Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
AleksSI

FTF logging rules - ubused notes

Recommended Posts

My oh my. You know what? I get email notifications when 'notes' are left on geocaches.

 

If whatever software you use doesn't deal with notes then take it up with the developer of that software.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Sounds to me like an ALR.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

You have a 'fair play code' in your group? That's a great idea.

To this highlighted point, why wouldn't the 'honor' go to the person in the group who actually spots it first, as opposed to the first person in the parking lot?

 

I think it's a great idea for people to agree on rules if they are going to compete with each other.

 

But geocaches are available to everyone, so it's not really reasonable to expect someone from outside of the defined group to adhere to, or even care about, those rules.

 

My thoughts are similar. In my area, there really isn't much of a FTF game. I've never heard of any sort of fair play rules that allows one cache to claim FTF when there is a group hunt. Similarly, I've never heard of a fair play rule in my area that stipulates that when people cache a group and a FTF event occurs that everyone in the group can claim co-FTF. I have also never heard about a a fair play rule which suggests to cachers that if you're FTF on a cache, you should post a note if you're going to log a find later, or immediately post a find to avoid any disappointment that someone else seeking a FTF might have.

So based on how the game is played locally, where there are no rules or best practices regarding the FTF game, I'll post a Found it after finding a cache when I get home to a desktop, and because I'm not interested in the FTF game myself, might not event mention that I was FTF on my online log. But, for some reason I'm expected to know the rules and local practices if I happen to be somewhere else and get a FTF?

Beyond the fact that I rarely actively seek out a FTF myself (the last time I did was on a cache 9400 miles from home), I (and I'm not the only one) believe that when the FTF is as serious as it is in some places, it can actually lead to problems. I know that in some areas, once the FTF, 2TF, and 3TF has occurred those playing the FTF game won't even attempt to find a cache. Although there may be exceptions, I suspect that most cache owners are placing new hides just to cater to those playing this unofficial side game, and I think it's a bit unfair to treat a CO's new hide as if it only exists for a FTF race. There have also been numerous reports of people seeking recently hidden caches in areas that are closed after sunset when the area is closed if there is a FTF opportunity, and of course, nobody breaks any traffic laws in attempt to get to GZ before the local FTF hound. Sorry, I just can't bring myself to cater to those that want to turn the game into a race, especially when the FTF game seems to cause so much drama.

Share this post


Link to post

OMG! I'VE BEEN GETTING RIPPED OFF! I WANT MY CUT OF THE CASH PRIZE YOU CHEATING CO-FTF BASTARDS!

 

O please, do not scan my words with microscope. At least not those, which are out of topics. I do not understand why people get upset.

You got wrong impression. If we know that other geocachers are behind us, we always wait them for a group FTF.

I believe their comment was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek (humor), as evidenced by the statement before it, "Wait, DO they give out cash prizes?". :)

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Yep.

Before sorta-smart phones were the norm, many logs here were done when one had the time.

Today, we still have quite a few areas with no cell service to log in, so it'll have to wait at least until they're off the road (if that anal about it) to log in.

 

We also have a number of folks in our area who never log online, yet sign the cache log.

FTF (first name on that log) anything from one of those folks will probably be a while... :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

"Wait, DO they give out cash prizes?".

 

Locally it's common that $2 bills or one dollar coins are left for FTF prizes. :P

We used to see that here as well, some high-end prizes (on "5" caches) too, but that was when caches were more than pill bottles thrown along the road every 530'.

Now there's many who even state on the cache pages that the FTF's only for "bragging rights", as if there's any who do.

- They'd be met with much laughter (here). :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

OMG! I'VE BEEN GETTING RIPPED OFF! I WANT MY CUT OF THE CASH PRIZE YOU CHEATING CO-FTF BASTARDS!

 

O please, do not scan my words with microscope. At least not those, which are out of topics. I do not understand why people get upset.

You got wrong impression. If we know that other geocachers are behind us, we always wait them for a group FTF.

I believe their comment was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek (humor), as evidenced by the statement before it, "Wait, DO they give out cash prizes?". :)

 

Look like I went and got myself moderated as my original post seems to be missing. Sarcasm not appreciated around here? dry.gif

Share this post


Link to post

OMG! I'VE BEEN GETTING RIPPED OFF! I WANT MY CUT OF THE CASH PRIZE YOU CHEATING CO-FTF BASTARDS!

 

O please, do not scan my words with microscope. At least not those, which are out of topics. I do not understand why people get upset.

You got wrong impression. If we know that other geocachers are behind us, we always wait them for a group FTF.

I believe their comment was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek (humor), as evidenced by the statement before it, "Wait, DO they give out cash prizes?". :)

 

Look like I went and got myself moderated as my original post seems to be missing. Sarcasm not appreciated around here? dry.gif

 

More likely the use of vulgar language.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm still not convinced which are objective reasons or advantage for using Write note log versus Found it.
That's okay. Just rest assured that others do see objective reasons or advantages to using Note logs instead of Found logs.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=343291&view=findpost&p=5640217

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=343291&view=findpost&p=5639991

Share this post


Link to post

Look like I went and got myself moderated as my original post seems to be missing. Sarcasm not appreciated around here? dry.gif

*Good* sarcasm is fine. But if you need to resort multiple times to potty language in order to be sarcastic, you're doing it wrong. :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post

Dunno. In English (and I assume most languages) First means First. You find the cache first and sign the log first, you are First to Find! The other eighteen caches in your group are second through nineteenth to find. That's what the word means! First is first. Anyone else is not First!

