Jump to content

FTF logging rules - ubused notes

AleksSI

By AleksSI
in General geocaching topics

Followers 5

Recommended Posts

AleksSI

+AleksSI

Posted
Posted

There is a common practice, that FTFs are logged as a note (Write note type) instead as found (Found it). Wrong type usually remains for days.

It seems there is only explanation, that some FTF hunters are lazy to edit Found it type log. So, they use Write note type on the field and Found it type log home behind computer.

For other geocacher that means, that they must check Logged Visits for every single geocache and that All geocaches in specific country is useless, also is useless software which counts new or already found geocaches.

I would propose that first log from non-owner can be allowed only Found it or Didn't find it.

Isonzo Karst

+Isonzo Karst

Posted
Posted

Write Note logs on new caches can provide a lot of information, and sometimes fun, within local communities.

 

The FTF seekers have much to contend with, each other, mostly. Consider wrong log type as one more part of the challenge and ultimately of the fun of achieving a FTF.

  • Upvote 1
redsox_mark

+redsox_mark

Posted
Posted

Agree with the previous post. Notes are a useful log type and should not be restricted until a cache has a found log.

 

I guess the reason the cachers are loging the note isn't laziness, it is they want to alert others the cache has been found quickly from the field. And they want the CO to get a notification when they log the find properly.

 

Around here, it is more usual for the FTF to log a "found it" with a brief log, then edit it later. This solves the issue the OP is raising. But it means the CO needs to check the listing, they won't be notified when their log is edited. (They can be notified with Project-GC).

 

I've also seen some log a brief "found it" log, then later they log a note with the full text. This solution keeps both the FTF hunters happy and the CO is alerted when the detailed log comes in. But I don't think this needs website changes or more rules.

AleksSI

+AleksSI

Posted
  • Author
Posted

My or any other opinion doesn't count a lot. There is only one question, is this against GC rules or not, and if answer is yes, would HQ react or not.

redsox_mark

+redsox_mark

Posted
Posted

It is perfectly acceptable for someone to find a cache, and not submit any log (the "found it" log) for several days. Even in the case of a FTF.

 

If the finder chooses to post a short note saying they found it, but the actual "found it" log will come later (when they are at their computer), I don't see that being against the rules. The help center says "There are many reasons to write a note, including:" Then lists some examples. But that is not an exhaustive list.

redsox_mark

+redsox_mark

Posted
Posted

If you look at the first of the "many reasons, including" reasons for logging a note:

 

You visited a challenge cache that you don't yet qualify for and signed the log, but are not allowed to log a 'Found It' on it yet. You can let others know that you visited the geocache, signed the log, and are excited to log it as 'Found' someday.

 

If I find a new challenge cache which hasn't had a found log yet, this is still valid to do. So is a reason not to block notes for unfound caches.

 

Of course, if I am first to sign the log on a challenge cache, but I don't qualify, that can start some drama about who is FTF. I found the cache, but I can't log "found it". :)

  • Upvote 1
cezanne

cezanne

Posted
Posted

My or any other opinion doesn't count a lot. There is only one question, is this against GC rules or not, and if answer is yes, would HQ react or not.

 

It cannot be against any rules. It is even allowed to not write any online logs at all and it is also allowed to log all finds as notes and leave that forever.

redsox_mark

+redsox_mark

Posted
Posted

The only "rule" I've seen (somewhere) about notes is that a cache listing should not be used as a forum. So notes for example debating if a cache should be archived or not etc are not appropriate. I've seen cache listings get locked when that gets out of hand.

Team DEMP

+Team DEMP

Posted
Posted

I've not personally seen a new cache logged as a note vs Found. It's not a practice I've noticed in my area.

I understand you have a concern or preference but what's the impact either way? That another finder might not realize it was already found? We used to sometimes wait days to log finds before real time logging became more the normal practice.

