FTF but could not find logbook

[+Busy Lissy Bunch]

We have just posted a log where we said with tongue in cheek, "FTF and sign the actual logbook" on a cache that had 12 previous finds. How so?

The CO has a fantastic series and each cache contains one of her own homemade logbooks and all are brilliant hand crafted fun caches. The last cache of the series was a pencil tin with a false bottom set into concrete and covered with smiley faces. It just seemed rather odd that the logbook was a strip of paper where the first to sign had written "FTF??" so they obviously had doubts and in their log they wrote that they could not find the logbook. The tin seemed shallow so a tried the rim and found the bottom lifted revealing the expected homemade log book in a bag - a totally blank logbook. The first person had not spotted that this was a trick cache so left their own log strip which every subsequent finder signed. So we signed the logbook and then put it back in the base with the log strip tucked inside it, replaced the false bottom and then popped a note in the top to say "This is not the log, you need to look harder for the actual logbook".

We e-mailed the CO to let her know the situation on this drive-by cache near her home so she could sort it out if we had done wrong. She has answered, is happy and was happy for us to have joint FTF as the first to sign the real logbook, as she admits that she should have checked on the cache straight away but had thought that she had perhaps forgotten to leave a logbook in it.

We are happy too so what's the problem?

 

It turns out one or two of the finders in between were not happy with our log with one in particular who claims he also found the real log but chose not to sign it. As far as we are concerned we used our initiative and could see from the choice of tin and where the CO left the logbook, how she wanted the cache to be played. We have been accused of being cheats which we found very sad as we thought FTF was meant to be first to sign the logbook as left in the cache by the CO, especially on a cache where finding the actual container is only half the challenge, finding the log was the real challenge. We are not even bothered about including this one in our list of FTF, we just found it rather amusing to see so many folk fooled because the first to find the container was fooled.

 

Just posting to give everyone food for thought as never expected this reaction when the CO is happy.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Busy Lissy Bunch

[+cerberus1]

One of many reasons we no longer play the FTF side-game.

 

Maybe I wouldnt have written "you need to look harder" on the log (on a cache not ours), but definitely would've written "First to sign the original (and blank) log" online.

[+redsox_mark]

Unfortunately, FTF can cause a lot of angst when cachers disagree about what is a find or not.

 

I know of some caches like that where there is a trick to finding the log. Some people find the log and others don't (but log it as a find anyway).

 

You did well finding the log. And I see no problem with a tongue in cheek "FTF and sign the actual logbook" log.

 

But I'm also not surprised that it could wind up someone who is keen on the FTF game.

 

I find it very odd that someone else found the real log and didn't sign it. I'm not surprised at all that finders 2 through 12 signed the replacement log.. if a cacher sees a log in the cache they will assume it is the log. One could "blame" the first finder, but I assume they had no idea and really thought the log was missing.

[+Ambrosia]

I'm not sure what the cache page says, but if the CO doesn't want more of this happening in the future, she should make it clear when se has a "clever" cache. Either in the cache description or a permanent type note (maybe not something people can sign) with this statement in the container.

 

I wouldn't worry about other cacher's reactions. If one of them actually saw the real logbook and didn't sign it, then they can't expect to get high handed about it because there's no proof.

[+narcissa]

FTF is a side game with no official rules. If you feel you were FTF, then whatever you want to do on your profile or in your own stats to commemorate it as FTF is your business.

[+AustinMN]

I might reply to the upset cacher that I don't ever get that worked up over a game, and if I "cheated," what rule did I break? There are no Groundspeak rules that I know of about FTF.

 

Or I might just ignore them completely and go find more caches.

 

Austin

[+dprovan]

Yes, you're FTF. No question about that. The first finder who added the log isn't FTF, but I wouldn't be surprised or upset if they claimed they were. If I were you, I wouldn't contest their claim, but I wouldn't relinquish my own, either.

 

If I were that other person that thought they'd found it, I'd be embarrassed, but I'd also be annoyed because it sounds like there was no reason whatsoever for them to think they hadn't found the cache, so the CO really goofed up on that part of the design.

 

The people in between are interesting. They actually did find a cache, just not the one the CO hid. I consider those legitimate finds, although I recognize that as my opinion and might not hold up in court. Still, I find it delicious to think that on this cache, there were several legitimate finds that preceded the FTF.

