FTF ethics

[+Zepp914]

I tried for a FTF on Saturday, but 6 people found it before me as a group and are all co-FTFs. On their stat pages, they all count the find in their FTF list. Maybe they should count it as 1/6th FTF each. If not, I need to get on their contact list. Maybe we can get all 100+ cachers in the area to show up to each new cache at an agreed time and all get a co-FTF. Our stats would be awesome.

 

The problem there is the rock-paper-scissor contest for the free travel bug would take a hour or so.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Zepp914

[+J Grouchy]

I tried for a FTF on Saturday, but 6 people found it before me as a group and are all co-FTFs. On their stat pages, they all count the find in their FTF list. Maybe they should count it as 1/6th FTF each. If not, I need to get on their contact list. Maybe we can get all 100+ cachers in the area to show up to each new cache at an agreed time and all get a co-FTF. Our stats would be awesome.

 

The problem there is the rock-paper-scissor contest for the free travel bug would take a hour or so.

 

I honestly don't understand the whole "Co-FTF" thing. There was one instance where I ran into a cacher at a new hide. I was searching the wrong place. He helped point me in the right direction and I spotted it quickly. In that case I didn't see a problem with the "co-FTF"...but that's a rare event, in my opinion. In a group of three or more, I have no problem with folks claiming a find even if only one of them actually "found" it. It just doesn't seem logical for them all to claim FTF, though. Say that to those folks, though, and you'll just get snarky comments.

[+Zepp914]

 

I honestly don't understand the whole "Co-FTF" thing. There was one instance where I ran into a cacher at a new hide. I was searching the wrong place. He helped point me in the right direction and I spotted it quickly. In that case I didn't see a problem with the "co-FTF"...but that's a rare event, in my opinion. In a group of three or more, I have no problem with folks claiming a find even if only one of them actually "found" it. It just doesn't seem logical for them all to claim FTF, though. Say that to those folks, though, and you'll just get snarky comments.

 

My wife and I both have accounts and we go after new caches together sometimes. Some couples share an account, so they don't have to worry about that. I really don't care about being the "FTF", I just want the prize. I did put my FTFs on my profile, but I put co-FTFs next to the ones I found with her (its like Roger Maris having an asterisk).

[+kunarion]

I honestly don't understand the whole "Co-FTF" thing. There was one instance where I ran into a cacher at a new hide. I was searching the wrong place. He helped point me in the right direction and I spotted it quickly. In that case I didn't see a problem with the "co-FTF"...but that's a rare event, in my opinion. In a group of three or more, I have no problem with folks claiming a find even if only one of them actually "found" it. It just doesn't seem logical for them all to claim FTF, though. Say that to those folks, though, and you'll just get snarky comments.

Once I was the first person to find a newly placed cache (huh, I wonder if there will be a term that could be used for that contingency ). I put it back in place and left. On my way out of the location, another cacher showed up, we chatted, and I mentioned already finding it. I then left, so as not to spoil the fun. He found it and logged a "Co-FTF".

 

When people are bending the definitions all over the place, especially the definition of time, it makes the actual logs less useful. I use logs as clues to cache condition, even in decisions on whether I will go hunt a cache. The "No Reality" policy of some Geocachers makes things tough for people who need accurate info. Me, for example.

Edited December 8, 2014 by kunarion

[+dprovan]

I honestly don't understand the whole "Co-FTF" thing.

Do you have a similar problem understanding why football games are won by teams instead of by the player that kicked the winning goal?

 

Once I was the first person to find a newly placed cache (huh, I wonder if there will be a term that could be used for that contingency ). I put it back in place and left. On my way out of the location, another cacher showed up, we chatted, and I mentioned already finding it. I then left, so as not to spoil the fun. He found it and logged a "Co-FTF".

This case is entirely different. There's no logic that makes him co-FTF, and it misleads people into thinking he was searching along with you. Not that I'd care much about it.

 

I tried for a FTF on Saturday, but 6 people found it before me as a group and are all co-FTFs. On their stat pages, they all count the find in their FTF list. Maybe they should count it as 1/6th FTF each. If not, I need to get on their contact list. Maybe we can get all 100+ cachers in the area to show up to each new cache at an agreed time and all get a co-FTF.

Yep, getting on their contact list would be the way to go. If 100+ cachers regularly show up at new caches in your area, you'd have quite a friendly caching community. I've been on 20 person FTF trips, and they're fun once in a while, but I doubt anyone would get into it all the time.

 

Our stats would be awesome.

There no such thing as an FTF stat, so I don't know what you're talking about here.

[+J Grouchy]

I honestly don't understand the whole "Co-FTF" thing.

Do you have a similar problem understanding why football games are won by teams instead of by the player that kicked the winning goal?.

Faulty logic.

Yet, they have no problem crediting the individual player who actually kicks the winning goal.

 

One person is the "first" to find it. How can there be six simulaneous firsts?

[+Zepp914]

There no such thing as an FTF stat, so I don't know what you're talking about here.

 

Some people use www.mygeocachingprofile.com or some other site to make profiles for themselves with a bunch of different stats. The most common lists number of FTFs and what percentage of their finds are FTFs. I am not surprised you have never seen one as they take forever to load and who has the time or patience to read all of that info.

[+narcissa]

There no such thing as an FTF stat, so I don't know what you're talking about here.

 

Some people use www.mygeocachingprofile.com or some other site to make profiles for themselves with a bunch of different stats. The most common lists number of FTFs and what percentage of their finds are FTFs. I am not surprised you have never seen one as they take forever to load and who has the time or patience to read all of that info.

 

Since there's no consensus on what constitutes a true FTF, those "stats" have no validity and are only valuable as an item of personal interest.

[+dprovan]

One person is the "first" to find it. How can there be six simulaneous firsts?

A team of six people found the cache first, the same way an entire team of people can win a football game. Yeah, I credit the person that actually discovered the cache, too, but I still consider it a team find. In most of the cases I've been involved in, it was just the luck of the draw that determine who actually looked in the right place first. What's so special about being the one that happened to start on the north side of the bush?

 

You yourself gave an example where who was responsible for the find was blurred, I just consider it blurred in all cases, since I'm not interested in distinguishing between "helped point me in the right direction" and "looked in the wrong direction, leaving me to look in the right direction". You can if you want, but it seems like too much trouble to me.

 

Some people use www.mygeocachingprofile.com or some other site to make profiles for themselves with a bunch of different stats. The most common lists number of FTFs and what percentage of their finds are FTFs.

Sounds like a good place to keep statistics about how many people were in your FTF squads.

[+J Grouchy]

One person is the "first" to find it. How can there be six simulaneous firsts?

A team of six people found the cache first, the same way an entire team of people can win a football game. Yeah, I credit the person that actually discovered the cache, too, but I still consider it a team find. In most of the cases I've been involved in, it was just the luck of the draw that determine who actually looked in the right place first. What's so special about being the one that happened to start on the north side of the bush?