AleksSI

+AleksSI

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Ok, I give up. I'm not FTF addict, but sometimes a little adrenaline in FTF race is OK.

It is a pitty because that "side game" is wild west, not limited by the common rules and we need popcorn occasionaly :lol:

So, if I'm FTF but I do not log that at all on a GC web page for a days or weeks, I will need to hide myself in a safe house from other FTF hunters. And I must obey their non paper rule about log type.

I'm I correct?

HHL

+HHL

Posted
Posted (edited)
[...]

So, if I'm FTF but I do not log that at all on a GC web page for a days or weeks, I will need to hide myself in a safe house from other FTF hunters.[...]

 

No, this shouldn't be true in civilized countries. blink.gif

 

Hans

Edited by HHL
AleksSI

+AleksSI

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I've not personally seen a new cache logged as a note vs Found. It's not a practice I've noticed in my area.

I understand you have a concern or preference but what's the impact either way? That another finder might not realize it was already found? We used to sometimes wait days to log finds before real time logging became more the normal practice.

 

In my coutry in urban area FTF is a matter of minutes in mountains maybe few days. I know that app GC FTF form GC in not officialy supported, but on that app I monitor all new caches in country. With wrong log type app is useless.

We can also monitor new caches on GC web page, by coutry, area, etc. With wrong log type Last found field is empty. We all know that information systems works only if data structure is uniform.

  • Helpful 1
Team DEMP

+Team DEMP

Posted
Posted

In my coutry in urban area FTF is a matter of minutes in mountains maybe few days. I know that app GC FTF form GC in not officialy supported, but on that app I monitor all new caches in country. With wrong log type app is useless. We can also monitor new caches on GC web page, by coutry, area, etc. With wrong log type Last found field is empty. We all know that information systems works only if data structure is uniform.

 

Are you referencing https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=tk.artsakenos.geocachingftf&hl=en FTF app? I'm not familiar with it but it's not an official GC app from the looks of things. Even if the developer enhances the application to try and detect the situation you describe in the original post, it wouldn't matter unless someone logs it immediately online after they sign the caches log. I know there are cachers that don't log in real time and upload their info that night or following days. If these cachers were a FTF you would only see by viewing the cache containers physical log.

I don't have many FTFs but those I do I would have looked for anyway so for me it's still a cache I logged whether 1st or 31st.

narcissa

+narcissa

Posted
Posted

Ok, I give up. I'm not FTF addict, but sometimes a little adrenaline in FTF race is OK.

It is a pitty because that "side game" is wild west, not limited by the common rules and we need popcorn occasionaly :lol:

So, if I'm FTF but I do not log that at all on a GC web page for a days or weeks, I will need to hide myself in a safe house from other FTF hunters. And I must obey their non paper rule about log type.

I'm I correct?

 

You are not obligated to obey anyone's rules for this side game.

 

If you intend to participate in FTF-chasing in your community, it may be a good idea to observe the regional customs, but that's entirely up to you.

cezanne

cezanne

Posted
Posted

In my coutry in urban area FTF is a matter of minutes in mountains maybe few days. I know that app GC FTF form GC in not officialy supported, but on that app I monitor all new caches in country. With wrong log type app is useless.

We can also monitor new caches on GC web page, by coutry, area, etc. With wrong log type Last found field is empty. We all know that information systems works only if data structure is uniform.

 

Right, but have you ever thought about how akward it is for the cache owner to receive a notification about a useless found it log like "Found - details later" and then have to watch the cache page for the details?

I do care what people log for my caches (log text, photos etc) and do not want to miss spoilers for a few days but at the same time I do not have the time to check the cache page several times per day.

 

As someone who hides a cache I contribute actively to an official part of geocaching while FTF races are not an official part and I think if someone gets inconvenienced, then rather those screening for FTFs and not even be willing to put such caches on their watchlist - in that manner they get notified about any sort of log and so a note is fine anyway - if it were me, I could not post any log at all from the field and it could be many hours later that I return home.