 

I seriously doubt the guy that claims to have found the real log and didn't sign it, but even if it's true, that just means he made a really dumb mistake, and he should be kicking himself, not you.

 

Anyway, if I were in your position, I'd be assuming all the reactions were meant to be humorous -- no matter how clearly that wasn't the case -- and I'd respond with amusement and lighthearted ribbing. To me, by far the most important part of the FTF game is not taking it seriously.

[+Sagefox]

It turns out one or two of the finders in between were not happy with our log with one in particular who claims he also found the real log but chose not to sign it.

 

That is an odd response. Why would anyone choose not to sign a very cool and EMPTY logbook?

 

I don't know why you would want to claim FTF for a cache where several others have already been there and opened the container even if they didn't see the intended log. A cache container is the physical hidden object that we try to find. The log is just one proof that we were there.

 

I believe in many cases an alternate form of proof should also be accepted for the FIND and the FTF such as a note on the Found It log something like "this cache is a little different than I at first suspected" that would indicate they knew of the lower chamber.

 

Do you think the CO would delete finds for those who signed the strip of paper? If the CO considers those finds as valid then, as I see it, you don't have much of a case.

 

As far as we are concerned we used our initiative and could see from the choice of tin and where the CO left the logbook, how she wanted the cache to be played.

 

This is your reward and others now know that you were the first to be clever.

 

We have been accused of being cheats which we found very sad ...

 

Sad, indeed, that people take FTF so seriously that they lose perspective and would insult you about it.

 

as we thought FTF was meant to be first to sign the logbook.

 

I just don't see how signing the intended logbook trumps the first one to actually find the cache.

 

 

There is a similar cache near us that is a hand-built model of an outhouse with a film can for the toilet and a small L&L below for trading goods. Nearly half the people were signing pieces of paper someone put in the L&L thinking the log was missing even though there is a sign with an arrow above the toilet seat (film can lid) that says "place your log here." That CO considers all signatures as valid finds.

 

Edit for clarity.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Team Sagefox

[+Seaglass Pirates]

 

I just don't see how signing the intended logbook trumps the first one to actually find the cache

 

Quite simply a signature in the log book proves you did find the cache. Both to yourself and others and the CO. Otherwise we could search for a cache, find a bear can, sling a waterproof log in it and assume we found the cache and claim a find. This then may mislead others that this is the correct cache container.

 

As for the FTF who didn't feel like singing the log ... lol ... You are all being awfully polite. It's got whiff of horse about it.

 

Nope the person to find the actual log sheet is FTF. The cache page may have been made clearer but if I had found it but not found the actual log I would assume it was litter and carried on looking. Didn't sign the log is a DNF. Those that signed after the person putting the slip of paper in are permitted finds.

 

This is all laid out in the regs. It was posted two weeks ago - exactly this but a throwdown cache. The person throwing down is a false log. Those that sign after the fact are legitimate finds. Co responsible for removing the throwdown. Congratulations on your FTF. The other ftf'der is waffling. We know it, you know it, my cat knows it and they know it.

[+Sagefox]

...but I'd also be annoyed because it sounds like there was no reason whatsoever for them to think they hadn't found the cache,

 

The whole purpose of the second chamber is to test the cleverness of the finders and give them a FUN cache to find.

 

...so the CO really goofed up on that part of the design.

 

Nope, nope, nope! The CO made a very nice cache and the fight over FTF should hold no sway over cache design.

[+niraD]

There's a cache around here where part of the challenge is to find (and sign) the real log book. The CO makes it very clear that to log a Find, you need to find and sign the yellow log. That helps make it clear that there is more going on, and helps to limit the appearance of "replacement" log sheets. And even if someone were to leave a "replacement" log sheet, the odds are that it would use white paper rather than yellow paper, so future finders could figure out that something was wrong while still on site.

 

But in the situation described by the OP, I would have posted a Find log similar to the "FTF and sign the actual logbook" log, but wouldn't have written anything on the "replacement" log. I would have sent the CO email privately, and let the CO deal with it.

[+Sagefox]

 

I just don't see how signing the intended logbook trumps the first one to actually find the cache

 

Otherwise we could search for a cache, find a [beer] can, sling a waterproof log in it and assume we found the cache and claim a find. This then may mislead others that this is the correct cache container.

 

This is a rare occasion and in this case it sounds like the container looks intentional. In your example the problem would get likely get worked out soon after someone finds the real container. The fix would then be made by the owner or, if the CO lames out, by someone willing (like me) to remove the pretender after placing its log in the real cache. No big deal in the big picture, FTF or otherwise.