 

You yourself gave an example where who was responsible for the find was blurred, I just consider it blurred in all cases, since I'm not interested in distinguishing between "helped point me in the right direction" and "looked in the wrong direction, leaving me to look in the right direction". You can if you want, but it seems like too much trouble to me.

 

Two people, sure. A group of six, I don't buy it. What if a thousand were at GZ? Would all 1000 then claim FTF or would it THEN only be the one person to actually find the container?

I've stated elsewhere, if there's a team profile, that's one thing and counting two or four or ten people under one name is a way of giving credit to many while not giving it to any one individual. But if you have a bunch of folks out there searching, are they not actually hoping to be the one person to spot it first? Or do you believe they are looking in the hopes that everyone else there can claim to have also been the first to see it? To me, individual profiles mean one true finder.

 

Yes, on my example I technically could have stated that I was the FTF and the person with me was not. It's why I prefer to cache alone. I'd rather come by the FTF "honestly" without all the muddiness of people who have their feelings hurt if I were to say they didn't earn the FTF (as if it's a real prize or something). I could easily argue my logic, but in the end it's not worth the effort, so in that instance I claimed "co-FTF" 'cause it's not even worth debating. If I were to be in a group and someone else found it first, however, I would not even try claiming "co-FTF" because no, I was not the FIRST person to find it. If one were a true purist, they might even say they technically didn't "find" it at all because the first time they saw it it was in someone else's hands. I wouldn't go that far, though.

 

So basically, if I'm the first person to find it and you feel the need to glom onto me for some non-existent FTF credit...whatever floats your boat! I don't play that way, though.

[+PlantAKiss]

I got my second FTF yesterday! Can't log the find though. But still happy I was able to locate the cache when there were several DNFs. It was a nice change of log scenery. So congrats on your TWO FTFs! That's cool.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Two people, sure. A group of six, I don't buy it. What if a thousand were at GZ? Would all 1000 then claim FTF or would it THEN only be the one person to actually find the container?

I've stated elsewhere, if there's a team profile, that's one thing and counting two or four or ten people under one name is a way of giving credit to many while not giving it to any one individual. But if you have a bunch of folks out there searching, are they not actually hoping to be the one person to spot it first? Or do you believe they are looking in the hopes that everyone else there can claim to have also been the first to see it? To me, individual profiles mean one true finder.

 

Yes, on my example I technically could have stated that I was the FTF and the person with me was not. It's why I prefer to cache alone. I'd rather come by the FTF "honestly" without all the muddiness of people who have their feelings hurt if I were to say they didn't earn the FTF (as if it's a real prize or something). I could easily argue my logic, but in the end it's not worth the effort, so in that instance I claimed "co-FTF" 'cause it's not even worth debating. If I were to be in a group and someone else found it first, however, I would not even try claiming "co-FTF" because no, I was not the FIRST person to find it. If one were a true purist, they might even say they technically didn't "find" it at all because the first time they saw it it was in someone else's hands. I wouldn't go that far, though.

 

So basically, if I'm the first person to find it and you feel the need to glom onto me for some non-existent FTF credit...whatever floats your boat! I don't play that way, though.

 

This made me remember finding a cache with my son when he was about 13. Maybe I'm a bit hard on him, but he turned-out allright.

Found it Found it

03/17/2012

We were sitting around at a park in Dublin waiting for OPE18s practice to end (noon) and took a look at the new hides. Saw this one and thought we could squeeze it in between the soccer pickup at noon and picking his sister up at 1:00. Never expected to get a FTF, but we did at 12:40. None of that Co-FTF stuff here...Beans made the grab. Cool hide, thanks!

[+dprovan]

Two people, sure. A group of six, I don't buy it. What if a thousand were at GZ? Would all 1000 then claim FTF or would it THEN only be the one person to actually find the container?

I have to admit, as the numbers go up, I'm even less interested in the logic of your argument. 1000 people come together and organize themselves enough to consider it a group effort? Wow, they should definitely all claim FTF. At that point, worrying about who exactly touched the container first seems so unimportant I would never think about it. I don't even care that most of them won't make it to GZ for another hour after the cache is found, I still think they should claim FTF just for being in the group.

 

I think your argument is more interesting in smaller groups where the individuals are still a significant part of the situation. In those smaller groups, you can look at it one of two ways: the 6 individuals are competing for FTF or the 6 individual are working together for FTF. With the FTF at stake, it's either one gets it or all get it, it can't be huckle buckle beanstalk where all get it eventually. While I don't find the "there can only be one first" logic convincing to begin with, if I did, I'd still object to applying it because it puts the 6 people into a position where they should fight for the chance to look in the most obvious place first. Bleah.

 

But if you have a bunch of folks out there searching, are they not actually hoping to be the one person to spot it first?

Not in my experience, no. In my experience, everyone just wants the group to find it in exactly the same way the individuals in the football team want to team to win more than they want the honor of kicking the winning goal.

 

Yes, on my example I technically could have stated that I was the FTF and the person with me was not.

On the other hand, the other person could have stated that he was FTF and you were not, since he's the one that realized where it was hidden, and you just confirmed it because you were in a better position. Or the 3rd guy could have claim that since you handed it to him, and he opened it and signed in the top line, he was the FTF. Picking which of those is the "true" FTF seems silly to me, which is why I say, to heck with worrying about that, just say you all found it as a group rather than as individuals.

 

It's why I prefer to cache alone.

Well, as it happens, I prefer to cache alone, too, but when I'm with a group, I'm with the group, I'm not acting as an individual at odds with the group.

 

I'd rather come by the FTF "honestly" without all the muddiness of people who have their feelings hurt if I were to say they didn't earn the FTF (as if it's a real prize or something).

I just let them make their own decisions about whether they're FTF, I don't tell them they didn't. Seems much easier to me.

 

So basically, if I'm the first person to find it and you feel the need to glom onto me for some non-existent FTF credit...whatever floats your boat! I don't play that way, though.

Naturally I don't care how you play, I was just discussing the point because you've gone beyond saying you don't play that way to saying you don't see the logic in playing that way. I can see the logic in playing your way, I just don't find the logic convincing or the practice convenient.

[+tozainamboku]

I honestly don't understand the whole "Co-FTF" thing.

Do you have a similar problem understanding why football games are won by teams instead of by the player that kicked the winning goal?.

Faulty logic.

Yet, they have no problem crediting the individual player who actually kicks the winning goal.

 

One person is the "first" to find it. How can there be six simulaneous firsts?

There used to be the possibility for college football co-champions. I guess the new playoff format will fix that

 

Perhaps if a group oachers wishes to claim co-FTF there should be a playoff to prevent someone from getting their knickers in a twist.