GeoBain

+GeoBain

Posted
Posted

I hope someone from GC HQ will write official statement about this topic.

 

If that is what you seek, then you should email them directly. You are unlikely to get a response from them on this subject in the forums.

 

The answer is no, it is not against the guidelines to post a note in place of a find log. Some people post only notes. Some people don't log their finds at all.

 

Your best bet is to talk to your local cachers about how they play the FTF side game. The forums are not really going to be of much help in this regard.

redsox_mark

+redsox_mark

Posted
Posted

To be fair to the OP, his/her main point was the assertion that the way the write note log was being used was violating the guidelines. And that is something Groundspeak could officially comment on. (Though we don't tend to get official comments here, and I don't see this as a reviewers issue). However the suggestion to have special treatment for notes for caches not yet found moves into the world of special FTF process, which Groundspeak stays clear of.

GeoBain

+GeoBain

Posted
Posted

Ok, I give up. I'm not FTF addict, but sometimes a little adrenaline in FTF race is OK.

It is a pitty because that "side game" is wild west, not limited by the common rules and we need popcorn occasionaly :lol:

So, if I'm FTF but I do not log that at all on a GC web page for a days or weeks, I will need to hide myself in a safe house from other FTF hunters. And I must obey their non paper rule about log type.

I'm I correct?

 

Only if you care what they think. And if you care what they think, it is probably best to attend an event so you can discuss this with them personally.

 

I can't speak for all geocaching communities, but around here we listen to each other.

cerberus1

+cerberus1

Posted
Posted

I think I'd prefer the Write Note, meaning they realize they don't get that smiley until they log their Found It later, to the "Found It - more later..." log that many times we've seen rarely has anything added "later". :)

dprovan

+dprovan

Posted
Posted

Ok, I give up. I'm not FTF addict, but sometimes a little adrenaline in FTF race is OK.

Why are you giving up? You asked your question and you got your answer.

 

It is a pitty because that "side game" is wild west, not limited by the common rules and we need popcorn occasionaly :lol:

So, if I'm FTF but I do not log that at all on a GC web page for a days or weeks, I will need to hide myself in a safe house from other FTF hunters. And I must obey their non paper rule about log type.

I'm I correct?

I'm not sure what you're asking here, but the people to ask are the players you're talking about. They're the people you need to worry about getting along with. And while you're asking what you should do, you could bring up what you don't like about what they do and discuss why they're doing it.

 

I don't care much for the quick note to announce an FTF, either, but I don't find it a problem for me, just a minor waste of effort for them. There was a time when a few FTFers used to do this in my area, but I think most of them have switched to a quick Found log, instead, which they later edit. I assume it's because they had a friend who felt like you do and talked it over with them.

TeamRabbitRun

+TeamRabbitRun

Posted
Posted (edited)
I would propose that first log from non-owner can be allowed only Found it or Didn't find it.

 

4.pngWrite Note

The coords appear to be in the middle of a highway. Is that correct?

 

With regard to this example, I might log this as a NM.

 

If the coords are correct, the CO should respond with an OM log to remove the wrench: "Thanks for asking. Coords are correct as listed."

 

Of course, that brands the otherwise-unblemished cache with a dreaded "NM", but you have no control over that. One of my caches, a super-easy one, was NM'd by a brand new cacher who didn't like my placement. I sucked it up, responded with a "OM" that welcomed him or her to the game and moved on.

 

On the other hand, this example WOULD be a legitimate 'Note' log - I don't mean to imply that it isn't.

Edited by TeamRabbitRun
niraD

+niraD

Posted
Posted

Personally, I think the FTF should post a real log, and not bother with the "FTF more later" silliness. If that means posting the online log from a real keyboard the next day, or the next week, then so be it.

 

But if the FTF is going to post an "FTF more later" log from the field, then I think posting it as a Note and then posting a Find later makes a lot of sense, given the bugs/quirks/features of the system.