 

As for the FTF who didn't feel like singing the log ... lol ... You are all being awfully polite. It's got whiff of horse about it.

 

The non-signer was "in between" FTF and OP and was not claiming FTF. But, even so, if they had a good description of the cache or could tell me in PM what they found I would not delete their Found It.

 

Nope the person to find the actual log sheet is FTF.

 

Why would anyone feel good about claiming FTF knowing others have been there before them? Eeesssppecialllly for an FTF condition.

 

The cache page may have been made clearer but if I had found it but not found the actual log I would assume it was litter

.

 

Beer can, yes, but this container, as most are, seems to clearly be the intended item.

 

This is all laid out in the regs. It was posted two weeks ago - [not] exactly this but a throwdown cache. The person throwing down is a false log.

 

Placing a signed slip of paper in part of the intended container is not what most people would call a false log.

 

This log-signing-as-the-only-accepted-proof-of-find often gets carried too far from reality here. Would you delete the Found It of the first person to sign that slip of paper, which is inside the container, if you had placed this cache? If you did the fallout from that action would probably change your mind about doing that ever again.

 

So why sould it be any different for the FTF? Eeeesssspppecilllly for an FTF which indicates the first person to physically visit the cache.

[+Sagefox]

There's a cache around here where part of the challenge is to find (and sign) the real log book. The CO makes it very clear that to log a Find, you need to find and sign the yellow log.

 

I agree with this and would honor that requirement as a cache finder because they made it clear on the cache page. This is like the baseball caches with multiple containers where you need to find the intended home-run container.

 

I find no fault with the cache owner of the OP cache for not making it a requirement - they made a fun cache and NO FTF spat should make them feel badly about that cache.

 

Yikes! It's almost noon and I haven't done anything productive yet.

[+rjb43nh]

I believe one solution to problems like this would be to make the cache a multi. In the secret compartment in the container with the false bottom (waypoint #1) would be a slip of paper with the coordinates for the final instead of a log book. The log book you'd have to sign would be in the container for the final. Knowing the cache was a multi (from the listing), a cacher would know they'd have to find coordinates to another stage with the log book.

[+niraD]

I believe one solution to problems like this would be to make the cache a multi. In the secret compartment in the container with the false bottom (waypoint #1) would be a slip of paper with the coordinates for the final instead of a log book. The log book you'd have to sign would be in the container for the final. Knowing the cache was a multi (from the listing), a cacher would know they'd have to find coordinates to another stage with the log book.

I've seen non-final containers in multi-stage caches acquire "replacement" logs, and then later seekers sign the "replacement" logs and think they're done.

 

Thus, I've become a fan of non-container objects for non-final stages. If there is no container, if the non-final stage is a metal tag, or a rock with numbers painted on it, or a stick with numbers carved on it, then it is much less likely to acquire a "replacement" log.

[+cerberus1]

I believe one solution to problems like this would be to make the cache a multi. In the secret compartment in the container with the false bottom (waypoint #1) would be a slip of paper with the coordinates for the final instead of a log book. The log book you'd have to sign would be in the container for the final. Knowing the cache was a multi (from the listing), a cacher would know they'd have to find coordinates to another stage with the log book.

I've seen non-final containers in multi-stage caches acquire "replacement" logs, and then later seekers sign the "replacement" logs and think they're done.

 

Thus, I've become a fan of non-container objects for non-final stages. If there is no container, if the non-final stage is a metal tag, or a rock with numbers painted on it, or a stick with numbers carved on it, then it is much less likely to acquire a "replacement" log.

+1

I like multis, but don't like the "ummm, I'm not sure..." (when the CO doesn't say how many) stages that look like they could be the final.

Can't tell you how many times we couldn't find coords to next from all the sigs on a mid-stage.

Tags, etched rocks, I don't care, just not containers thanks.

Edited April 27, 2015 by cerberus1

[+dprovan]

...but I'd also be annoyed because it sounds like there was no reason whatsoever for them to think they hadn't found the cache,

The whole purpose of the second chamber is to test the cleverness of the finders and give them a FUN cache to find.

Since the outer container looked exactly like a container without a log in it, I don't see how it's cleverness that's being tested here. I certainly wouldn't find it fun to be fooled into stopping my search because I found a legitimate container without a log.

