Whatev...

*sigh* I guess we're not going to cure your subjectivism....

[+JPreto]

Point: "First to Find" is vague and lacks sufficient definition to determine a standard for all geocachers. With no rule-setter, there is no rule. If the CO is the rule-setter, they make the call on the cache listing. If a cacher disagrees, they can still claim it as an FTF in their profile. So what.

First is vague in geocaching and find is even vaguer (if this word exists) because for some find means placing a new cache, for other find means reaching the coordinates, for others find means not leaving home and clicking some mouse buttons...

 

Welcome to GEOCACHING game!

Edited September 6, 2014 by JPreto

[+WarNinjas]

It all depends on who I am with if I will claim the FTF. I have gone out with groups to FTF and we find it and all log a FTF. Then other times I have been with cachers who think the first to find it is the FTF and that is fine as well. I once went after some new caches and found a cacher at the first one and he had already found it. Of course I was not FTF on that one. Then we walked together down to the next one. I found it first but it was a group effort so I was fine with him also claiming FTF but he wouldn't do it.

Same with puzzles. I have gone with some and they were fine with all of us claiming a find on it whether or not we solved the puzzle and I claimed a find on those. I went out with a different group who thought you need to solve the puzzle before claiming a find so I didn't post a find until after. Some I still haven't solved or logged.

[+niraD]

Violate those (IMO) clear-cut community standards and

"The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from."

- Andrew Tanenbaum

 

The preprinted log sheets have a blank space for the FTF, marked "FTF."

They do? Really? Just a moment...

 

Nope. None of my preprinted log sheets have a space marked "FTF".

 

I'm pretty sure I've seen log sheets with spaces marked "FTF" in caches though, so I think it's fair to say that some preprinted log sheets have a space marked "FTF".

 

Sometimes, there are even multiple log sheets in a cache, with one space marked "FTF" on each log sheet. I'm not sure what that proves though.

[+wmpastor]

Violate those (IMO) clear-cut community standards and

"The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from."

- Andrew Tanenbaum

 

The preprinted log sheets have a blank space for the FTF, marked "FTF."

They do? Really? Just a moment...

 

Nope. None of my preprinted log sheets have a space marked "FTF".

 

I'm pretty sure I've seen log sheets with spaces marked "FTF" in caches though, so I think it's fair to say that some preprinted log sheets have a space marked "FTF".

 

Sometimes, there are even multiple log sheets in a cache, with one space marked "FTF" on each log sheet. I'm not sure what that proves though.

 

Yep. They do. You're just buying the wrong ones. Oh that's right - you don't believe FTF's exist.

 

[+wmpastor]

Point: "First to Find" is vague and lacks sufficient definition to determine a standard for all geocachers. With no rule-setter, there is no rule. If the CO is the rule-setter, they make the call on the cache listing. If a cacher disagrees, they can still claim it as an FTF in their profile. So what.

First is vague in geocaching and find is even vaguer (if this word exists) because for some find means placing a new cache, for other find means reaching the coordinates, for others find means not leaving home and clicking some mouse buttons...

 

Welcome to GEOCACHING game!

The word "first" has a definite meaning. It's a concept in logic, science & life. To argue that it's vague insults people's intelligence (I'm speaking to any posts, not just the above).

 

Now there *can* be discussion about *what* event or action is the relevant event to look at. With FTF, we're talking about *finding*. The concept of find is a clear concept in the game. Absolutely precise? Maybe not. But if the idea of a "find" was vague, the whole game would break down. Caching? Kablooey! Call it hiking! Or skirt-lifting.

 

Put "first" & "find" together & you have a clear concept.

 

On the FTF photo above, I signed the log maybe an hour before STF. That's fuzzy??? Anyone believe in time-travel?! On another cache, I found and signed one minute after FTF. I was STF. Anyone care to challenge the laws of physics?!

Edited September 6, 2014 by wmpastor

[+dprovan]

Put "first" & "find" together & you have a clear concept.

Well, at this point in the conversation this seems like a troll, but just in case you're sincere:

 

First WHAT To Find WHAT?