Went for an FTF with my partner. Met another cacher in the trail, He waited whilst we worked on finding the cache. My partner was FTF. I was second. The kind and great cacher who let us work on it was third. First, second, third? One each.

Nope. Don't have a cell phone. Log when I get home. But I would thank the other cachers who leave a note to let me know that FTF is taken. Seems like a nice thing to do..

Share this post


Link to post

Dunno. In English (and I assume most languages) First means First. You find the cache first and sign the log first, you are First to Find! The other eighteen caches in your group are second through nineteenth to find. That's what the word means! First is first. Anyone else is not First!

You're assuming it's "First Person To Find", but that's not specified. I think it's the first group to find. And I also recognize various firsts depending on when one starts: "first to find after publication", for example, or "first to find that actually went to all the waypoints".

 

That's the beauty of it: someone else saying they're FTF doesn't stop you from saying you're FTF, so you don't have to worry about who claims what.

Share this post


Link to post

We just got home after grabbing a FTF then going to a movie. We use a GPSr so the FTF log has to wait until we get back to our desktop. Better go do that now.

Share this post


Link to post

Dunno. In English (and I assume most languages) First means First. You find the cache first and sign the log first, you are First to Find! The other eighteen caches in your group are second through nineteenth to find.

 

Systems like project-gc allow an unlimited number of people to mark their log with FTF and let them score for the FTF.

project-gc scores and such type of things are more valuable for some cachers as cash ever would be.

 

Moreover, the reality for many urban cache settings is that only one cacher can find the cache and the others in the group get it presented anyway as when e.g. one cacher finally takes the right action and has the fake bolt in his hands the others standing nearby will notice it anyway. Find in geocaching terms has a different meaning anyhow. I often end up with DNF even though I found the container but could not sign the log sheet.

Share this post


Link to post

Dunno. In English (and I assume most languages) First means First. You find the cache first and sign the log first, you are First to Find! The other eighteen caches in your group are second through nineteenth to find.

 

Systems like project-gc allow an unlimited number of people to mark their log with FTF and let them score for the FTF.

project-gc scores and such type of things are more valuable for some cachers as cash ever would be.

 

That is how it's always been. There is no official record for who is FTF on every cache. If one agrees with premise that a find means locating the container, having it in hand, and physically signing or stamping the log sheet the first person to have their name on the log sheet would be the defacto FTF (I suppose using a team team for a group would allow CO-FTFs). The problem is, there isn't a practical way to record that event so those that want to play the FTF game use whatever method that works best for them to create a list of caches for which they were FTF. Since everyone maintains their own list, more than one cacher can claim to be FTF on any cache.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Dunno. In English (and I assume most languages) First means First. You find the cache first and sign the log first, you are First to Find! The other eighteen caches in your group are second through nineteenth to find. That's what the word means! First is first. Anyone else is not First!

Went for an FTF with my partner. Met another cacher in the trail, He waited whilst we worked on finding the cache. My partner was FTF. I was second. The kind and great cacher who let us work on it was third. First, second, third? One each.

Nope. Don't have a cell phone. Log when I get home. But I would thank the other cachers who leave a note to let me know that FTF is taken. Seems like a nice thing to do..

 

This is dandy, but FTF is an unsanctioned side game with no rules. Whatever way groups decide to handle it is fine. There's no FTF police.

Share this post


Link to post

Can we discuss why some people prefer FTF notes?

I prefer the FTF note instead of a "Found it" log because I rarely have the time to do the log justice when logging in the field (which I don't do even when I do have the time). I like telling the backstory, some details, my time spent, or whatever happens to catch my eye and mind when on the search for the FTF. I make a field note (for later reference) and then, out of courtesy to others in my area, post a note specifying that I was FTF at whatever time I happened to find the cache. I used to never post anything when I was REALLY into the side game (trying to get to 100 FTFs for a challenge) and neither did the other 3-4 cachers who all were attempting to do the same thing I was since we all started around the same time. They never posted anything either and while I was upset I wasn't FTF, it didn't bother me very much because it was part of the fun. Most of that group has moved on from caching but every once in a while they find a FTF and they post a note now as well.

 

I understand the logic behind the idea that an unfound cache will still appear on an "unfound" list even though someone has posted a note saying it has been found. While it technically renders such a list useless, it's NO different than if someone has actually found it but hasn't logged it yet because they used a GPSr, they were in an area without service, or they frankly don't care to do anything with their log until they get home, whenever that might be. Singling out a note log over the other two situations seems silly to me since the outcome is exactly the same.