 

...so the CO really goofed up on that part of the design.

Nope, nope, nope! The CO made a very nice cache and the fight over FTF should hold no sway over cache design.

Sorry, but this has nothing to do with FTF. I'd be just as annoyed -- if not more annoyed -- to be one of those in between people that have no claim at all to FTF but are nevertheless wrong about finding the cache because of what the CO and you consider my insufficient cleverness.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

I see what you are saying Sage Fox. But if it's in the regs this surpasses opinion. You can have an opinion of the regs whether they be right or wrong etc - you can explain your personal opinion of the situation but it merits no further probing.

 

If you did not find the cache and this would be confirmed by the presence of a log you are working on assumption thereafter. It could be a throwdown. An old cache. Or perhaps litter. The log sheet confirms your assumption.

 

The regs state what is and isn't a find. To find a "possible" cache is not to confirm you have found "the" cache. The FTF non signer but placed a sheet in and signed it has created a cache based on assumption and has claimed FTF. He cannot be certain. But he has surmised/presumed/ take your pick. Walks away happy. Others were taken in by his false log sheet unawares. They hold no blame to the deception. Their logs stand. As per the regs. Well in fact it states they can be deleted but should they complain their log would probably be upheld. Rightly so.

 

The log placers find is illegitimate and to boot he has created confusion. He found the cache but assumed he had. He had no log to confirm his suspicions. So he in fact Dnfd.

 

However the CO has ultimate choice and has chosen to leave it up to them. It's happened here and the log placed has been lambasted. I would have supported the person to find the cache and log it as intended. I like getting FTF so I would support their claim to it.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

You weren't FTF. Twelve other cachers found the cache before you did.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

Just checked the OP. It states that the person who added the log was not sure. FTF??? And related this in their log online presumably. But one or two of the others (the ones in the middle is implied here) were not happy with the OP claiming FTF and are claiming they found the original log sheet but chose not to sign it. Well the middle ones have no claim on FTF. Simple. Neither does the log adder. So it's who signed the actual log sheet placed by the co. If they forgot - which has happens to us - well that's who helps the co by adding a log sheet. In this case there was a log sheet. So it's whoever signed that first.

 

The rest of my previous post stands though as far as I see it.

[knowschad]

This is a very interesting case (*if* you are one that really cares about FTF, which I am not). When I am caching, I am looking for the cache, not looking for the log. When I find the cache, I've, well... *found the cache*. If I was the first one to find it, I guess that makes me FTF. We don't talk about finding the log.

 

However... a comparison could be made to those situations where a FTF hound spots the container way up in a tree, but refuses to climb the tree to sign the log. The cacher *did* find the cache, but they did not sign the log. Most of us would have no problem throwing that "FTF" claim out.

 

I think we need Judge Judy to handle this one!

[+Roman!]

The CO would be perfectly right to delete every found it log of the cachers that did not sign the official log which means their found it is not legit thus the first person signing the official log is FTF.

[+The A-Team]

Well the middle ones have no claim on FTF. Simple. Neither does the log adder.

Actually, anyone and everyone can claim to be the FTF. Since it's unofficial, anyone can record the cache as a FTF in whatever method they choose to record such data. Whether they really were "The One, True FTF" is irrelevant. There are no universally-defined and accepted rules surrounding "The One, True FTF", so it can never be unequivocally determined anyway.

 

If the OP feels they're the FTF, then they can go ahead and pencil it in their book as a FTF.

If the cacher who found the container first and left the "replacement" log feels they're the FTF, then they can go ahead and pencil it in their book as a FTF.

If your grandmother who was never anywhere near the cache feels they're the FTF, then they can go ahead and pencil it in their book as a FTF.

 

To slightly modify Jeremy's quote:

Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" FTF was never the intent of Geocaching.com. There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find FTF.

[+Sagefox]

When I am caching, I am looking for the cache, not looking for the log. When I find the cache, I've, well... *found the cache*. If I was the first one to find it, I guess that makes me FTF.

 

We don't talk about finding the log.

 

Yep.

 

I think we need Judge Judy to handle this one!

 

 

Judge Judy: You say you were the fifth person to open that container?

 

Wants FTF: Ah, yes, your honor but see...

 

JJ: No, no. Did you say or did you not say you were the fifth person?

 

WFTF: Ah, yes, your honor but...

 

JJ: And yet you claim to be the first one to open that container?