[+jellis]

We have some semi new cachers in the area. Husband and wife with separate accounts. I saw one put a cache out and within 5 mins it was logged FTF by the other half. Then last night I was heading home and remembered there were new caches put out by the same cachers. I was going to snag one even though I knew the FTF was taken. But when I checked my email I saw another new one and no one logged it yet. I was less then .25 from it. So I drove over and saw someone holding the cache. It was a local cacher and he gladly shared the FTF because like me he was heading home and saw the new cache email and showed up just a few minutes before me. What he was confused about was the cache was presigned FTF from the other half of the CO, dated 2 weeks prior to the publish date.

We hung out and talked and another cacher showed up so we did a 3 way coFTF. The other half of the CO did not log a FTF on it. Oh and these new cachers only log their finds with only TFTC. But that is another pet peeve story.

[+CanadianRockies]

What he was confused about was the cache was presigned FTF from the other half of the CO, dated 2 weeks prior to the publish date.

Although it's unlikely, its possible the first half hid the cache two weeks prior to publication and gave the coordinates to the other half, who then went and found the cache. That would be a legitimate FTF, although it doesn't follow normal conventions.

 

So I drove over and saw someone holding the cache. It was a local cacher and he gladly shared the FTF because like me he was heading home and saw the new cache email and showed up just a few minutes before me.... We hung out and talked and another cacher showed up so we did a 3 way coFTF.

Claiming a co-FTF for a cache that one doesn't help search for seems odd to me.

[+K13]

I got my second FTF yesterday! Can't log the find though. But still happy I was able to locate the cache when there were several DNFs. It was a nice change of log scenery. So congrats on your TWO FTFs! That's cool.

 

Huh??? How can you not log your FTF?

[+frinklabs]

I got my second FTF yesterday! Can't log the find though. But still happy I was able to locate the cache when there were several DNFs. It was a nice change of log scenery. So congrats on your TWO FTFs! That's cool.

 

Huh??? How can you not log your FTF?

 

I believe they were FTF on the final container on a challenge cache for which they did not qualify.

 

Of course, if the Challenge Stars feature were implemented, they could log a Found It instead of a note.

[+jellis]

What he was confused about was the cache was presigned FTF from the other half of the CO, dated 2 weeks prior to the publish date.

Although it's unlikely, its possible the first half hid the cache two weeks prior to publication and gave the coordinates to the other half, who then went and found the cache. That would be a legitimate FTF, although it doesn't follow normal conventions.

 

Doesn't FTF usually mean First to find after the cache was published? What it sounds more like is they beta tested but they don't seem to know the difference between the two.

[+niraD]

Doesn't FTF usually mean First to find after the cache was published? What it sounds more like is they beta tested but they don't seem to know the difference between the two.

FTFAP means First to Find After Published (or First to Find After Publication). FTF means First to Find.

[+jellis]

Yes but in a most cases, it would still be after publication unless it was given out at event as a prize, no one else would have to coords to compete with it so it is not really a FTF. And since this is a husband and wife it still looks like beta testing.

Edited December 10, 2014 by jellis

[+wmpastor]

I tried for a FTF on Saturday, but 6 people found it before me as a group and are all co-FTFs. On their stat pages, they all count the find in their FTF list. Maybe they should count it as 1/6th FTF each. If not, I need to get on their contact list. Maybe we can get all 100+ cachers in the area to show up to each new cache at an agreed time and all get a co-FTF. Our stats would be awesome.

 

The problem there is the rock-paper-scissor contest for the free travel bug would take a hour or so.

 

I honestly don't understand the whole "Co-FTF" thing. There was one instance where I ran into a cacher at a new hide. I was searching the wrong place. He helped point me in the right direction and I spotted it quickly. In that case I didn't see a problem with the "co-FTF"...but that's a rare event, in my opinion. In a group of three or more, I have no problem with folks claiming a find even if only one of them actually "found" it. It just doesn't seem logical for them all to claim FTF, though. Say that to those folks, though, and you'll just get snarky comments.

Usually it takes time to get a group together. In the meantime a solo cacher will swoop in for the FTF. So the "problem" of many co-FTFs limits itself.

 

I have no problem with a team FTF.

Edited December 10, 2014 by wmpastor

[+wmpastor]

Yes but in a most cases, it would still be after publication unless it was given out at event as a prize, no one else would have to coords to compete with it so it is not really a FTF. And since this is a husband and wife it still looks like beta testing.

A spouse claiming FTF on the other spouse's cache looks and smells fishy. They may raise their FTF # slightly, but the price is getting a reputation as fishy cachers. And a die-hard FTF hound may leave a dead fish on their doorstep!

[+niraD]

Yes but in a most cases, it would still be after publication unless it was given out at event as a prize, no one else would have to coords to compete with it so it is not really a FTF.

You're assuming that "it is not really a FTF" unless it is a (fair?) competition. Not everyone makes that assumption.

[+jellis]

Yes but in a most cases, it would still be after publication unless it was given out at event as a prize, no one else would have to coords to compete with it so it is not really a FTF. And since this is a husband and wife it still looks like beta testing.

A spouse claiming FTF on the other spouse's cache looks and smells fishy. They may raise their FTF # slightly, but the price is getting a reputation as fishy cachers. And a die-hard FTF hound may leave a dead fish on their doorstep!

Someone must of said something to them (maybe) because another cacher who found one of theirs the FTF spot was Whited Out.

[+J Grouchy]

There used to be the possibility for college football co-champions. I guess the new playoff format will fix that

 

Perhaps if a group oachers wishes to claim co-FTF there should be a playoff to prevent someone from getting their knickers in a twist.

 

It seems like people keep trying to apply football analogies to various discussions I'm involved in these days.

Sorry, folks. Football couldn't be further from caching. It's not teams playing against each other. There is no winner or loser.

 

Two people, sure. A group of six, I don't buy it. What if a thousand were at GZ? Would all 1000 then claim FTF or would it THEN only be the one person to actually find the container?

I have to admit, as the numbers go up, I'm even less interested in the logic of your argument. 1000 people come together and organize themselves enough to consider it a group effort? Wow, they should definitely all claim FTF. At that point, worrying about who exactly touched the container first seems so unimportant I would never think about it. I don't even care that most of them won't make it to GZ for another hour after the cache is found, I still think they should claim FTF just for being in the group.

 

I think your argument is more interesting in smaller groups where the individuals are still a significant part of the situation. In those smaller groups, you can look at it one of two ways: the 6 individuals are competing for FTF or the 6 individual are working together for FTF. With the FTF at stake, it's either one gets it or all get it, it can't be huckle buckle beanstalk where all get it eventually. While I don't find the "there can only be one first" logic convincing to begin with, if I did, I'd still object to applying it because it puts the 6 people into a position where they should fight for the chance to look in the most obvious place first. Bleah.

 

But if you have a bunch of folks out there searching, are they not actually hoping to be the one person to spot it first?