 

I'd rather post a note than nothing at all because at least that way, someone might actually look at the logs to see that it has in fact, been found (but not logged as found) OR, if they have it on a watch list, they will get a notification that some sort of log has been posted. If I do nothing, then no one has any idea that I've found it because there's no log posted and a watch listed cache won't send out an email for a log that's never been submitted. I NEVER post it to hold off other searchers and to date, have never seen anyone do that in any of the places where I've gone after a FTF. I'm not saying it doesn't happen; I'm just saying it hasn't happened to me.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Logging a note to indicate a cache has been found is not the way to go. If a person finds a cache, then they need to log it as found. If a person is like me and doesn't normally log in the field, then the found log will have to wait. To be respectful towards other cachers, there have been a few times when i logged a short found it log because i knew i would be away from the computer for many hours. I don't believe i ever logged one as a note though, since i realize there's a decent chance it wouldn't be seen by those interested.

 

Having said this, taking away the ability to log a note before a found/dnf log would not be good. There are times when notes are appropriate and helpful, even before a cache is found. The key is to figure out how to get cachers to use the correct log type. All i can say is, good luck with that! :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Logging a note to indicate a cache has been found is not the way to go. If a person finds a cache, then they need to log it as found. If a person is like me and doesn't normally log in the field, then the found log will have to wait. To be respectful towards other cachers, there have been a few times when i logged a short found it log because i knew i would be away from the computer for many hours. I don't believe i ever logged one as a note though, since i realize there's a decent chance it wouldn't be seen by those interested.

 

Having said this, taking away the ability to log a note before a found/dnf log would not be good. There are times when notes are appropriate and helpful, even before a cache is found. The key is to figure out how to get cachers to use the correct log type. All i can say is, good luck with that! :unsure:

 

A "Found, log to follow" note is absolutely fine.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Logging a note to indicate a cache has been found is not the way to go.

In your opinion. I don't mind if someone logs it as found, writes a note, or does nothing for days to indicate that it's been found. People have the ability to play the way they wish. I DO get it logged, usually within a day of my note, but I'd rather post something instead of nothing, even if the person right behind me never sees it. At least there's the chance, however slim, that they might see the log. If they were anything like me, they would be constantly refreshing the cache page in order to see if it's been logged (assuming they have service). There's nothing in the guidelines to say which method is the "right" method and different areas use different methods.

 

Also, I only do it for caches I"m FTF on, which seems contrary to my usual way I cache. It is but, in my opinion, there are special circumstances at play, specifically the ability to claim FTF honors. There is only one opportunity to claim a FTF. Once it's found, the FTF is gone. In that situation only, I would prefer to let those who might also be going after the FTF get some sort of heads up that I've found it rather than absolutely nothing. No, it does not remove it from the unfound list but I'd rather refresh the cache page than the unfound list because the cache in question can display any type of logs to the page while the unfound list does nothing of the sort.

 

Again, it's just my preference and I've never had anyone dispute or dislike my method. I'm also not concerned with how anyone else chooses to let other cachers know that it's been found. They can post a note, post a "Found it' log, or do nothing for a whole month. It doesn't bother me in the least.

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post

 

I understand the logic behind the idea that an unfound cache will still appear on an "unfound" list even though someone has posted a note saying it has been found. While it technically renders such a list useless, it's NO different than if someone has actually found it but hasn't logged it yet because they used a GPSr, they were in an area without service, or they frankly don't care to do anything with their log until they get home, whenever that might be. Singling out a note log over the other two situations seems silly to me since the outcome is exactly the same.

 

 

Well said. The only reason someone would post a quick note saying "found it, more later" is because they don't want to log from the field, but they want to inform others who might be going for FTF. The perfectly valid alternative is they log nothing until they are in front of a keyboard and able to write their full log. So the note is only to be helpful, and for those looking for FTF, it is helpful, and better than nothing. For some COs, it may be worse than nothing if they don't like it, but I don't see the harm.

 

Then we can debate if a FOUND IT log saying "found it, more later" is better than a note, which from other posts has pros and cons.

 

Personally I'm happy with cachers doing any of these things.

- A single found it log, when they are ready to write it.

- A quick note, later a found it log

- A quick found it log, later a note.

- A quick found it log, later edited to be full.

 

As a CO I know I don't get a notification for the log edit (at least not from geocaching.com), but if I get a "found it, more later" I will look later and eventually see it.

 

I'm not a big FTF hound, but if I'm interested in FTF on a specific cache I'll put it on my watchlist, so I'll see the note.

Share this post


Link to post

Then we can debate if a FOUND IT log saying "found it, more later" is better than a note, which from other posts has pros and cons.

I think there can be an endless debate about which is better, and I'm fine with that, as long as people remember that their preferred method is just that - their preferred method. Neither way is better, IMO, they're just different, AND they're both acceptable methods for posting something to a brand new cache to inform both the CO and others that it's been found. The sole objective reason I can see a "Found it" log is better than a note is that it would remove it from a listing of unfound caches. The fact that an edited log isn't sent to the CO is an objective negative, albeit a minor one, unless the CO really wants to see it as soon as it's posted.

 

I am still maintaining a monthly FTF streak, which is the only reason I go after FTFs any more. My method is to use the unfound list to identify which caches I might want to attempt. Once I do that, then I look at any posted logs to determine if it's worth attempting for a FTF or not. I never return to the unfound list until I need to identify another cache that might be unfound. That way, I am able to refresh the cache page in order to see if anyone has posted anything up to the point when I get to GZ to begin the search. If I find it, I can tell if it's been found previously but not logged at all. Sure I get a bit frustrated if that's the case, but it's just part of the game. We're so used to the immediacy of information that anything less becomes somewhat of an annoyance to many people. There's enough in life to stress us out. I really don't want my stress reliever, geocaching, to add to my stress levels.