 

If the FTF posts a "FTF more later" log as a Find and then later edits the log, the owner (and anyone watching the cache) will not get an email notification of the edited log (which presumably contains the real log).

 

If the FTF posts a "FTF more later" log as a Find and then later deletes that log and posts a new Find log, then the FTF is not going to get a Favorite point for that Find.

 

All things considered, I think the "FTF more later" Note followed by a real Find log is a decent compromise.

AleksSI

+AleksSI

Posted
  • Author
Posted

If the FTF posts a "FTF more later" log as a Find and then later edits the log, the owner (and anyone watching the cache) will not get an email notification of the edited log (which presumably contains the real log).

 

Thanks for this pros and cons arguments. Regardless of that, after publishing new geocache as a owner, first hours after FTF I always read logs. I wonder how are first impressions and possible errors. Later logs are not so important, even if they change.

 

 

If the FTF posts a "FTF more later" log as a Find and then later deletes that log and posts a new Find log, then the FTF is not going to get a Favorite point for that Find.

 

Personally I newer seen such case. I'm not sure if I can't FP even if I would do that.

 

Let look other case. We have lets say new trail with 10 geocaches. One geocacher FTF first 5 of them, he did't find others. Proper logged I can check easily from GC web site. With Write note logs I must check them 10 manually.

cezanne

cezanne

Posted
Posted

If the FTF posts a "FTF more later" log as a Find and then later edits the log, the owner (and anyone watching the cache) will not get an email notification of the edited log (which presumably contains the real log).

 

Thanks for this pros and cons arguments. Regardless of that, after publishing new geocache as a owner, first hours after FTF I always read logs. I wonder how are first impressions and possible errors. Later logs are not so important, even if they change.

 

As a cache owner "FTF - details later" is not a log I can conclude anything from.

As a cache owner I care a lot that cachers do not post spoilers both in text and in the posted photos. So all logs are important for me.

 

 

If the FTF posts a "FTF more later" log as a Find and then later deletes that log and posts a new Find log, then the FTF is not going to get a Favorite point for that Find.

 

Personally I newer seen such case. I'm not sure if I can't FP even if I would do that.

 

You can award a FP but you lose 1/10 of a FP whenever you do what niraD described above. Normally PMs get a new FP for every 10 finds but when you delete finds and relog them, the counter is effected.

 

 

Let look other case. We have lets say new trail with 10 geocaches. One geocacher FTF first 5 of them, he did't find others. Proper logged I can check easily from GC web site. With Write note logs I must check them 10 manually.

 

You can put them all on a bookmark list and get informed about logs.

Touchstone

+Touchstone

Posted
Posted

If the FTF posts a "FTF more later" log as a Find and then later edits the log, the owner (and anyone watching the cache) will not get an email notification of the edited log (which presumably contains the real log).

 

Thanks for this pros and cons arguments. Regardless of that, after publishing new geocache as a owner, first hours after FTF I always read logs. I wonder how are first impressions and possible errors. Later logs are not so important, even if they change.

 

 

If the FTF posts a "FTF more later" log as a Find and then later deletes that log and posts a new Find log, then the FTF is not going to get a Favorite point for that Find.

 

Personally I newer seen such case. I'm not sure if I can't FP even if I would do that.

 

Let look other case. We have lets say new trail with 10 geocaches. One geocacher FTF first 5 of them, he did't find others. Proper logged I can check easily from GC web site. With Write note logs I must check them 10 manually.

Valid point, and I can understand the frustration, particularly if you've planned a day around doing a FTF activity. As stated above, this sort of scenario won't get solved by Groundspeak, as they have steadfastly stated an uncounted number of times, they won't get involved in such disputes.