 

WFTF: Well, not the first one but...

 

JJ: Hold on now - can you please explain to me in simple terms just how you can claim you were the first one to open that container when you admit that you were the fifth one to do so?

 

WFTF: Well, yes, it's like this...

 

JJ: Claim denied! Next case.

[+colleda]

The smart/clever/sneaky thing to do would have been to sign the real log and date it the same day as the replacement log finder then log it online with that date. The other finders would have been none the wiser.

[+SageTracey]

Just a thought - does the cache have a field puzzle attribute? If so, then I would expect to have to do something more than find the cache container, i.e. as the OP did, find the hidden log book. But if it doesn't have a field puzzle attribute, then I would be inclined to suspect that the CO had forgotten to include a log book.

 

Either way, it seems to me as though the OP had knowledge/experience of the CO's style of hiding which is why the OP thought to look harder at the container and find the hidden log book.

 

FTF? Hmm, I choose not to enter that debate!

[+wmpastor]

I'm not sure what the cache page says, but if the CO doesn't want more of this happening in the future, she should make it clear when se has a "clever" cache. Either in the cache description or a permanent type note (maybe not something people can sign) with this statement in the container.

 

I wouldn't worry about other cacher's reactions. If one of them actually saw the real logbook and didn't sign it, then they can't expect to get high handed about it because there's no proof.

Agreed that the upper compartment should have had a light (but clear) statement that it was *not* the actual cache. ("Not there yet." "Nope." "Keep looking." Etc.) I have seen and or heard about such caches, and it's a nice touch that adds to the experience.

 

The lack of such indication lead to confusion and angst instead.

 

The OP is the FTF, and the others can just go cry in their beer.

[+wmpastor]

When I am caching, I am looking for the cache, not looking for the log. When I find the cache, I've, well... *found the cache*. If I was the first one to find it, I guess that makes me FTF.

 

We don't talk about finding the log.

 

Yep.

 

I think we need Judge Judy to handle this one!

 

 

Judge Judy: You say you were the fifth person to open that container?

 

Wants FTF: Ah, yes, your honor but see...

 

JJ: No, no. Did you say or did you not say you were the fifth person?

 

WFTF: Ah, yes, your honor but...

 

JJ: And yet you claim to be the first one to open that container?

 

WFTF: Well, not the first one but...

 

JJ: Hold on now - can you please explain to me in simple terms just how you can claim you were the first one to open that container when you admit that you were the fifth one to do so?

 

WFTF: Well, yes, it's like this...

 

JJ: Claim denied! Next case.

 

I disagree with your fundamental premise. You assume that the entire unit, including the upper compartment, is the cache. I don't. In my opinion the lower, hidden compartment is the cache. FTF granted!

[knowschad]

The CO would be perfectly right to delete every found it log of the cachers that did not sign the official log which means their found it is not legit thus the first person signing the official log is FTF.

 

I'm not so sure that Groundspeak would support you on your claim. I have seen new caches hidden where the cache owner simply forgot to include a log. They found the cache, they signed a piece of paper to prove it. So what if it wasn't the paper the cache owner had intended them to sign?

[knowschad]

When I am caching, I am looking for the cache, not looking for the log. When I find the cache, I've, well... *found the cache*. If I was the first one to find it, I guess that makes me FTF.

 

We don't talk about finding the log.

 

Yep.

 

I think we need Judge Judy to handle this one!

 

 

Judge Judy: You say you were the fifth person to open that container?

 

Wants FTF: Ah, yes, your honor but see...

 

JJ: No, no. Did you say or did you not say you were the fifth person?

 

WFTF: Ah, yes, your honor but...

 

JJ: And yet you claim to be the first one to open that container?

 

WFTF: Well, not the first one but...

 

JJ: Hold on now - can you please explain to me in simple terms just how you can claim you were the first one to open that container when you admit that you were the fifth one to do so?

 

WFTF: Well, yes, it's like this...

 

JJ: Claim denied! Next case.

 

I disagree with your fundamental premise. You assume that the entire unit, including the upper compartment, is the cache. I don't. In my opinion the lower, hidden compartment is the cache. FTF granted!

 

You are reaching, Sir. That's quite a stretch... don't rip your pants stretching like that.

[+K13]

I am under the impression, having read these forums and the GS Guidelines, that a cache is a container with a log. A decoy container, while not marked as such, is not the cache.