Share this post


Link to post

The fact that an edited log isn't sent to the CO is an objective negative, albeit a minor one, unless the CO really wants to see it as soon as it's posted.

 

On a side note I think it might be worth having log edits trigger update emails - I've know people go back and add naughty things to their log knowing that the CO is unlikely to see them unless they check back regularly through existing logs :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

The fact that an edited log isn't sent to the CO is an objective negative, albeit a minor one, unless the CO really wants to see it as soon as it's posted.

 

On a side note I think it might be worth having log edits trigger update emails - I've know people go back and add naughty things to their log knowing that the CO is unlikely to see them unless they check back regularly through existing logs :ph34r:

I like that idea and wish it would come to pass.

Share this post


Link to post

The fact that an edited log isn't sent to the CO is an objective negative, albeit a minor one, unless the CO really wants to see it as soon as it's posted.

 

On a side note I think it might be worth having log edits trigger update emails - I've know people go back and add naughty things to their log knowing that the CO is unlikely to see them unless they check back regularly through existing logs :ph34r:

I like that idea and wish it would come to pass.

 

Maybe I'll suggest it in the website forum

Share this post


Link to post

You're assuming it's "First Person To Find", but that's not specified. I think it's the first group to find. And I also recognize various firsts depending on when one starts: "first to find after publication", for example, or "first to find that actually went to all the waypoints".

 

That's the beauty of it: someone else saying they're FTF doesn't stop you from saying you're FTF, so you don't have to worry about who claims what.

This. And I recall there being a different lengthy thread somewhere discussing the "FTF" concept to this very degree. *doesn't go digging for it*

 

The fact that an edited log isn't sent to the CO is an objective negative, albeit a minor one, unless the CO really wants to see it as soon as it's posted.

 

On a side note I think it might be worth having log edits trigger update emails - I've know people go back and add naughty things to their log knowing that the CO is unlikely to see them unless they check back regularly through existing logs :ph34r:

Provide an option to "Watch" individual logs? An opt-in, instead of a default-on.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Logging a note to indicate a cache has been found is not the way to go.

In your opinion. I don't mind if someone logs it as found, writes a note, or does nothing for days to indicate that it's been found. People have the ability to play the way they wish. I DO get it logged, usually within a day of my note, but I'd rather post something instead of nothing, even if the person right behind me never sees it. At least there's the chance, however slim, that they might see the log. If they were anything like me, they would be constantly refreshing the cache page in order to see if it's been logged (assuming they have service). There's nothing in the guidelines to say which method is the "right" method and different areas use different methods.

 

Also, I only do it for caches I"m FTF on, which seems contrary to my usual way I cache. It is but, in my opinion, there are special circumstances at play, specifically the ability to claim FTF honors. There is only one opportunity to claim a FTF. Once it's found, the FTF is gone. In that situation only, I would prefer to let those who might also be going after the FTF get some sort of heads up that I've found it rather than absolutely nothing. No, it does not remove it from the unfound list but I'd rather refresh the cache page than the unfound list because the cache in question can display any type of logs to the page while the unfound list does nothing of the sort.

 

Again, it's just my preference and I've never had anyone dispute or dislike my method. I'm also not concerned with how anyone else chooses to let other cachers know that it's been found. They can post a note, post a "Found it' log, or do nothing for a whole month. It doesn't bother me in the least.

I do agree that a note is better than nothing. My thinking is that whether a person logs a note or a short found it log, they still have to go back and either edit their existing found log or write a new one later. I understand that a CO won't get an email when a found log is edited later but imo, that's not quite as important as logging what actually happened in the first place. If i find a cache, then it stands to reason that a found log is the correct log. This also helps people looking for unfound caches when they look at a list of caches online, in their query, or on their phone.

 

But in the end and in the grand scheme of things, it's not a big deal either way... :)

Share this post


Link to post
I'm still not convinced which are objective reasons or advantage for using Write note log versus Found it.
That's okay. Just rest assured that others do see objective reasons or advantages to using Note logs instead of Found logs.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=343291&view=findpost&p=5640217

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=343291&view=findpost&p=5639991

 

I accept this arguments. While editing timestamp is not longer issue, some people wants their new and non edited log is distributed at least to the owner. This is only possible if we use two different log types Write note and Found it. Nobody wants to receive every edited log, because we are sometimes correcting grammar mistakes.

 

Issue with FP I understand less, because why I wouldn't be able to FP, if I delete first found note? It is not logic either, why I loose FP, if I delete found note with FP. Do you agree with that or there is logic explanation? I must do some test for myself to understand this FP behavior.

 

I hope majority of us agree, writing online FTF log as soon as possible is a fair play regardless do we use smartphones with data connection or not.

 

As I can see, we can divide reason for a different approach because of personal preferences or they are determined with information technology solutions.