 

As GeoBain mentioned above, this might be a better topic to discuss at an Event or something. Etiquette varies from one area to another, so some sort of global *rule* is probably doomed to failure.

thebruce0

+thebruce0

Posted
Posted

My routine has been to post the FTF as a note - this as a courtesy to people who may also be considering the FTF who'd be furious (yes it happens) if they arrive and find out they weren't FTF and could have been saved the trip.

I post as a note because I like to have my Find logs stored in chronological order, so on a busy day my FTF may be amongst a load of field notes I haven't posted as Finds yet.

However, the more I've thought about it recently, there's no reason you can't post the "Found it - more later" FTF as a Find log, then delete it later and re-post the Find log in the proper order for your own history. This is what I'll likely being doing from now on. That way not only is there info that it's been found asap, but it also then hides the cache from the 'has not been found' PQ parameter which some people may use to seek out unfound caches. The reposting of a new Find log later means that the CO doesn't have to 'watch' the initial log for edited content. Once posted, delete the temp Found It log, and all is well.

 

Worst case:

1. I'm FTF, post the temp Found log

2. Many others find and log it on the same day

3. I get to logging my bulk of latest caches including the FTF a few days later

4. I log a new Found it for the FTF and delete the temp log.

-- FTF log may now show up at the end of the first day after other finds, instead of appearing as the first find log, if it didn't include a timestamp.

(really not a big deal, and I see such out of order FTF logs quite often likely for this very reason)

AleksSI

+AleksSI

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I do not understand why to delete Found it log and log new one. Why you don't use option Edit?

I've checked few minutes ago. My fist log remains first if I edit FTF Found log.

cezanne

cezanne

Posted
Posted (edited)

I do not understand why to delete Found it log and log new one. Why you don't use option Edit?

I've checked few minutes ago. My fist log remains first if I edit FTF Found log.

 

Because neither the cache owner nor all others who want to read the real log get notified about the edit.

 

It's much less inconvenient to ask cachers like you to put the caches on your watchlist or on a bookmark list.

Then you receive a mail notification about the FTF logs regardless of the log type.

Edited by cezanne
AleksSI

+AleksSI

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Because neither the cache owner nor all others who want to read the real log get notified about the edit.

 

It's much less inconvenient to ask cachers like you to put the caches on your watchlist or on a bookmark list.

Then you receive a mail notification about the FTF logs regardless of the log type.

 

Sorry. I disagree again.We are talking about FTF. We have usually short time frame. I don't have time bookmarking, when I'm racing with others. Why I should do that, if GC.com has already a list tool about new caches in your area? I must usually decide in minutes. It is not fair asking others to bookmark and delete from bookmark list only for a FTF, because somebody use log type which purpose is not for that.

If FTF log is edited, that much less important for the owner. We are talking about only one and the first log.

 

I think this must have some relation with bulk logging and Write note is somehow additional tool or this has some relation what tool you use in the field.

cezanne

cezanne

Posted
Posted

If FTF log is edited, that much less important for the owner. We are talking about only one and the first log.

 

Sometimes the group of FTF-ers consists of several people, up to 10 or even more, in particular for night caches.

 

And this unfortunate practice of editing logs later has also carried over to logs which are not FTF logs.

I recently received 10 logs for the same cache on the same day by a group - 9 of which later got edited - that happened over days. very annoying for a cache owner and very difficult

to quickly become aware of spoilers.

Bear and Ragged

+Bear and Ragged

Posted
Posted (edited)
I would propose that first log from non-owner can be allowed only Found it or Didn't find it.

 

4.pngWrite Note

The coords appear to be in the middle of a highway. Is that correct?

 

With regard to this example, I might log this as a NM.

 

If the coords are correct, the CO should respond with an OM log to remove the wrench: "Thanks for asking. Coords are correct as listed."

 

Of course, that brands the otherwise-unblemished cache with a dreaded "NM", but you have no control over that. One of my caches, a super-easy one, was NM'd by a brand new cacher who didn't like my placement. I sucked it up, responded with a "OM" that welcomed him or her to the game and moved on.