Not in my experience, no. In my experience, everyone just wants the group to find it in exactly the same way the individuals in the football team want to team to win more than they want the honor of kicking the winning goal.

 

Yes, on my example I technically could have stated that I was the FTF and the person with me was not.

On the other hand, the other person could have stated that he was FTF and you were not, since he's the one that realized where it was hidden, and you just confirmed it because you were in a better position. Or the 3rd guy could have claim that since you handed it to him, and he opened it and signed in the top line, he was the FTF. Picking which of those is the "true" FTF seems silly to me, which is why I say, to heck with worrying about that, just say you all found it as a group rather than as individuals.

 

It's why I prefer to cache alone.

Well, as it happens, I prefer to cache alone, too, but when I'm with a group, I'm with the group, I'm not acting as an individual at odds with the group.

 

I'd rather come by the FTF "honestly" without all the muddiness of people who have their feelings hurt if I were to say they didn't earn the FTF (as if it's a real prize or something).

I just let them make their own decisions about whether they're FTF, I don't tell them they didn't. Seems much easier to me.

 

So basically, if I'm the first person to find it and you feel the need to glom onto me for some non-existent FTF credit...whatever floats your boat! I don't play that way, though.

Naturally I don't care how you play, I was just discussing the point because you've gone beyond saying you don't play that way to saying you don't see the logic in playing that way. I can see the logic in playing your way, I just don't find the logic convincing or the practice convenient.

 

I honestly couldn't care less if you are convinced of anything or worry about how convenient it all is for you.

To me, it could not be any more clear cut. The FIRST person to FIND the cache (and recognize it as the cache, of course) is the First to Find. It's right there in the name. It doesn't matter if five other people chose their search locations and forced that person to that particular location...he found it before they did. How is that a matter of debate? You can talk all you want about "team efforts" and "group bonding" and the like, but in the end it comes down to one set of eyes falling upon a particular object for the first time.

 

So yes...the logic, to me, is not even in question. In practice, however, one must deal with 'feelings' and pettiness and silly etiquette about claiming some imaginary prize...and THAT is what makes the whole thing inconvenient. Go along to get along and all that jazz. You'll never convince me, however, that every individual in that group isn't secretly hoping that they are the one to spot it first. Otherwise, why does anyone bother caching at all? Finding is 100% of the motivation in geocaching. It just happens to have side benefits that make the potential disappointments of not finding it worth the effort...scenic views, points of interest, historical or geographic lessons...even the act of finding a new part of town you've never been to before.

Edited December 10, 2014 by J Grouchy

[+redsox_mark]

You'll never convince me, however, that every individual in that group isn't secretly hoping that they are the one to spot it first. Otherwise, why does anyone bother caching at all? Finding is 100% of the motivation in geocaching.

 

I won't try to convince you then.

 

When I am looking for a cache, of course I want to find it. But if I am looking with others, in general my reaction when someone else in the team finds it, is "good, we found it" - not "drat, he found it first".

 

I say in general, as sometimes (just for fun) when caching with a friend we may keep score of who finds more. So in that case there will be a little "drat".. but still mostly I'll be glad we found it.

 

In an FTF case, of course only one person can actually find it first (well I guess it can be a tie if they both grab it at the same instant).

 

Most of my FTFs I've been alone. But there are two cases where I found it with others. And the "norm" in my area is that multiple people are searching together, then they share FTF "honors".

 

Case one I was with 2 friends and we set out together to find the cache. In this case we were working as a team from the start, and the expectation is whoever found it, if we were first, the FTF was shared by the 3 of us.

 

Case two I arrived at GZ, and someone was already there searching. I introduced myself. He told me where he had already looked. I said "OK, I'll look over here". Then a third person came along (we still had not found the cache). We told him where we had been looking, and he joins the hunt. As it turns out I found it - but the others contributed a lot, especially the person who had arrived first who had already checked many places.

 

In the first case, as we were all friends, if we wanted to we could make it a competition and agree only the first to actually find would "claim" FTF.

 

In the second case, where I didn't know the others, I don't think it practical to say "I'm not telling you were I've looked", or to "fight" to search the most likely locations.

 

In my Case Two, those two cachers are now good friends of mine.

 

While there aren't any FTF rules, I suggest that in a team finding situation that the person who found it first were to say "I found it first - I don't want to see you guys claiming FTF" would not be a wise thing to do. (I'm not saying you would do that.). I'm agreeing with you that FTF sharing is due to feelings and etiquette.

[+CanadianRockies]

To me, it could not be any more clear cut. The FIRST person to FIND the cache (and recognize it as the cache, of course) is the First to Find. It's right there in the name.... n the end it comes down to one set of eyes falling upon a particular object for the first time.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see "person" in the name. Even if it was in the name, FPTF still wouldn't be very clear cut.

 

What if one person spots the cache first (and recognizes it as the cache) but the cache has a field puzzle that must be solved in order to access the log? Would the spotter be the FTF or would the person who first accessed the cache?

 

And what if one person spots the cache, a second person accesses the cache, and a third person actually signs the log first? What if that third person arrived five minutes after the cache had been found and accessed?

 

What if the cache has two log sheets and a pair of finders each signs a sheet at the same time?

 

What if one person solves a desk puzzle cache, a friend joins her for the search at the final coordinates, and the friend spots the cache and signs the log first?

 

What if a pair of searchers use the Huckle-Buckle-Beanstalk method of finding the cache, one person incorrectly thinks they find the cache and calls out "Huckle-Buckle-Beanstalk," the other person actually finds the cache, and the first person doesn't announce their mistake?

 

What if a person finds the cache but opts not to sign the log? What if they upload a photo of the empty log instead?

 

What if the cache owner signs the log and claims FTF, as some do?

 

What if someone helps the cache owner hide the cache and signs the log?

 

What if the hider gives the coordinates to a friend who finds the cache and signs the log before the cache is published?

 

This list could go on and on.

[William Webb Ellis]

There used to be the possibility for college football co-champions. I guess the new playoff format will fix that

 

Perhaps if a group oachers wishes to claim co-FTF there should be a playoff to prevent someone from getting their knickers in a twist.

 

It seems like people keep trying to apply football analogies to various discussions I'm involved in these days.

Sorry, folks. Football couldn't be further from caching. It's not teams playing against each other. There is no winner or loser.

I find that football, Rugby, and even American football analogies work quite well.

[+J Grouchy]

To me, it could not be any more clear cut. The FIRST person to FIND the cache (and recognize it as the cache, of course) is the First to Find. It's right there in the name.... n the end it comes down to one set of eyes falling upon a particular object for the first time.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see "person" in the name. Even if it was in the name, FPTF still wouldn't be very clear cut.

Sorry...it's a basic concept, but may need explaining. It's not an "official" term, but "first" implies person. You are free to interpret "first" to refer to "group" or "crowd" or "antelope"...but it seems fairly obvious to me.