 

The general argument about the first WHAT is whether it can be a group or must be an individual. The argument could logically be extended to whether the first geocacher to find it should still be able to claim FTF even if it had previously been found by a muggle or, for that matter, a wild animal. I often cache with my lovely assistant who doesn't have a geocaching handle. If she finds it -- and she often does -- can I claim FTF or not? (I do.)

 

The general argument about the second WHAT is whether it can be a cache that hasn't been published yet, although I can imagine other arguments along those lines.

 

Furthermore, "Find" itself is debated, particularly whether it can be called a "find" just because you watched the CO hide it, or if you watched the CO hide it and came back later to sign the log, or if the CO tells you where it is, or if the CO hands it to you to sign before it was actually hidden.

 

On the FTF photo above, I signed the log maybe an hour before STF. That's fuzzy???

As has been pointed out many times, most FTF cases are clear cut.

[+Ben0w]

Over here there somewhere is a "FTF" cache. You may claim you're FTF, as long as you provide a good reason. So the list is full of "FTF in autumn", "FTF on a 4th of the month", "FTF by a cacher having a 'G' as first letter in the nickname". All valid FTF's in context of those made-up rules.

 

Feel free to make up FTF rules by yourself. However, if you're seeing FTF as a race, then "FTF after publish on site X" is a good thing to stick with since a race without competitors and identifyable start shot isn't really a race to be proud of.

 

BTW: For me, numbers don't count - stories do.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Ben0w

[+thebruce0]

Places to receive recognition of a cache "FTF" (whatever that means):

1) Cache listing. Final word: Cache owner.

2) Finder profile. Final word: Finder.

3) Log history. Final word: on visibility, the cache owner (they can delete logs). If left alone, whoever reads the log history can judge for themselves, if they care.

 

Result?

Whatev...

*sigh* I guess we're not going to cure your subjectivism....

If by subjectivism you mean my "Whatev", then yep you're right - that'll never be cured, because there are no rules, and everyone's "result" may be different. Points 1, 2 and 3 are objective, as per current rules and abilities granted by Groundspeak. So...

[+NeverSummer]

Put "first" & "find" together & you have a clear concept.

Well, at this point in the conversation this seems like a troll, but just in case you're sincere:

 

First WHAT To Find WHAT?

 

 

This reminds me of a great cache I found in Washington that encouraged every single person to log a "First to Find..." log. It was a very funny set of logs on that cache. Things like "First to find during a torrential downpour" and "First to find while not caring if I got a FTF" were the idea. Essentially, it proved that anyone can be the "first" to "find" in some subjective manner.

 

But, alas, there was only one true "first to find" on that cache, and they were certainly the first ones to go to that location, find a cache container and logbook, and sign that logbook for that cache at that location.

[+sbell111]

There is only one first! Except, it seems, in geocaching?

It is FTF, First To Find, not FITF, First Individual To Find. If I'm with a group, my group is the first to find the cache. Simple.

 

It's also not FAPTP (First After Publication To Find) yet there are some that will claim that First isn't really First until the cache has been published while others think FTF is actually FAHTF (First after HIdden To Find).

The complication is that people play a side game that I'll call 'The race'. This race begins when a notification of the new listing is received and ends when one of the racers signs the log. People that find out about the cache prior to publication fall outside of this group of racers and, therefore, are not seen as eligible to win the race.

Edited September 8, 2014 by sbell111

[+thebruce0]

Neat idea!

 

Personally, for the purposes of the public logsheet, if there's any question about FTF at GZ after the publish, I'll ask/be wary of the other person's opinion on the matter; eg shared, or legit ftf one way or the other? Otherwise, for the log, I'll claim ftf if no names on the sheet when I sign (and it's not a replacement log, of course - although sometimes I'll log FTF the new logsheet )

 

When it comes to group finds, I don't think I've ever been in a group with someone who demanded the group not log shared FTF if they were first to individually find it among the group. Even then, for me it depends on the size of the group, and how much I was actually looking (such as if the group I'm with is ahead of me and finds it before I get there, I may not log it a group ftf, but if I'm there searching and someone else does, I'll log a group ftf).

 

I just aim for clarity, because plain old "FTF" is way too vague for some people if there are other factors.