Finds before publication.

[+TheAuthorityFigures]

There are more of these in my neck of the woods that I would have thought (GC3JVJ7). Just out of curiosity and as someone who is new to this hobby, how does this happen, and what are everyone's thoughts on the "ethics" of it? or am I reading this wrong?

[+BCandMsKitty]

There are more of these in my neck of the woods that I would have thought (GC3JVJ7). Just out of curiosity and as someone who is new to this hobby, how does this happen, and what are everyone's thoughts on the "ethics" of it? or am I reading this wrong?

 

Another cacher might have seen the CO hide the cache.... or had actually been with the CO when they hid it.

Not much of a find if you saw it hidden, but some people just want the numbers and don't care much about whether it's right or not.

[+on4bam]

There are more of these in my neck of the woods that I would have thought (GC3JVJ7). Just out of curiosity and as someone who is new to this hobby, how does this happen, and what are everyone's thoughts on the "ethics" of it? or am I reading this wrong?

 

Some find caches by accident while looking for a spot to put their own cache but around here most are found doing a "trial run" for the CO to check if there are no issues with multi's or series. Most of the time these cachers log at a date before the published date (but after publishing) and of course, they don't claim FTF.

[+dprovan]

In this case, it's obvious that the CO took a group to find it before it was published. They all act as if the cache was previously placed, but it's possible the CO placed it while everyone was there, not that makes much difference (other than the fact they they aren't clear about it one way or the other).

 

I don't see any ethical problem with it. In my area, under those conditions most people would make it clear in their logs that their finds shouldn't be considered FTF, but that's a minor nuance. In a case like this where the dates make it clear those finds were pre-publication, there's nothing stopping the first post-publication finder from considering themselves FTF. In my area, such a claim would be uncontested, but even if someone disagreed with it, who cares?

 

Once in a while, someone happens on a cache between the time it was hidden and them time it was published, but that's really rare, and certainly not the case here.

[+narcissa]

Geocaching isn't a competition. The find is ethical as long as the cache is put back in place for the next cacher.

[+Lil Devil]

One thing to remember is geocaching.com is just a listing service. The caches are owned by individuals and they are free to "list" their caches wherever they see fit. Personally I like to put the coords on a bathroom wall, under the words "for a good time" for about a week. Then I publish them in the personals section of the local newspaper for a few more days. Eventually I list them on geocaching.com.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Edited because Hemlock was writing at the same time I was, and said about the same things.

 

My own first caches were published to a local geocaching board prior to being to published on Geocaching.com .

I haven't tried a bathroom wall or a personal ad, clearly a failure of my imagination.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Isonzo Karst

[+ChileHead]

I prefer not to bring the bathroom graffiti reading crowd to my caches.

 

Every year I put out an "Ornaments" cache, where I place about 60 home made geocache ornaments (ranging from little wooden ammo cans to light posts and movable lamp skirts.) Because I have a limited supply of ornaments, due to limited time, I want to make sure my friends get a shot at them first. So I list the cache on our "breakfast club" facebook group for a week or so before publishing it for all to see.

 

Others release caches in various ways for various reasons, all personal choice and ethical.

[+hzoi]

Looks like there are recurring campout events up in the Rucker Canyon area (a nice spot, by the way) and that these caches were put out for the 2012 event so that event attendees could be FTF. I've seen this happen before in different parts of the world. I've even done it twice, once for an event in Germany, another for an event in Virginia. Last time I saw it was for some Alabama State Park events a couple years back. Usually the CO either arranges it with the reviewer to publish after the event or doesn't submit the cache(s) for publication until after the event.

 

For the record, unless there are a lot of caches put out and a list is handed out at the event, it becomes an exercise in follow the leader. I enjoy group hikes, but not group geocaching as much unless it's a small group. The only times I've claimed FTF on caches like this is if I was no kidding the first one to find the cache.

 

One thing to remember is geocaching.com is just a listing service. The caches are owned by individuals and they are free to "list" their caches wherever they see fit. Personally I like to put the coords on a bathroom wall, under the words "for a good time" for about a week. Then I publish them in the personals section of the local newspaper for a few more days. Eventually I list them on geocaching.com.

 

Reminds me of a note I saw in the loo at my favorite watering hole in Montgomery, El Rey. Sadly the photo is on an old phone. I can't remember the business it promoted, but it did say, "Mention bathroom stall door and get 15% off."