[+niraD]

Judge Judy: You say you were the fifth person to open that container?

 

Wants FTF: Ah, yes, your honor but see...

 

JJ: No, no. Did you say or did you not say you were the fifth person?

 

WFTF: Ah, yes, your honor but...

 

JJ: And yet you claim to be the first one to open that container?

WFTF: No, your honor. I claim to be the first to find and sign the actual logbook.

 

WFTF (aside): Did she even read what I wrote?

[knowschad]

I am under the impression, having read these forums and the GS Guidelines, that a cache is a container with a log. A decoy container, while not marked as such, is not the cache.

 

Except that this was not a decoy container, and it did have a log.

 

If you are caching, and you find a container (one that is obviously a geocache) but you open it and don't see a log, do you tell your caching buddies, "Well... no log. Looks like we'll be posting a DNF"? At best, you might log a NM and no find, but I'm guessing that most (certainly most that I know) would log it as a find.

[+K13]

I am under the impression, having read these forums and the GS Guidelines, that a cache is a container with a log. A decoy container, while not marked as such, is not the cache.

 

Except that this was not a decoy container, and it did have a log.

 

If you are caching, and you find a container (one that is obviously a geocache) but you open it and don't see a log, do you tell your caching buddies, "Well... no log. Looks like we'll be posting a DNF"? At best, you might log a NM and no find, but I'm guessing that most (certainly most that I know) would log it as a find.

 

Re-read the OP. The FDNF left the strip of paper in the false cache/decoy container. Others signed that strip of paper. The OP found the cache with the custom logbook, and put that strip of paper in the custom logbook and put a note in the decoy.

[knowschad]

I am under the impression, having read these forums and the GS Guidelines, that a cache is a container with a log. A decoy container, while not marked as such, is not the cache.

 

Except that this was not a decoy container, and it did have a log.

 

If you are caching, and you find a container (one that is obviously a geocache) but you open it and don't see a log, do you tell your caching buddies, "Well... no log. Looks like we'll be posting a DNF"? At best, you might log a NM and no find, but I'm guessing that most (certainly most that I know) would log it as a find.

 

Re-read the OP. The FDNF left the strip of paper in the false cache/decoy container. Others signed that strip of paper. The OP found the cache with the custom logbook, and put that strip of paper in the custom logbook and put a note in the decoy.

 

Judge Judy... I think we need you.

[+Mudfrog]

I am under the impression, having read these forums and the GS Guidelines, that a cache is a container with a log. A decoy container, while not marked as such, is not the cache.

 

Except that this was not a decoy container, and it did have a log.

 

If you are caching, and you find a container (one that is obviously a geocache) but you open it and don't see a log, do you tell your caching buddies, "Well... no log. Looks like we'll be posting a DNF"? At best, you might log a NM and no find, but I'm guessing that most (certainly most that I know) would log it as a find.

 

Obviously a geocache? Odds are, an ammocan found at ground zero with no logbook is the cache but honestly, how can a finder be 100% sure? Could it be a decoy? Could it be that another person left it accidently?

 

No, not many people say that they are looking for the log or logbook but it is the one item that needs to be found to confirm they found the cache. I don't care how impressive the container was that the OP referred too, a person really couldn't be 100% positive that they found the cache if there was no logbook inside it. That first person who came along shouldn't have autmatically assumed they found the cache and they certainly shouldn't have put in the slip of paper.

[+Sagefox]

The FDNF left the strip of paper in the false cache/decoy container.

 

Except that, in this case, it is all one container. We are not talking about two separate containers at this cache site.

 

Others signed that strip of paper. The OP found the cache with the custom logbook...

 

Which is in the same container. It is not a separate container.

 

...and put that strip of paper in the custom logbook and put a note in the decoy.

 

Which is the same container.

 

To adequately show that what is below the false bottom is a separate container from what is above it (both spaces within the same container, mind you) you would have to say that the 12 prior finders did not actually find the cache and therefore their logs could be deleted.

 

I asked earlier if someone thought those prior (12) finds could be deleted by the CO. I don't think anyone here would agree that those finds could or should be deleted. Therefore they are finds and the first one among them is the FTF.

 

Someone, in the heat of the moment here might think they should be deleted but I would challenge that person to go to the profile pages of each of those 12 cachers, look at their photos that show they are just regular people enjoying the game, and then reconsider whether deleting their logs when their signatures are in the container is something justifiable.