 

What if one person spots the cache first (and recognizes it as the cache) but the cache has a field puzzle that must be solved in order to access the log? Would the spotter be the FTF or would the person who first accessed the cache?

This is an interesting scenario, though I'm still inclined to go with whoever spotted the cache first and knew it for what it was. FTF is "first to find", after all...not "first to solve the field puzzle".

 

And what if one person spots the cache, a second person accesses the cache, and a third person actually signs the log first? What if that third person arrived five minutes after the cache had been found and accessed?

Pretty clear to me, from my previous statements, that the first person to FIND the cache is the FTF. Not the first person to open it or the first person to sign the log. Feel free to start your own FTOC and FTSL games if you like.

 

What if the cache has two log sheets and a pair of finders each signs a sheet at the same time?

Read my reply above.

 

What if one person solves a desk puzzle cache, a friend joins her for the search at the final coordinates, and the friend spots the cache and signs the log first?

Again, FTF = First to Find. Not solving, not signing, not opening, not arriving at GZ, not parking, not even the first to get the notification and read the description. As I've stated before, the first person to solve a puzzle is not always the first to find the cache. Feel free to start your own FTSP game, if you like. In some cases on my own caches, I've credited folks who have been the first to solve the puzzle. I find that to be a valid accomplishment in its own right.

 

What if a pair of searchers use the Huckle-Buckle-Beanstalk method of finding the cache, one person incorrectly thinks they find the cache and calls out "Huckle-Buckle-Beanstalk," the other person actually finds the cache, and the first person doesn't announce their mistake?

Did the first person actually find the cache? If not, well...again, it's pretty clear to me they are not the first to find it. Is that difficult to understand?

 

What if a person finds the cache but opts not to sign the log? What if they upload a photo of the empty log instead?

That's fine. Nobody ever said they had to lay claim to the imaginary title. Doesn't change the fact that they still were the first to find it. Conversely, anyone can say they were the first person to find it and even write that in their log. Doesn't make it true.

 

What if the cache owner signs the log and claims FTF, as some do?

Like I said, anyone can say ther were the first person to find it and even write that in their log. Doesn't make it true.

 

What if someone helps the cache owner hide the cache and signs the log?

Unless they were unaware of where the CO hid the cache, they did not "find" it. Read my previous two replies.

 

What if the hider gives the coordinates to a friend who finds the cache and signs the log before the cache is published?

Well, I'd say they found it first. Doesn't matter if it was before or after publication. Nobody ever said there were rules to this imaginary game. Yes, there is some semblance of implied "etiquette"...but playing an imaginary game where no official score is kept opens the game to all sorts of shenanigans.

 

This list could go on and on.

Perhaps it could...or perhaps you ran out of scenarios and just want to make it sounds like you are making some point. The only one that comes even remotely close to some shared FTF is the first one...but I would still go with finding the cache. Nobody ever made a 'rule' about it being the first person to open it and sign the log (with the caveat being that the first person actually DOES sign the log.)

Edited December 10, 2014 by J Grouchy

[+narcissa]

It's not an "official" term, but

 

This is the only thing that matters, ultimately. All the vitriol is for naught.

[+thebruce0]

Sorry, folks. Football couldn't be further from caching. It's not teams playing against each other. There is no winner or loser.

The analog is that the teams playing "against each other" (team count is irrelevant) with the 'win' being the claim to FTF. So yeah, the analog works, because one 'team' can 'win'.

 

The problem I touch below...

 

I honestly couldn't care less if you are convinced of anything or worry about how convenient it all is for you.

To me, it could not be any more clear cut. The FIRST person to FIND the cache (and recognize it as the cache, of course) is the First to Find.

So go by those rules when you want to claim a FTF. There are no rules. Others go by a different definition. There is no right or wrong. There is merely "I disagree", if the logic of the definition is sound. Even so, what does it matter to you? There is no official stat or metric. So claim it or don't, that's your choice, just as it is anyone else's.

 

You'll never convince me, however, that every individual in that group isn't secretly hoping that they are the one to spot it first.

That's completely different than every individual hoping to be the sole individual with the rights to claim FTF.

 

It's not an "official" term, but "first" implies person.

Nope, you're inferring "person" from "first".

 

Of course, if the Challenge Stars feature were implemented, they could log a Found It instead of a note.

Nice plug

 

Here's the problem with this thread / debate...

 

There is no standard, there is no objective, official definition. Arguing about how person A defines FTF against how person B defines FTF will go nowhere. Exchanging ideas and strategies? Sure. Defending your own definition of FTF? Sure. Saying other people are wrong, or saying they should not claim FTF? ...Why? Really, why? What does it matter?

If you claim ftf "legitimately", but upset someone else who thinks they got ftf (and didn't by your definition) and you care about hurting people's feelings, why fight to tell them they're wrong? If you didn't care, you'd forgo the ftf claim anyway. Let'em have it. Whatev. As soon as you starting fighting for your own definition, then you're becoming the person you decry (dare I say, a 'numbers-cacher').

 

Cache your own way. If it doesn't matter, then don't fight when someone disagrees on something entirely subjective.

 

This thread will be an endless battle, because there is no definition of "first to find" - it's even arbitrary from a grammatical standpoint. "first" and "find" have no explicit definition themselves in context. Round and round in circles we all go.

[+NeverSummer]

 

Here's the problem with this thread / debate...

 

There is no standard, there is no objective, official definition. Arguing about how person A defines FTF against how person B defines FTF will go nowhere. Exchanging ideas and strategies? Sure. Defending your own definition of FTF? Sure. Saying other people are wrong, or saying they should not claim FTF? ...Why? Really, why? What does it matter?

If you claim ftf "legitimately", but upset someone else who thinks they got ftf (and didn't by your definition) and you care about hurting people's feelings, why fight to tell them they're wrong? If you didn't care, you'd forgo the ftf claim anyway. Let'em have it. Whatev. As soon as you starting fighting for your own definition, then you're becoming the person you decry (dare I say, a 'numbers-cacher').

 

Cache your own way. If it doesn't matter, then don't fight when someone disagrees on something entirely subjective.

 

This thread will be an endless battle, because there is no definition of "first to find" - it's even arbitrary from a grammatical standpoint. "first" and "find" have no explicit definition themselves in context. Round and round in circles we all go.

 

<mic drop>

You forgot something, so I fixed it for ya

[4wheelin_fool]

FTF is a fact, not a title to be awarded by the CO, or decided upon by a group of people. It's pretty easy to define who found it first.

 

I've never seen any football game in which there were a half dozen teams playing all at once on the same field, composed of both individuals and groups of varying amounts. If several people all decide on being FTF, it's a little silly but nothing to get upset about. The egg can only be fertilized by the first finder.

Edited December 10, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+CanadianRockies]

To me, it could not be any more clear cut. The FIRST person to FIND the cache (and recognize it as the cache, of course) is the First to Find. It's right there in the name.... n the end it comes down to one set of eyes falling upon a particular object for the first time.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see "person" in the name. Even if it was in the name, FPTF still wouldn't be very clear cut.