[+hzoi]

One thing to remember is geocaching.com is just a listing service. The caches are owned by individuals and they are free to "list" their caches wherever they see fit. Personally I like to put the coords on a bathroom wall, under the words "for a good time" for about a week. Then I publish them in the personals section of the local newspaper for a few more days. Eventually I list them on geocaching.com.

 

Edited because Hemlock was writing at the same time I was, and said about the same things.

 

My own first caches were published to a local geocaching board prior to being to published on Geocaching.com .

I haven't tried a bathroom wall or a personal ad, clearly a failure of my imagination.

 

Another reviewer unmasked? Has the hand behind the puppet been revealed?

 

edit to add: why does my post say Ringbone?

Edited January 4, 2016 by hzoi

[+Isonzo Karst]

Spartacus>mtn-man>Greg>Spartacus>Brian>Hemlock>Lil Devil>mtn-man>Spartacus>Puppy Monster>Hexa Nomos>esbjug>Hans>Spartacus ...

 

I don't think Ringbone is in that mix

[+briansnat]

There are more of these in my neck of the woods that I would have thought (GC3JVJ7). Just out of curiosity and as someone who is new to this hobby, how does this happen, and what are everyone's thoughts on the "ethics" of it? or am I reading this wrong?

 

How does it happen? A number of ways (not a complete list).

 

1. The cache owner published it on another listing site first

2. The cache owner gave the coordinates to friends before it was published

3. The cache coordinates were made available to attendees of an event before being published

4. Someone accidentally found the cache before it was published (I've actually done this)

5. One or more people were with the CO when it was hidden and logged finds.

6. The CO published the coords on his blog or Facebook page before publishing them here

7. The CO gave the coords to someone to "beta test" them before publishing it

 

There is nothing unethical about any of the above. It's the CO's cache and his business alone how, when and to whom gives coordinates to.

Edited January 4, 2016 by briansnat

[+Path Pacer]

That happened to me once. The cacher was a newbie and was urged to try it by her two little kids. They went looking for a cache that was actually some distance away and stumbled across my unpublished cache instead. They took the FTF prize and a geocoin, which they never passed on. They meant well, but completely ruined a caching experience I'd spent some time and expense setting up. Apparently they never cached again and kept the geocoin. I felt bad for the owner. My FTF prize was another unactivated coin that was clearly wasted on them.

[+fizzymagic]

There are more of these in my neck of the woods that I would have thought (GC3JVJ7). Just out of curiosity and as someone who is new to this hobby, how does this happen, and what are everyone's thoughts on the "ethics" of it? or am I reading this wrong?

 

geocaching.com is a listing service. It does not own the caches, and it does not have exclusive rights to the cache listings. Back in the days when there were other cache listing services, caches would sometimes appear on both.

 

It is completely within the rights of a cache owner to make caches available to anyone they want prior to having the cache listed here. I suppose Groundspeak could decide that the resulting online logs are not valid, but that would run counter to the geocaching.com philosophy, and I expect that will never happen.

 

My advice? Don't get bent about this. It's just part of how caching goes. Be grateful for the caches being made available for you to hunt.

[+redsox_mark]

 

How does it happen? A number of ways (not a complete list).

 

1. The cache owner published it on another listing site first

2. The cache owner gave the coordinates to friends before it was published

3. The cache coordinates were made available to attendees of an event before being published

4. Someone accidentally found the cache before it was published (I've actually done this)

5. One or more people were with the CO when it was hidden and logged finds.

6. The CO published the coords on his blog or Facebook page before publishing them here

7. The CO gave the coords to someone to "beta test" them before publishing it

 

There is nothing unethical about any of the above. It's the CO's cache and his business alone how, when and to whom gives coordinates to.

 

A good list.

 

I agree there is nothing against the rules or "unethical" here. Although I would add: In spite of the fact it is unofficial and generally scorned in this forum, many cachers enjoy the FTF side game. So there are not just rules and ethics, there are "norms".

 

In my area, #3 is generally accepted. Numbers 2,5,6,7 are "frowned upon" if the finders with the advanced information "claim" FTF.

 

I've never seen case #1. I understand it can happen, but I believe it is rare.

 

Case #4 is accepted, that is just something which sometimes happens.