Edited by AleksSI

Share this post


Link to post

Issue with FP I understand less, because why I wouldn't be able to FP, if I delete first found note? It is not logic either, why I loose FP, if I delete found note with FP. Do you agree with that or there is logic explanation? I must do some test for myself to understand this FP behavior.

 

Here's the FP issue with making an early "found it" log and later deleting it in favor of a more substantial log:

 

  • As a Premium Member, for every 10 caches you log as "found," you get to award 1 Favorite Point.
  • The system tracks this by, essentially, giving you 1/10th of a Favorite Point for the first "Found It" log you log on a cache.
  • If you later delete that first "Found It" log - for whatever reason - you lose that 1/10th of a Favorite Point.
  • And you cannot get that 1/10th of a Favorite Point back. A subsequent "Found It" logs on the cache will not restore the lost 1/10th of a Favorite Point.

 

Example:

 

  1. A Premium Member with 500 finds would, normally, be able to award 50 Favorite Points. 1 point for each 10 finds.
  2. But say that cacher has 50 FTF's. And say that cacher uses your proposed method of logging a short "found it - more later" "Found It" log immediately upon finding, which they later delete and replace with a more detailed "Found It" log.
  3. That cacher will receive no credit towards being able to award Favorite Points for those 50 FTF's. The FP-awarding system will only see them as having 450 finds, not 500. And so, instead of being able to award 50 Favorite Points, they will only be able to award 45.

Share this post


Link to post

writing online FTF log as soon as possible is a fair play regardless do we use smartphones with data connection or not.

 

Again, I will never allow FTF seekers to dictate to me when I should log my finds.

 

Fair is.. if you want to be first, move faster and be first. Period.

Edited by bflentje

Share this post


Link to post

I hope majority of us agree, writing online FTF log as soon as possible is a fair play regardless do we use smartphones with data connection or not.

 

FTF is an unsanctioned side game with many variations. There is no universal standard for fair play. FTF has no rules.

 

Everyone has different processes, and different approaches. When I happen to get an FTF, I treat it the same way I would treat any other find, i.e. I log it, in order, when I have time to write a detailed log. I have not ever agreed to participate in any kind of competition with others, so I am not under any obligation to agree with, or adhere to, imaginary notions of fair play.

 

Fair play in geocaching means nothing more than putting the cache back where it belongs so it is ready for the next geocacher. If someone chooses to place less value on their experience because they didn't get to the cache first, that's a matter of attitude and not my responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post

I actually went out and sought a new cache yesterday and ended up being the first to find it.

 

In the interests of promoting international peace and harmony, I used my phone to leave a full, descriptive found it log there on the spot before I left the area.

 

I assume this makes me eligible for some sort of prize money, given the urgent need, so if anyone here is the purser for such a fund, please drop me a message and I'll get you my PayPal info.

Share this post


Link to post
When I happen to get an FTF, I treat it the same way I would treat any other find, i.e. I log it, in order, when I have time to write a detailed log.
Same here. When I've gotten my FTFs, I've logged them the same way I logged my other Finds.

 

Of course, two of them were challenging puzzles that had been published a few days prior, and the STF was at least a few days after my FTF. And the other was a traditional that I just got lucky for, and the STF and TTF had already logged their Finds before I got around to logging mine.

Share this post


Link to post

Example:

 

  1. A Premium Member with 500 finds would, normally, be able to award 50 Favorite Points. 1 point for each 10 finds.
  2. But say that cacher has 50 FTF's. And say that cacher uses your proposed method of logging a short "found it - more later" "Found It" log immediately upon finding, which they later delete and replace with a more detailed "Found It" log.
  3. That cacher will receive no credit towards being able to award Favorite Points for those 50 FTF's. The FP-awarding system will only see them as having 450 finds, not 500. And so, instead of being able to award 50 Favorite Points, they will only be able to award 45.

 

Thank you for this explanation.

Share this post


Link to post

FTF is an unsanctioned side game with many variations. There is no universal standard for fair play. FTF has no rules.

 

Everyone has different processes, and different approaches. When I happen to get an FTF, I treat it the same way I would treat any other find, i.e. I log it, in order, when I have time to write a detailed log. I have not ever agreed to participate in any kind of competition with others, so I am not under any obligation to agree with, or adhere to, imaginary notions of fair play.

 

Fair play in geocaching means nothing more than putting the cache back where it belongs so it is ready for the next geocacher. If someone chooses to place less value on their experience because they didn't get to the cache first, that's a matter of attitude and not my responsibility.

 

That is not logic. I there would exist rules or obligation we would't need fair play anyway.

It's not about competition nor because of that less value experience.

For me fair play means that I recognise fact among us are geocachers who also (not exclusively) like FTF. My attitude to other geocachers dictates me to except this fact and because of that I write log for a new caches immediately whether I compete with them or not.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's the FP issue with making an early "found it" log and later deleting it in favor of a more substantial log:

 

  • As a Premium Member, for every 10 caches you log as "found," you get to award 1 Favorite Point.
  • The system tracks this by, essentially, giving you 1/10th of a Favorite Point for the first "Found It" log you log on a cache.
  • If you later delete that first "Found It" log - for whatever reason - you lose that 1/10th of a Favorite Point.
  • And you cannot get that 1/10th of a Favorite Point back. A subsequent "Found It" logs on the cache will not restore the lost 1/10th of a Favorite Point.