 

Sorry...it's a basic concept, but may need explaining. It's not an "official" term, but "first" implies person. You are free to interpret "first" to refer to "group" or "crowd" or "antelope"...but it seems fairly obvious to me.

 

So, it's not "right there in the name" but rather in your interpretation of the name.

 

---

 

What if a person finds the cache but opts not to sign the log? What if they upload a photo of the empty log instead?

 

That's fine. Nobody ever said they had to lay claim to the imaginary title. Doesn't change the fact that they still were the first to find it. Conversely, anyone can say they were the first person to find it and even write that in their log. Doesn't make it true.

 

You feel the person who first spots (and recognizes) the cache is the FTF; it doesn't matter if they sign the log. But you surely can see how that makes it problematic for anyone to know if they are indeed the FTF. How do I know someone didn't spot the cache before me but simply opted not to sign the log?

 

---

 

What if the cache owner signs the log and claims FTF, as some do?

 

Like I said, anyone can say ther were the first person to find it and even write that in their log. Doesn't make it true.

 

But different people have different definitions of the word "find," which makes the issue less than "clear cut." You don't think a hider or co-hider can "find" a cache, but other people do. You apparently think spotting a cache high in a tree is a "find," while others feel you must get up there and sign the log to "find" it. You apparently think spotting a field puzzle is good enough to "find" it, but others feel you must access the log and sign it.

 

---

 

What if the hider gives the coordinates to a friend who finds the cache and signs the log before the cache is published?

 

Well, I'd say they found it first. Doesn't matter if it was before or after publication. Nobody ever said there were rules to this imaginary game. Yes, there is some semblance of implied "etiquette"...but playing an imaginary game where no official score is kept opens the game to all sorts of shenanigans.

 

There aren't any official rules to the FTF hunt, but (as you noted) there does tend to be local conventions that develop around it. If I helped a friend beta-test a cache, I wouldn't claim an FTF on it, even if I signed the log first. Most people around here would consider the next person to find the cache (and sign the log) to be the FTF.

 

While your more literal (but still not clear-cut) interpretation of FTF reduces the opportunity for shenanigans, it also pretty much eliminates any claims to FTF (since it doesn't matter if anyone signs the log). Without some sort of conventions, there really is no FTF game (which might be just fine).

 

---

 

This list could go on and on.

 

Perhaps it could...or perhaps you ran out of scenarios and just want to make it sounds like you are making some point.

 

What constitutes the "cache" that needs to be found? What if one person is the first to spot a bird house but another person is the first to open its lid and spot the Lock&Lock inside it? What if the L&L has a Bison tube inside that holds the log sheet and a third person is the first to see the Bison tube?

 

What if I'm first to see an unusual pile of sticks but my friend is the first to spot the ammo can beneath them?

 

How certain does one need to be that the object in question is indeed the cache? What if I see a suspiciously clean (95% certain) nut-and-bolt and ask my friend to check it out? Did I recognize it as a cache first or did my friend? What if it isn't so clean (5% certain) but I still ask my friend to check it out?

 

What if I don't help the cache owner hide the cache but I happen to spot them hiding it as I am walking along a trail?

 

What if, after publication, I hike out to the cache with its owner and the owner tells me exactly where to look?

 

Do I really "find" the cache if the owner tells me over the phone where exactly to look?

 

Do I really "find" the cache if the owner sends me a "spoiler" photo of the cache in its hiding place?

 

My point is that it isn't always "clear cut" what a "cache" is, what a "find" is, or what an FTF is.

Edited December 10, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+narcissa]

FTF is a fact, not a title to be awarded by the CO, or decided upon by a group of people. It's pretty easy to define who found it first.

 

I've never seen any football game in which there were a half dozen teams playing all at once on the same field, composed of both individuals and groups of varying amounts. If several people all decide on being FTF, it's a little silly but nothing to get upset about. The egg can only be fertilized by the first finder.

 

When someone scores a touchdown in football, it counts as a touchdown for the team, AND for the individual player's stats.

[+redsox_mark]

FTF is a fact, not a title to be awarded by the CO, or decided upon by a group of people. It's pretty easy to define who found it first.

 

 

"thebruce0" is probably right that debating this is pointless, but I feel the need to reply anyway..

 

In your view it is a fact with a specific definition. In many people's view, that definition is different. So the cachers involved do decide if they are to "claim FTF" in their logs or not.

 

And that doesn't matter, unless someone with one definition tries to assert it on another.

 

Say 2 cachers who don't know each other, A and B, arrive at a new cache at roughly the same time and both are looking for the cache. "A" has the view that only the first to see the cache is FTF. "B" believes if multiple people are looking together, and one finds it, they are both FTF. And let's assume both care about FTF enough that they indicate when they are FTF in their logs so they can track it.

 

Let's assume A finds it first. By their own definitions, A will believe they are FTF and log it as such. B will also log it as FTF.

 

And that is not a problem. Unless "A" sees "B's" log and contacts B to say "You aren't FTF, I am". Then there may be unnecessary drama.

[+J Grouchy]

Sorry, folks. Football couldn't be further from caching. It's not teams playing against each other. There is no winner or loser.

The analog is that the teams playing "against each other" (team count is irrelevant) with the 'win' being the claim to FTF. So yeah, the analog works, because one 'team' can 'win'.

 

The problem I touch below...

 

I honestly couldn't care less if you are convinced of anything or worry about how convenient it all is for you.

To me, it could not be any more clear cut. The FIRST person to FIND the cache (and recognize it as the cache, of course) is the First to Find.

So go by those rules when you want to claim a FTF. There are no rules. Others go by a different definition. There is no right or wrong. There is merely "I disagree", if the logic of the definition is sound. Even so, what does it matter to you? There is no official stat or metric. So claim it or don't, that's your choice, just as it is anyone else's.

 

You'll never convince me, however, that every individual in that group isn't secretly hoping that they are the one to spot it first.

That's completely different than every individual hoping to be the sole individual with the rights to claim FTF.

 

It's not an "official" term, but "first" implies person.

Nope, you're inferring "person" from "first".

 

Of course, if the Challenge Stars feature were implemented, they could log a Found It instead of a note.

Nice plug

 

Here's the problem with this thread / debate...

 

There is no standard, there is no objective, official definition. Arguing about how person A defines FTF against how person B defines FTF will go nowhere. Exchanging ideas and strategies? Sure. Defending your own definition of FTF? Sure. Saying other people are wrong, or saying they should not claim FTF? ...Why? Really, why? What does it matter?

If you claim ftf "legitimately", but upset someone else who thinks they got ftf (and didn't by your definition) and you care about hurting people's feelings, why fight to tell them they're wrong? If you didn't care, you'd forgo the ftf claim anyway. Let'em have it. Whatev. As soon as you starting fighting for your own definition, then you're becoming the person you decry (dare I say, a 'numbers-cacher').

