Jump to content

Zeroth to find!


Cacheism 500
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

If you find a cache first, then you are First to Find (FTF).

If you find a cache first after it is published, then you are First to Find after Publication (FTFAP).

These may or may not be the same. There was a cache series published around here that was originally used for a private birthday event. The FTF occurred during the private birthday event. When the series was published on the geocaching.com site, the CO pointed out that STF (Second to Find) was still available.

Link to comment

Yes, you can log a find on the not-yet-published cache once you find the cache page.

Yes, you can call it FTF. I would!

But you can also call it FTF if you're the first to find it after being published even though someone else claimed finding it first before publication. I would!

Furthermore, in either case, I'd give anyone claiming the opposite FTF a bad time. FTFs are just for fun, and the funnest part about them is that the person claiming FTF in their found log is the only one that has any say in whether their claim is valid, so there's no reason at all two people can't claim FTF for different reasons.

Edited by dprovan
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Cacheism 500 said:

Would you be 'zeroth to find' as you can't be FTF as you would have deprived anyone else of the find after publication.

Finding it before it's published does not deprive anyone else of finding it after publication.

I had someone find one of my caches a couple of weeks before it was published. Once it was published, they logged their find and backdated the log to the correct date. I had no problem with that and would do it the same way if I found a cache before it was published.

 

If the first-to-find is the first person to find the cache, then logically the zeroth-to-find (0TF?) would be the person who interacted with the cache immediately before the first person to find it. This would be the person who hid the cache.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

IMO the only people exempt from the FTF subgame are those beta testing the cache for the CO or TAP (There At Placement). Accident find is FTF.

bah! I was literally just about to post this :)

Yeah, if you're first to find with nothing but the listing (or nothing at all, pre-publish) then I'd say FTF is up for grabs. Though personally if it's not a 'standard' (post-publish) ftf, I'd also contextualize it explain how I found it before publish :) that tends to help dissuade arguing about who "earned" it; and people can still claim FTFAP if they want. It's such a vague flexible side-game but people get ridiculously worked up about it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

... Yeah, if you're first to find with nothing but the listing (or nothing at all, pre-publish) then I'd say FTF is up for grabs. Though personally if it's not a 'standard' (post-publish) ftf, I'd also contextualize it explain how I found it before publish :)

We recently went after a newly published cache, and were pleased to see a nearly empty log; although there was a signature about 3-4 lines down with no date that puzzled us - but the FTF slot was blank.  Hmmm.... we signed and logged as FTF.  Now I see the one who had signed a few lines down logged it with an explanation - he's not claiming FTF, but logging the find a week or so after publication.  His log explained that was given the coordinates by the CO, pre-publication, so he could find it before leaving on a trip, but agreed not to log the find till later, giving all the local cachers a real chance for an FTF, which we claimed!  Now that's cooperation, and courtesy!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 2/23/2018 at 7:25 PM, JL_HSTRE said:

IMO the only people exempt from the FTF subgame are those beta testing the cache for the CO or TAP (There At Placement). Accident find is FTF.

I agree; I've claimed FTF the three times I've come across this.  Not sure if it was due to our log about their find being a beta test or not, but on two of them, the beta testers later logged that they were beta testing.  For the third, the CO actually congratulated the beta tester as FTF on the page, but the beta tester never actually logged a find.

Link to comment

Once I was walking along a trail looking for a cool tree to climb and place a cache. There was a gap where one cache's 528 radius ended and another began, so I went there to find a good spot. Found an awesome tree, climbed it, and was looking for a place to hang a bison tube when I noticed a container already hanging. Sure enough, someone else had the same idea and had hidden it a few days prior! I ABSOLUTELY claimed the FTF once it published. :D

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

Personally, I count pre-publication finds as FTF (excluding beta testers), and lots of cachers in my area do so as well. But others don't and claim FTF when they are the first after publication even if there is already a name in the log (and clearly marked "FTF" instead of "Beta" or something).

This leads to two FTF claims for a single cache in some cases, but so what. People used to complain quite a bit in the past, but nowadays it's more or less accepted. Interestingly, I know of exactly one cache where the different "FTF ethics" have led to zero FTF claims for a listing ;). There was a pre-publication find, but that cacher is in the "No FTF before publish" group and said that the FTF is still open. But the first finder after publish was a firm believer in "FTF is First-To-Find, even before publish", and therefore explicitly denied the FTF claim.

Link to comment

One of my FTFs was between publications ;) .

A publish mail came in, I opened it, and clicked on the cache link, which in my phone setup opens my caching app and stores the listing. I didn't really look at it, but (as often for new ones) put it on my watchlist. A few minutes later, I got a "Retracted" log via the WL. When looking at the stored listing, I noticed that it was obviously unfinished, and the coordinates were at an implausible location (but cache type was "Traditional"). So it seems that the owner had somehow accidentally enabled the listing for review, and after the publish had quickly notified the reviewer about the error. Anyway, the cache was on my WL ... and a few days later I received a mail when the owner had finally submitted the complete listing for review. And that log included the header coordinates of the listing :) . Assuming, that the cache type was still "Traditional", and without the usual information (cache description, size, D/T rating, hint, etc.), I headed off to the coordinates and found the cache. Two days or so before the second (and final) publication of the listing.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

hah!  I wonder if that's a WL bug or a known 'feature'.  Watch a listing before it de-published, and you could get notifications of otherwise private logs?  Did you get reviewer note notifications on it as well, or just the CO notes?

Don't remember exactly. But I think there were no other logs, except for a reviewer note immediately before the regular "Publish".

It must definitely be a bug, because I'm clearly not supposed to have an unpublished listing on my WL. But it was many years ago, so I don't know if it would still "work" ;) .

 

Link to comment

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 1
×
×
  • Create New...