 

As a CO, one can do as they like.. but around here at least a CO who routinely gives the coordinates to his/her friends in advance, and those friends claim FTF, will find themselves talked about (and not in a good way). Though the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about...

 

So I agree don't fret over it. But I would not encourage new cachers to do it (give out coordinates to friends in advance).

[+dprovan]

I agree there is nothing against the rules or "unethical" here. Although I would add: In spite of the fact it is unofficial and generally scorned in this forum, many cachers enjoy the FTF side game. So there are not just rules and ethics, there are "norms".

But because there are no rules to the FTF game, the first person to find it after publication is free to call themselves the FTF since they;'re the first ones to find it without special help.

[+redsox_mark]

I agree there is nothing against the rules or "unethical" here. Although I would add: In spite of the fact it is unofficial and generally scorned in this forum, many cachers enjoy the FTF side game. So there are not just rules and ethics, there are "norms".

But because there are no rules to the FTF game, the first person to find it after publication is free to call themselves the FTF since they;'re the first ones to find it without special help.

 

Yes, they can. But if someone has already claimed FTF, in my experience, the person finding it first after publication will be annoyed by this, and they won't claim it. Or if they do claim it, it can cause conflict between the two people who have claimed it.

 

Again, this can all be ignored and FTF dismissed as a silly side game. I'm only making the point that if a CO wants to avoid raising issues with those playing the FTF game, they may wish to avoid cases 2,5,6, and 7.

[+on4bam]

, they may wish to avoid cases 2,5,6, and 7.

 

Except that #7 is good practice to check if all is OK with coordinates, WP's and so on.

At least here cachers doing a test run don't claim FTF.

[+redsox_mark]

, they may wish to avoid cases 2,5,6, and 7.

 

Except that #7 is good practice to check if all is OK with coordinates, WP's and so on.

At least here cachers doing a test run don't claim FTF.

 

I agree there is no problem with beta testing.

 

What I said was in my area "Numbers 2,5,6,7 are "frowned upon" if the finders with the advanced information "claim" FTF. "

[+baer2006]

How does it happen? A number of ways (not a complete list).

 

1. The cache owner published it on another listing site first

2. The cache owner gave the coordinates to friends before it was published

3. The cache coordinates were made available to attendees of an event before being published

4. Someone accidentally found the cache before it was published (I've actually done this)

5. One or more people were with the CO when it was hidden and logged finds.

6. The CO published the coords on his blog or Facebook page before publishing them here

7. The CO gave the coords to someone to "beta test" them before publishing it

 

I have logged about two dozen FTFs on caches, before they had been published on geocaching.com. Most were by scenario #1, but also many with the following method:

 

8. A powertrail was published, but the published caches ended in the middle of nowhere. The hides were all pretty much identical, so we continued along the road after the last published one and found many more.

 

One special case was that FTF:

 

9. Traditional cache was published, but coordinates were obviously nonsense (middle of a field). I put the cache on watch immediately, and moments later got a notification that the listing had been retracted by the reviewer. So it was again "unpublished", but still on my watch list. After a few days, the owner corrected the coordinates, of which I was notified via the watch list. I went there, and although I had no other information whatsoever (description, size, D/T ratings, hints ...), I found the cache. It was eventually published a few days later.

 

Anyway, from briansnat's numbers 1-7, I've seen everything in my area except #6. But in cases #5 and #7, cachers normally don't claim "FTF" (and if they do, a minor storm might ensue in the first logs )

 

Regards

baer

Edited January 8, 2016 by Keystone
flushed potty language

[+dprovan]

Yes, they can. But if someone has already claimed FTF, in my experience, the person finding it first after publication will be annoyed by this, and they won't claim it.

Which is why I pointed out that they can claim it.

 

Or if they do claim it, it can cause conflict between the two people who have claimed it.

The only way this can cause conflict is if both people take the game too seriously. As long as either one is willing to recognize the validity of the other person's FTF claim (even if they continue to privately consider their FTF claim more justified), the conflict is resolved.

 

Again, this can all be ignored and FTF dismissed as a silly side game.

I'd never do that. I think the FTF side game is fun.

 

I'm only making the point that if a CO wants to avoid raising issues with those playing the FTF game, they may wish to avoid cases 2,5,6, and 7.