 

Cache your own way. If it doesn't matter, then don't fight when someone disagrees on something entirely subjective.

 

This thread will be an endless battle, because there is no definition of "first to find" - it's even arbitrary from a grammatical standpoint. "first" and "find" have no explicit definition themselves in context. Round and round in circles we all go.

 

Who's battling? I'm merely clarifying the logic to folks who appear unable to understand what FTF really means.

All that logic, really, is just understanding the non-existent "rules" as I apply them to my understanding of the non-existent game.

 

And holy cow I'm so tired of the "play it how you want" line.

 

But I digress...

 

So all my explanatory words were just that - words. In practice it all goes out the window because then peoples' feelings get in the way and then there's all manner of butthurt when you tell the person you ran into a GZ that no, they did not technically find it first, therefore they are not a "co-FTF". As I stated before, it's just not worth going into explanations in the real world. I have no issue explaining how I see it online, though. I really don't see how it could really be vague or unclear. With very few (if any) exceptions, one person see it first, so THEY are FTF. Whether it's publicly claimed that way or not is completely irrelevant.

[+J Grouchy]

What constitutes the "cache" that needs to be found? What if one person is the first to spot a bird house but another person is the first to open its lid and spot the Lock&Lock inside it? What if the L&L has a Bison tube inside that holds the log sheet and a third person is the first to see the Bison tube?

Clear to me that the birdhouse contains the log, therefore the first person to see the birdhouse is the FTF. I mean, what if the log is in a baggie inside another baggie inside another baggie inside a lock and lock? Are you now going to ask which one is the cache container? How - other than quality - is the baggie not a valid container while the lock and lock is?

 

What if I'm first to see an unusual pile of sticks but my friend is the first to spot the ammo can beneath them?

The friend sees the cache. How is that scenario any different than one person pointing to a lamp skirt and a second person lifting it to find the cache? It's not.

 

How certain does one need to be that the object in question is indeed the cache? What if I see a suspiciously clean (95% certain) nut-and-bolt and ask my friend to check it out? Did I recognize it as a cache first or did my friend? What if it isn't so clean (5% certain) but I still ask my friend to check it out?

You saw it first and something about it made you request the other person check it...therefore you found it first. I mean...honestly, are you going for some "gotcha" scenario here? This is getting old.

 

What if I don't help the cache owner hide the cache but I happen to spot them hiding it as I am walking along a trail?

This is silly. If they are in the act of hiding it, then it was not in its final "hide" state...therefore you didn't "find" it as FTF.

 

What if, after publication, I hike out to the cache with its owner and the owner tells me exactly where to look?

You found it. Why not? How many times have people been stumped, did the old "PAF" and found the cache.

 

Do I really "find" the cache if the owner tells me over the phone where exactly to look?

See previous reply

 

Do I really "find" the cache if the owner sends me a "spoiler" photo of the cache in its hiding place?

Why not? See previous reply.

 

My point is that it isn't always "clear cut" what a "cache" is, what a "find" is, or what an FTF is.

See pretty clear cut to me that you are making my point for me. The FTF side game is so many different things to so many different people...which is why Groundspeak wisely chose not to make it an official thing. You've just described I don't know how many different ways folks would get into knicker-twisting arguments.

 

Again, I write all those points with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek...not because I'm lying and don't believe the logic of it, but because people seem bent on justifying their claims to some false prize. It's all rather ridiculous.

Edited December 10, 2014 by J Grouchy

[+thebruce0]

Who's battling? I'm merely clarifying the logic to folks who appear unable to understand what FTF really means.

That's battling.

[+thebruce0]

Who's battling? I'm merely clarifying the logic to folks who appear unable to understand what FTF really means.

That's battling.

 

Again, I write all those points with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek...not because I'm lying and don't believe the logic of it, but because people seem bent on justifying their claims to some false prize. It's all rather ridiculous.

...as is telling people that theirs is a false prize.

Let them have it. Doesn't take anything from you. Who cares. Let it go... Let it goooooo...

[+J Grouchy]

Who's battling? I'm merely clarifying the logic to folks who appear unable to understand what FTF really means.

That's battling.

 

Again, I write all those points with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek...not because I'm lying and don't believe the logic of it, but because people seem bent on justifying their claims to some false prize. It's all rather ridiculous.

...as is telling people that theirs is a false prize.

Let them have it. Doesn't take anything from you. Who cares. Let it go... Let it goooooo...

 

Why are you battling? Let it go, bruce. I think you presume to step in and sweep away any opposition in every thread you get involved in as if you are the very Voice of Reason.

 

As I've already stated more times than I remember, people can log a cache however they choose. They can claim FTF if they are not the FTF. They can claim 21st to find if they are actually the 30th to find. Go crazy! Someone helping hide a cache can claim 0.5th to find if they so choose.

 

None of that changes the fact that one person saw the cache first (or maybe felt it first if it's not visible or a blind person locates it). To me, FTF is not about opening or signing or solving.

 

And again I'm in the position of explaining something that should be obvious to anyone.

[+thebruce0]

I think you presume to step in and sweep away any opposition in every thread you get involved in as if you are the very Voice of Reason.

Will you condemn anyone else who happens to attempt to be a voice of reason in a very angst-ridden thread?

If there's something objective to debate, debate, for purposes for clarity, correction, or decision-making.

Telling people who have a different opinion that they are wrong is pointless, and angst-inducing. Thus, my comment.

 

There is so much frustration in this thread. For absolutely no good reason.

 

They can claim FTF if they are not the FTF.

They feel they are FTF. So why do you continue to insist they are not? They're not to you. Let it go at that. Stop trying to tell them they're not. That's different than simply explaining by what definition you go by and accepting that someone else has a different definition.

 

None of that changes the fact that one person saw the cache first (or maybe felt it first if it's not visible or a blind person locates it). To me, FTF is not about opening or signing or solving.

By that definition, yes. So, play by that definition. Someone else has a different definition of "FTF". Therefore they claimed that FTF. You can't say they weren't that FTF. You see where this goes in circles? Anyone disagreeing, without explicitly making known that it's their own definition, leads the way for more "No! You're wrong on the internet!". So, this thread will be endless as long as someone keeps saying "but that's not an FTF!"

 

FTF is a label applied to an arbitrary concept. There is no objective definition by which to say anyone is right or wrong. Groundspeak has purposefully taken that stance.

Edited December 10, 2014 by thebruce0

[+tozainamboku]

FTF is a fact, not a title to be awarded by the CO, or decided upon by a group of people. It's pretty easy to define who found it first.

 

I've never seen any football game in which there were a half dozen teams playing all at once on the same field, composed of both individuals and groups of varying amounts. If several people all decide on being FTF, it's a little silly but nothing to get upset about. The egg can only be fertilized by the first finder.