 

Example:

 

  1. A Premium Member with 500 finds would, normally, be able to award 50 Favorite Points. 1 point for each 10 finds.
  2. But say that cacher has 50 FTF's. And say that cacher uses your proposed method of logging a short "found it - more later" "Found It" log immediately upon finding, which they later delete and replace with a more detailed "Found It" log.
  3. That cacher will receive no credit towards being able to award Favorite Points for those 50 FTF's. The FP-awarding system will only see them as having 450 finds, not 500. And so, instead of being able to award 50 Favorite Points, they will only be able to award 45.

 

Hmmm ... I'm curious. I never heard of this issue, so I tried it just now. At the start of the experiment, my Profile page said "Logs Until Next Favorite Point: 9". Then I logged "Found it" logs on two of my own archived caches. As I had never logged these as "found" before, the Profile page now said "Logs Until Next Favorite Point: 7". Just as expected.

 

Then I deleted the two bogus logs, but the number is still at 7! Of course it also stays at 7, if I write another find log for one of the two archived caches. So it's correct, that only the first "Found it" log adds to the FP counter, but deleting that log apparently doesn't decrease the counter. Is there some sort of "delayed update" involved? I hope so, because otherwise some jokers might get the idea to beef up their available FP by fake-logging caches all over the world and deleting the logs immediately afterwards :rolleyes: .

Share this post


Link to post

That is not logic. I there would exist rules or obligation we would't need fair play anyway.

It's not about competition nor because of that less value experience.

For me fair play means that I recognise fact among us are geocachers who also (not exclusively) like FTF. My attitude to other geocachers dictates me to except this fact and because of that I write log for a new caches immediately whether I compete with them or not.

 

Many geocachers (myself included) will make an extra effort to log FTFs quickly because they know it will be appreciated by those looking for FTF. But others feel strongly that they have no obligation to do so, and will not. (And they are right that they do not have any such obligation).

Share this post


Link to post

Here's the FP issue with making an early "found it" log and later deleting it in favor of a more substantial log:

 

  • As a Premium Member, for every 10 caches you log as "found," you get to award 1 Favorite Point.
  • The system tracks this by, essentially, giving you 1/10th of a Favorite Point for the first "Found It" log you log on a cache.
  • If you later delete that first "Found It" log - for whatever reason - you lose that 1/10th of a Favorite Point.
  • And you cannot get that 1/10th of a Favorite Point back. A subsequent "Found It" logs on the cache will not restore the lost 1/10th of a Favorite Point.

 

Example:

 

  1. A Premium Member with 500 finds would, normally, be able to award 50 Favorite Points. 1 point for each 10 finds.
  2. But say that cacher has 50 FTF's. And say that cacher uses your proposed method of logging a short "found it - more later" "Found It" log immediately upon finding, which they later delete and replace with a more detailed "Found It" log.
  3. That cacher will receive no credit towards being able to award Favorite Points for those 50 FTF's. The FP-awarding system will only see them as having 450 finds, not 500. And so, instead of being able to award 50 Favorite Points, they will only be able to award 45.

 

Hmmm ... I'm curious. I never heard of this issue, so I tried it just now. At the start of the experiment, my Profile page said "Logs Until Next Favorite Point: 9". Then I logged "Found it" logs on two of my own archived caches. As I had never logged these as "found" before, the Profile page now said "Logs Until Next Favorite Point: 7". Just as expected.

 

Then I deleted the two bogus logs, but the number is still at 7! Of course it also stays at 7, if I write another find log for one of the two archived caches. So it's correct, that only the first "Found it" log adds to the FP counter, but deleting that log apparently doesn't decrease the counter. Is there some sort of "delayed update" involved? I hope so, because otherwise some jokers might get the idea to beef up their available FP by fake-logging caches all over the world and deleting the logs immediately afterwards :rolleyes: .

I've given out 50 favorite points and the system says I have 6 remaining. I've found 559 caches so one would think I would only have 55 favorite points to play with, but not the point.

 

I've deleted many found it logs over the years and replaced them. I surely should have less favorite points than I currently do if the proposed logic was ironclad. I do think it must just be a temporary situation that is corrected during an ongoing process.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Here's the FP issue with making an early "found it" log and later deleting it in favor of a more substantial log:

 

  • As a Premium Member, for every 10 caches you log as "found," you get to award 1 Favorite Point.
  • The system tracks this by, essentially, giving you 1/10th of a Favorite Point for the first "Found It" log you log on a cache.
  • If you later delete that first "Found It" log - for whatever reason - you lose that 1/10th of a Favorite Point.
  • And you cannot get that 1/10th of a Favorite Point back. A subsequent "Found It" logs on the cache will not restore the lost 1/10th of a Favorite Point.

 

Example:

 

  1. A Premium Member with 500 finds would, normally, be able to award 50 Favorite Points. 1 point for each 10 finds.
  2. But say that cacher has 50 FTF's. And say that cacher uses your proposed method of logging a short "found it - more later" "Found It" log immediately upon finding, which they later delete and replace with a more detailed "Found It" log.
  3. That cacher will receive no credit towards being able to award Favorite Points for those 50 FTF's. The FP-awarding system will only see them as having 450 finds, not 500. And so, instead of being able to award 50 Favorite Points, they will only be able to award 45.