 

On the other hand, this example WOULD be a legitimate 'Note' log - I don't mean to imply that it isn't.

 

DNF. My GPS/phone was pointing me to the middle of the Highway. May try again on another day, when the satelites are playing better!

Edited by Bear and Ragged
AleksSI

+AleksSI

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

Sometimes the group of FTF-ers consists of several people, up to 10 or even more, in particular for night caches.

 

And this unfortunate practice of editing logs later has also carried over to logs which are not FTF logs.

I recently received 10 logs for the same cache on the same day by a group - 9 of which later got edited - that happened over days. very annoying for a cache owner and very difficult

to quickly become aware of spoilers.

 

That is not sometimes, but very common, that we have FTF group. Our fair play code gives right of first sign on top of logbook to the geocacher who is first on the parking or nearest to the cache before others joined. I do not know the case, that majority of the group would edit log.

barefootjeff

+barefootjeff

Posted
Posted

There is a common practice, that FTFs are logged as a note (Write note type) instead as found (Found it). Wrong type usually remains for days.

It seems there is only explanation, that some FTF hunters are lazy to edit Found it type log. So, they use Write note type on the field and Found it type log home behind computer.

For other geocacher that means, that they must check Logged Visits for every single geocache and that All geocaches in specific country is useless, also is useless software which counts new or already found geocaches.

I would propose that first log from non-owner can be allowed only Found it or Didn't find it.

Often on difficult multis or puzzles I'll post notes to let the CO and others attempting it know how I'm going. That's half the fun on these types of caches. A recent example is GC6T5PZ - so far I've spent two days out there, visiting the three waypoints, and posted notes chronicling my adventures, and eventually when the weather's a bit kinder I'll go out again and hopefully make the find.

 

Please don't take away the option of posting notes on new caches.

  • Upvote 1
cezanne

cezanne

Posted
Posted

That is not sometimes, but very common, that we have FTF group. Our fair play code gives right of first sign on top of logbook to the geocacher who is first on the parking or nearest to the cache before others joined. I do not know the case, that majority of the group would edit log.

 

Not in all areas and for all types of caches it is that competitive. In my area groups often start together and hunt together.

Not for all caches seconds play a role. For example, in case of my hiking caches a hike of several hours is included and no night visits are welcome.

 

But even when cachers from different groups meet each other at GZ it is quite common around here that they share the FTF - I have never heard about anything as competitive as what you mentioned above.

AleksSI

+AleksSI

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

It is not competitive, it is very friendly. Don't understand me wrong. We are coming on site in groups. Of course we share FTF. Actually this are the best group events with a lot of fun. Healthy competitiveness is a source of fun. Nearest pubs are last checkpoint.

Lets stick to the topic, if there are any other pros and cons about using two log types for FTFs.

Edited by AleksSI
Team DEMP

+Team DEMP

Posted
Posted (edited)

And this unfortunate practice of editing logs later has also carried over to logs which are not FTF logs.

I recently received 10 logs for the same cache on the same day by a group - 9 of which later got edited - that happened over days. very annoying for a cache owner and very difficult

to quickly become aware of spoilers.

 

Quoting Cezanne but responding to what seems to be an issue throughout this thread and others on cacher logging behavior... Instead of relying on 10s of thousands of individuals, it seems a huge step to dealing with 10k different ways is for the system to handle it. The site could have a minor but potentially impactful enhancement done to allow cache owners to opt in/out of receiving both new log and edited log notifications as emails on a cache by cache option.

 

Seems viable and covers a good portion of use cases that constantly come up.

Edited by Team DEMP
AleksSI

+AleksSI

Posted
  • Author
Posted

TaemDemp, excellent conclusion. We understand why Groudspeak is conservative like a Pope, but white smoke might arise from the their chimney one day :P

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
Followers 5
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...