 

When someone scores a touchdown in football, it counts as a touchdown for the team, AND for the individual player's stats.

The analogy I gave had nothing to do with touchdowns, or even teams vs. individual. It had to do with the US College championship. (I can excuse a Canadian for not knowing this).

 

For many years there was no "official" US College Football champion. Instead there were several polls (coach's poll, sports-writer's poll, etc.) The team that finished number one in the polls would claim to be the champion. But sometimes the different polls had a different number one, or even sometimes two teams got the same numer of votes in a poll and there was a tie for number one. In these years there were co-champions. Then a group of organizations that sponsored various 'bowl' games at year's end, decided that every year one of their games would be the "championship" game. Using an esoteric ranking system, the number one and number two teams would play each other for the championship. But this system proved controversial. Often a team that was number three would have an outstanding performance in another bowl game against a team that earlier in the year had defeated the number two team. And the number two team would eek out a victory over number one with sloppy play. That number three team would them claim that they really should be the College Football champions.

 

This year, the US colleges have start a new system where a commitee picks the top four team and these four will play in a tournament to determine the "champion". Everyone will now agree on who the "champion" is. Yeah, right.

 

So like US College Football, FTF depends on how you define it. The literalist are likely going to stick to their guns and insist that everyone must understand this term using dictionary defintions of "First" and "Find". Others will define find based on their understanding of when you can log a "find" online. Some will view FTF as a competition that begins when the cache is published and the notification goes out. They might even wish to go further and only count finds that got no extra help from the cache owner. Still others will view this simply an event to share with all the cachers who showed up at GZ to look for the cache. There is no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy for being FTF (OK, sometimes a cache owner leaves a FTF prize in the cache or adds the FTF name to the cache page), but it sure is fun to watch people get their knickers in a twist over it.

Edited December 10, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+narcissa]

The analogy I gave had nothing to do with touchdowns, or even teams vs. individual. It had to do with the US College championship.

 

Okay, but for us humans it's fun to interject this ridiculous thread with meaningless analogies that don't help.

[+CanadianRockies]

duplicate post

Edited December 11, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+CanadianRockies]

duplicate post

Edited December 11, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+CanadianRockies]

What constitutes the "cache" that needs to be found? What if one person is the first to spot a bird house but another person is the first to open its lid and spot the Lock&Lock inside it? What if the L&L has a Bison tube inside that holds the log sheet and a third person is the first to see the Bison tube?

 

Clear to me that the birdhouse contains the log, therefore the first person to see the birdhouse is the FTF. I mean, what if the log is in a baggie inside another baggie inside another baggie inside a lock and lock? Are you now going to ask which one is the cache container? How - other than quality - is the baggie not a valid container while the lock and lock is?

 

Your definition of a cache doesn't necessarily match other people's definitions. Someone else might clearly see the bird house as being camouflage for the cache container (i.e., the Lock&Lock).

 

What if the Lock&Lock inside the bird house contained two Bison tubes -- one with the log sheet and one simply a decoy? What if it contained 99 decoy Bison tubes? Is the first person to see the bird house the FTF? The first person to see all the Bison tubes? Or the first person who opens the Bison tube with the log sheet?

 

And how exactly do you determine who saw the bird house first? Is it the first person who announces they saw it? That person might not be the first person to see the "cache" and realize it might be the "cache."

 

---

 

What if I'm first to see an unusual pile of sticks but my friend is the first to spot the ammo can beneath them?

 

The friend sees the cache. How is that scenario any different than one person pointing to a lamp skirt and a second person lifting it to find the cache? It's not.

 

But the lamp skirt contains the log in the same sense that the bird house contains the log. Does it matter to your definition of "cache" whether the camouflage is made by the cache owner? If so, then what if the cache owner made use of a pre-existing bird house?

 

---

 

How certain does one need to be that the object in question is indeed the cache? What if I see a suspiciously clean (95% certain) nut-and-bolt and ask my friend to check it out? Did I recognize it as a cache first or did my friend? What if it isn't so clean (5% certain) but I still ask my friend to check it out?

 

You saw it first and something about it made you request the other person check it...therefore you found it first. I mean...honestly, are you going for some "gotcha" scenario here?

 

So, if I'm caching with you and want to be FTF, I should say, "I think the cache is a fake bolt. I see 20 bolts, any one of which has a 5 percent chance of being the cache. Why don't you check the 10 bolts over there while I check the 10 over here." Then, regardless of who "finds" the actual cache, I'm the FTF because I saw the bolts first and realized one of them was the cache.

 

No gotcha scenarios. I'm simply showing that the world isn't as black-and-white as you imagine. There are many shades of gray as well as a rainbow of colors.

 

---

 

What if, after publication, I hike out to the cache with its owner and the owner tells me exactly where to look?

 

You found it. Why not? How many times have people been stumped, did the old "PAF" and found the cache.

 

So if I'm with the owner when they hide the cache, then I didn't "find" the cache. But if the hider returns with me and points out the cache, then I did "find" it. How odd.

 

---

 

My point is that it isn't always "clear cut" what a "cache" is, what a "find" is, or what an FTF is.

 

See pretty clear cut to me that you are making my point for me. The FTF side game is so many different things to so many different people...which is why Groundspeak wisely chose not to make it an official thing. You've just described I don't know how many different ways folks would get into knicker-twisting arguments.

 

Again, my point is that it isn't always "clear cut" what a "cache" is, what a "find" is, or what an FTF is. Different people define these concepts differently. You've created your own set of "rules" for what you consider to be "caches," "finds," and "FTFs." Other people create their own sets of rules. They often don't match.

 

Another way of saying that is, "The FTF side game is so many different things to so many different people." So, maybe we're in agreement after all.

Edited December 11, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+dprovan]

Sorry...it's a basic concept, but may need explaining. It's not an "official" term, but "first" implies person. You are free to interpret "first" to refer to "group" or "crowd" or "antelope"...but it seems fairly obvious to me.

This is the bottom line. Saying that "first" implies "person" strikes me as entirely arbitrary, supported by neither the English language nor geocaching custom, yet you consider it beyond question.

[+NeverSummer]

I feel like I've seen this all before...it always ends this way, and with me sitting back in comfort with my opinion: It really doesn't matter.

 

This type of overheated rhetoric is what really helps put it in perspective why Groundspeak does nothing more than just mention the "FTF" race in general terms. Everyone plays differently, and it really changes with regions and with personalities, yadda yadda.

 

If I'm "first", I note it on a bookmark list called "Primary Confirmation of Existence", and let it go. If there isn't a name on the logbook, I call that "first". That's all. There isn't an award, there isn't a statistic on our profiles, and there is nothing to back up any specific point of view.

 

That is, until people bring it up on the forums and argue semantics and dictionary definitions. All for what? A side game? Meh, I've got my popcorn at the ready every time this comes up.