 

Hmmm ... I'm curious. I never heard of this issue, so I tried it just now. At the start of the experiment, my Profile page said "Logs Until Next Favorite Point: 9". Then I logged "Found it" logs on two of my own archived caches. As I had never logged these as "found" before, the Profile page now said "Logs Until Next Favorite Point: 7". Just as expected.

 

Then I deleted the two bogus logs, but the number is still at 7! Of course it also stays at 7, if I write another find log for one of the two archived caches. So it's correct, that only the first "Found it" log adds to the FP counter, but deleting that log apparently doesn't decrease the counter. Is there some sort of "delayed update" involved? I hope so, because otherwise some jokers might get the idea to beef up their available FP by fake-logging caches all over the world and deleting the logs immediately afterwards :rolleyes: .

 

Number decreases even on our own caches if we log them as found and then delete log.

Share this post


Link to post

Many geocachers (myself included) will make an extra effort to log FTFs quickly because they know it will be appreciated by those looking for FTF. But others feel strongly that they have no obligation to do so, and will not. (And they are right that they do not have any such obligation).

 

Not from you, but from others I do not see any additional value for the topics if they repeat all over again that is obligation in geocaching.

We have no obligation to write in the log no more then a single word. But we do that. Because that's fair to the owner, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post

Not from you, but from others I do not see any additional value for the topics if they repeat all over again that is obligation in geocaching.

We have no obligation to write in the log no more then a single word. But we do that. Because that's fair to the owner, isn't it?

We choose to, we don't have to, and many don't. "fair play" is 100% subjective. A majority may agree on (ie share the same) "fair play" etiquette at any one time, but there's no way the majority can enforce that "fair play" etiquette on the rest.

 

The best you can do is lead by example, and show people why you feel that doing things a certain way is, in your opinion, best for the community. And then hope that more people adopt the same etiquette. But those who don't, you can't do anything about. And that's the difference. You could come to the forum to complain about those who don't use the same "fair play" etiquette, but that won't get you anywhere, and as many of us have already come to accept, complaining (rather than letting it go or working respectfully with others towards some form of solution) is for the most part a waste of time and energy.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

So, we have established that there are no "FTF logging rules." It's not part of Groundspeak geocaching.

If you want me to log an FTF when I find it, buy me a cell phone. Otherwise, I just use my GPSr. And log the find when I get the chance.

Share this post


Link to post

FTF is an unsanctioned side game with many variations. There is no universal standard for fair play. FTF has no rules.

 

Everyone has different processes, and different approaches. When I happen to get an FTF, I treat it the same way I would treat any other find, i.e. I log it, in order, when I have time to write a detailed log. I have not ever agreed to participate in any kind of competition with others, so I am not under any obligation to agree with, or adhere to, imaginary notions of fair play.

 

Fair play in geocaching means nothing more than putting the cache back where it belongs so it is ready for the next geocacher. If someone chooses to place less value on their experience because they didn't get to the cache first, that's a matter of attitude and not my responsibility.

 

That is not logic. I there would exist rules or obligation we would't need fair play anyway.

It's not about competition nor because of that less value experience.

For me fair play means that I recognise fact among us are geocachers who also (not exclusively) like FTF. My attitude to other geocachers dictates me to except this fact and because of that I write log for a new caches immediately whether I compete with them or not.

 

It isn't fair to expect other geocachers to adhere to arbitrary personal preferences and expectations. Your FTF rules are not relevant to anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post

Not from you, but from others I do not see any additional value for the topics if they repeat all over again

 

The thread you've started here has been repeated, in essence, more times than I care to count.

 

Have to agree on the value judgement.

Share this post


Link to post

Many geocachers (myself included) will make an extra effort to log FTFs quickly because they know it will be appreciated by those looking for FTF. But others feel strongly that they have no obligation to do so, and will not. (And they are right that they do not have any such obligation).

 

Not from you, but from others I do not see any additional value for the topics if they repeat all over again that is obligation in geocaching.

We have no obligation to write in the log no more then a single word. But we do that. Because that's fair to the owner, isn't it?

 

And yes.. I probably wan't clear. I was trying to say this isn't worth discussing, it is a repeating topic. Any suggestion that others should do something which isn't required by the guidelines will just result in a lot of posts in response saying "why should I" etc.

 

This is especially true with FTF related discussions, but it is the same with length/content of logs, etc.

 

It is fine to say "This is what I do, and why". I just advise staying away from statements which say (or imply) others should do something.

Share this post


Link to post

Many geocachers (myself included) will make an extra effort to log FTFs quickly because they know it will be appreciated by those looking for FTF. But others feel strongly that they have no obligation to do so, and will not. (And they are right that they do not have any such obligation).

 

Not from you, but from others I do not see any additional value for the topics if they repeat all over again that is obligation in geocaching.

We have no obligation to write in the log no more then a single word. But we do that. Because that's fair to the owner, isn't it?