Well, I guess rather than giving the CO specific directions to help avoid problems, I'd rather stress that the CO really has no say at all about who claims FTF. Specifically, if they think they can grant someone FTF by doing 2, 5, 6, or 7, they are mistaken.

 

In my area, there's one CO that has a tradition of raffling off FTF of a new, unpublished cache nearby at his events. I'm sure it's fun to win, but no one takes it seriously since almost everyone at the event goes along with the FTF winner and claims co-FTF. In addition, the CO always explains the situation in the cache description when it's published and specifically says that despite the pre-publication FTF activity, the first post-publication finder should also claim FTF. It's nice he does all that to avoid any of the 2, 5, 6, or 7 problems that you're worried about, but my point is that he's just restating the situation, he's not defining it.

[+TheAuthorityFigures]

There are more of these in my neck of the woods that I would have thought (GC3JVJ7). Just out of curiosity and as someone who is new to this hobby, how does this happen, and what are everyone's thoughts on the "ethics" of it? or am I reading this wrong?

 

geocaching.com is a listing service. It does not own the caches, and it does not have exclusive rights to the cache listings. Back in the days when there were other cache listing services, caches would sometimes appear on both.

 

It is completely within the rights of a cache owner to make caches available to anyone they want prior to having the cache listed here. I suppose Groundspeak could decide that the resulting online logs are not valid, but that would run counter to the geocaching.com philosophy, and I expect that will never happen.

 

My advice? Don't get bent about this. It's just part of how caching goes. Be grateful for the caches being made available for you to hunt.

 

I'm definitely not bent about it. I was just perusing some caches on the map and came across a few that when reading the logs, there were finds before the publication date. I simply found it odd is all. Just satisfying my curiosity about apparent time traveling geochachers.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Well, I guess rather than giving the CO specific directions to help avoid problems, I'd rather stress that the CO really has no say at all about who claims FTF. Specifically, if they think they can grant someone FTF by doing 2, 5, 6, or 7, they are mistaken.

 

 

I don't really want to debate my words point by point. I thought it was useful to point out that in my view, in my area, a CO doing things which encourage finds pre-publication will find themselves unpopular with many cachers. That's all.

Edited January 8, 2016 by redsox_mark

[+Wintz50]

I've found unpublished geocaches by watching my geocaching in "insert state name here" page. It shows recent trackable movements. I click on them until I see one in an unpublished cache and then use that info to go find it. Lol

[+Oxford Stone]

I once found an unpublished cache that was never published, as too close to a multi - which it turned out was missing and got archived!

 

If OS Junior hides a cache with me then it says so and he doesn't log finds on them - but has finds on most of mine that I hid alone and that aren't 20 feet up trees.

[+dprovan]

I don't really want to debate my words point by point. I thought it was useful to point out that in my view, in my area, a CO doing things which encourage finds pre-publication will find themselves unpopular with many cachers. That's all.

Yes, and part of my point is that those people that get angry about allowing or encouraging pre-publication finds should reconsider whether such finds are really a problem.

[+MtnMutt-ProDuckShins]

[+Cool Cow Cachers]

I've actually found caches before publication at least a couple of times. I don't think I saw this specific thing mentioned as a "how it happens" so here you go: The caches are in a series and publish out of order.

 

The first time this happened, there were four caches that published at once. They were #4, #5 and #6. While I was hunting for those three, #1 published. They were all a very specific type of hide so after finding #1, I just followed the pattern and and easily found #2 and #3 which published the following day.

 

Another time was on a bike trail with a series of caches numbered #1 through #27. When #30 published out of order, it was an easy exercise to back track in 0.1 mile increments to find #29 and #28 which again, published the next day.

 

These were not "accidental" finds as I was actively searching for caches which I suspected had already been placed but not yet published. You could say, I did it the hard way.

 

There are no ethics involved here. I found the caches so once they published, I logged them and with the date I found them.

[+narcissa]

 

Well, I guess rather than giving the CO specific directions to help avoid problems, I'd rather stress that the CO really has no say at all about who claims FTF. Specifically, if they think they can grant someone FTF by doing 2, 5, 6, or 7, they are mistaken.

 

 

I don't really want to debate my words point by point. I thought it was useful to point out that in my view, in my area, a CO doing things which encourage finds pre-publication will find themselves unpopular with many cachers. That's all.

 

Being unpopular with people who would actually be fussed about this seems like a benefit, rather than a drawback.