[+Sagefox]

I don't care how impressive the container was that the OP referred too, a person really couldn't be 100% positive that they found the cache if there was no logbook inside it. That first person who came along shouldn't have autmatically assumed they found the cache and they certainly shouldn't have put in the slip of paper.

 

But it doesn't really matter whether we think we found the container or not. The question is whether it physically is the container and in this case it is.

 

I don't know how we have made such a simple matter so complicated here. It is all one container and 12 of 13 people have left their signatures in it.

[+WarNinjas]

Well I know once or twice we have forgotten to add a log book to a cache we published. The memorable one was when we first started (not our first hide or anything). We picked out the container on location and had out several logs and were trying to figure out what one we liked best. Somehow in the confusion of a log book or log strip and picking out swagg and magnets for the container somehow we didn't add any log! Luckily for us the FTF added one. I know other cachers around who have also forgotten several times. I could see why the FTF thought to put one in there if it was not stated the log might be hard to find.

[+GeoBain]

I don't care how impressive the container was that the OP referred too, a person really couldn't be 100% positive that they found the cache if there was no logbook inside it. That first person who came along shouldn't have autmatically assumed they found the cache and they certainly shouldn't have put in the slip of paper.

 

But it doesn't really matter whether we think we found the container or not. The question is whether it physically is the container and in this case it is.

 

I don't know how we have made such a simple matter so complicated here. It is all one container and 12 of 13 people have left their signatures in it.

 

This is a symptom of a larger problem; lack of maintenance. People have become so accustomed to missing logs, wet logs, etc., that they no longer think twice about leaving their own log if one cannot be found. Normally this would be sufficient and par for the course.

 

However, I tend to think that if the CO chose to delete the finds on the first 12, TPTB would likely encourage the CO to reconsider but would ultimately side with the CO.

 

This is one of the benefits of not logging finds online. I can decide what constitutes a find for me with no fear of log deletions. I don't have to worry about poorly maintained caches, unless they're missing altogether.

[+kunarion]

I tend to think that if the CO chose to delete the finds on the first 12, TPTB would likely encourage the CO to reconsider but would ultimately side with the CO.

If the CO allows the logs to stand (and I guess this is the case?), then all the finds are good (and some may even say that the first in the list found it first ). So the whole idea of that cache with the fake bottom with its realistic-looking logbook, was to see who's clever enough to place their own log sheet in the real cache container on top.

 

This is one of the benefits of not logging finds online.

I log online, but I never claim to be FTF nor log about someone else's FTF post. I sometimes post the time of the find, in case of reality. Yeah, I know a lot of Geocachers have a tenuous grasp on that and insist that the definition of "First" is fully redefinable. Due to this, I rarely use the word "first" in my logs, in any context. I learned that soon after I started Geocaching, after almost getting head bit off over it. Come to think of it, it could be safer to not log online.

Edited April 28, 2015 by kunarion

[+Pontiac_CZ]

In my opinion the lower, hidden compartment is the cache. FTF granted!

 

Seems to be the most logical for me as well.

[+MMaru]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it sounds like the only indication that the OP had that the replacement log was not the intended log was prior familiarity with the CO's hides. If the person who left the replacement and the dozen others after didn't know to look for a special logbook, I can completely understand why they would do exactly what was done. Personally, I rarely check to see who the CO is on a cache, so it wouldn't occur to me to look for a pattern. Possibly the non-OP finders had no idea to look for a special logbook. Overall, just sounds like a big misunderstanding. In Judge MMaru's opinion, the OP was right and not at fault, the previous finders were not wrong, and the CO sounds awesome for rigging such a cache and making special logbooks, but maybe ought to include something on the cache page (if it's not already there, that is!) to indicate that there is a specific logbook to hunt for.

[+dprovan]

That first person who came along shouldn't have autmatically assumed they found the cache and they certainly shouldn't have put in the slip of paper.

I've seen several cases where the FTF didn't find a log in a cache, added one, and was thanked by the CO since the CO had, in fact, forgotten to put one in the container before planting the hide. What about this case should have made the FTF think this was a different case.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Obviously a geocache? Odds are, an ammocan found at ground zero with no logbook is the cache but honestly, how can a finder be 100% sure? Could it be a decoy? Could it be that another person left it accidently?