 

And yes.. I probably wan't clear. I was trying to say this isn't worth discussing, it is a repeating topic. Any suggestion that others should do something which isn't required by the guidelines will just result in a lot of posts in response saying "why should I" etc.

 

This is especially true with FTF related discussions, but it is the same with length/content of logs, etc.

 

It is fine to say "This is what I do, and why". I just advise staying away from statements which say (or imply) others should do something.

 

What people don't seem to get, when they are singularly focused on their own preferences, is that whatever choice we make is almost certain to be pleasing to some and annoying to others.

 

If I go out of my way to accommodate this side game - that I don't even really participate in - I have to change MY process. I have to leave short, low quality logs that are not useful to the owner or future finders. I have to use my data plan to log from the field with a fiddly phone app in order to appease someone else's notion of fair play.

 

None of this is "fair" to anyone, except in the eyes of a FTF chaser that I'm not even trying to compete with.

 

If FTF chasers want to set up parameters for each other, that's great. As long as the cache is put back and nobody makes any demands of me, it has no impact on me.

 

When I am the first person to find a cache, I believe my first responsibility is to report back honestly, and in detail, what the experience was like in order to assist in the long-term success of the cache. That is only possible if I log according to my process, on my timeline. I would rather be "fair" to geocaching as a whole than "fair" to someone making up fake rules.

Share this post


Link to post

 

What people don't seem to get, when they are singularly focused on their own preferences, is that whatever choice we make is almost certain to be pleasing to some and annoying to others.

 

 

I can only speak for myself. I'm not focused on my own preferences. I believe that in my area, posting a log on a FTF quickly is generally appreciated. So that's why I do it.

 

The most recent FTF I had, I was home 10 minutes after finding it. So I logged it on the computer then. But in other cases, if I know it will be many hours (or days) before I will be able to write my fill log, I'll do a quick log from the field. That is, as long as I have a data connection, and I'm in my home country.

 

It is true that for many things which get debated on these forums, whatever I do may annoy someone. "Dip" a trackable into every cache I find? Some trackable owners will like that, others will be annoyed. Don't "dip" at all, even if I've taken the TB thousands of miles, but can't find a large enough cache? That will annoy others. That's a completely different topic I know, my point is I make decisions all the time based on what I think would be most helpful overall.

Share this post


Link to post

 

What people don't seem to get, when they are singularly focused on their own preferences, is that whatever choice we make is almost certain to be pleasing to some and annoying to others.

 

 

I can only speak for myself. I'm not focused on my own preferences. I believe that in my area, posting a log on a FTF quickly is generally appreciated. So that's why I do it.

 

The most recent FTF I had, I was home 10 minutes after finding it. So I logged it on the computer then. But in other cases, if I know it will be many hours (or days) before I will be able to write my fill log, I'll do a quick log from the field. That is, as long as I have a data connection, and I'm in my home country.

 

It is true that for many things which get debated on these forums, whatever I do may annoy someone. "Dip" a trackable into every cache I find? Some trackable owners will like that, others will be annoyed. Don't "dip" at all, even if I've taken the TB thousands of miles, but can't find a large enough cache? That will annoy others. That's a completely different topic I know, my point is I make decisions all the time based on what I think would be most helpful overall.

 

I think most of us try to make decisions that are helpful and/or sensible, and we're all acting from a perspective that is based on our own approach to the game. People who are interested in the FTF game will naturally be inclined to log in a way that reflects that interest.

 

And I don't think that's a problem at all. It's a problem when someone comes along claiming that people are "lazy" and that other logging practices aren't "fair play" and that we should all accommodate or prioritize one set of preferences over all others.

 

Just for the record, I think most of the FTF chasers, at least in my area, don't try to drag everybody else into their side game, and they mostly seem equipped to manage disappointment when they don't "win" the race.

Share this post


Link to post

Yep, these discussions, when continuing as mentioned - "here's how I do it and why" - not "here's how I do it and you should too" (similar combative arguments happen about 'best device' subjects) - I can learn what others like, and if it's reasonable to me to adopt or at least accomodate differing behaviour, then I can take a step towards benefitting community. If I didn't play the ftf game (I do, just not fanatically =P) then I wouldn't be against spending an extra minute or two to do something in consideration of another FTF hunter. I do that already by posting the 'more later' note because I know first hand there are very very angry people if they make a big trip for the ftf and find out afterwards that it was futile. Sure it's their problem that they feel that way, but heck if 1 minute of my time can make life just a bit easier for someone else, of course I can do it. And that's my choice.

 

These situations you can always extend ad absurdium. I mean the fact that I post a note out of consideration could be used by an FTF hunter against someone else who doesn't and make their life even worse ("this guys does it, why can't you?!"). You could argue I'm perpetuating that hunter's antagonistic etiquette by supporting the idea that their feelings, time, and money are worth more than my own time even though it's not a rule.

 

You could make arguments all over the place.

And that's why it's a big mess trying to determine 'right' and 'wrong' when there is no objective rule or standard to abide by. It's a 100% subjective argument. We can learn from each other and choose to do or not to do what is better or worse for any one person or everyone. But no one choice can be enforced for all. There is no enforcer. And the moment someone tries to claim that role (either by condescension or self-imposed dictatorship) hell breaks loose.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...