 

No, not many people say that they are looking for the log or logbook but it is the one item that needs to be found to confirm they found the cache. I don't care how impressive the container was that the OP referred too, a person really couldn't be 100% positive that they found the cache if there was no logbook inside it. That first person who came along shouldn't have autmatically assumed they found the cache and they certainly shouldn't have put in the slip of paper.

 

Well, I suppose the only way to be 100% sure is if the cache is marked with the GC code. A log doesn't guarantee 100% you have the correct container Otherwise it could be:

 

- A throwdown (which others have also signed)

- A different cache (e.g. an old puzzle or multi, where the proximity wasn't checked.. or a cache listed on another site, or even a new cache which the owner hasn't checked out the proximity).

- A beer can which just happens to have a piece of paper in it

 

Or to be really sure that someone else didn't place a throwdown and write the GC number, it needs to be notarized by the cache owner somehow.

 

Not all cache owners mark their cache or log with the GC code or cache name; so we are all assuming we have the correct cache lots of times. I don't find it unreasonable for the first finder to assume the log was missing and add one. And for the subsequent finders there was a log.

 

I don't know if the GC code or name was marked on this cache, but I would be more sure I had the correct cache if it was marked with the GC number and had no log, then an unmarked box with a slip of paper inside.

 

However - if the container was unusual, I would check it thoroughly for a hidden log, as I have found caches like that. Or if the description made it clear that their was a challenge involved in finding the log.

 

I don't think anyone has done anything wrong here - other than getting worked up about FTF. All were playing in good faith.

Edited April 28, 2015 by redsox_mark

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I am under the impression, having read these forums and the GS Guidelines, that a cache is a container with a log. A decoy container, while not marked as such, is not the cache.

 

Except that this was not a decoy container, and it did have a log.

 

If you are caching, and you find a container (one that is obviously a geocache) but you open it and don't see a log, do you tell your caching buddies, "Well... no log. Looks like we'll be posting a DNF"? At best, you might log a NM and no find, but I'm guessing that most (certainly most that I know) would log it as a find.

 

We've had this debate before, what if it turns out that the container you found was a throw down? You found a container with a piece of paper (with signature already on it) but some will claim that you didn't find *the* geocache.

 

Personally, I don't take the game serious enough to care if I'm not adhering to someones strict rules, but this thread is yet another example of the potential drama associated with the FTF game.

 

 

[+redsox_mark]

Lessons to be learned:

 

1. Don't joke about FTF. Some take it way to seriously.

2. Any threads which talk about details of finds will cause a debate about what is a find and what is not.

[+on4bam]

2. Any threads which talk about details of finds will cause a debate about what is a find and what is not.

 

There's no discussion an what is a find and what is not.

You can log a find if you found the cache and signed THE logbook. (not A logbook). Especially in the case of the OP where it says:

The CO has a fantastic series and each cache contains one of her own homemade logbooks

Finding an empty container should make you think something was not right.

 

On the other hand, I guess honest mistakes were made here.

[+redsox_mark]

 

There's no discussion an what is a find and what is not.

You can log a find if you found the cache and signed THE logbook. (not A logbook). Especially in the case of the OP where it says:

The CO has a fantastic series and each cache contains one of her own homemade logbooks

Finding an empty container should make you think something was not right.

 

On the other hand, I guess honest mistakes were made here.

 

Well, I see room for debate. Actually I don't want to debate it, but the reality is each cacher will use their judgment.

 

• 
   
  
• How does one tell the difference between a logbook and the logbook?
  
• So if the logbook (assuming it can be confirmed it is the logbook) is an unsignable ball of wet pulp, adding a replacement log is not allowed?
  
• If you find a clearly marked ordinary container marked with the GC code which is the geocache you are looking for, but the log is missing, do you log a DNF?
  

 

The quote from Jeremy seems appropriate here.

 

"Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" was never the intent of Geocaching.com. There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find." Jeremy

 

If I only logged a find when I could be 100% sure that the log I was signing was the log placed by the cache owner, I would not log many finds.

[+redsox_mark]

Also we have Groundspeak encouraging cachers to be helpful and replace the log with a log...

 

Newsletter article

 

"geocache maintenance is not just for geocache owners. Courteous geocachers often help with cache maintenance, which helps increase the quality of the game for all. It’s easy. You simply bring additional supplies such as an extra geocache container, swag, logbooks, and pens on your geocaching adventures. That way you’re prepared to help out another geocacher by fixing a cache that needs maintenance on the spot."