Cache co-owner logging FTF on cache?

[+texasgeocachegirl]

I know some people consider FTF's a bit arbitrary but I still have a notification for new ones... Very rarely are new caches published within a reasonable distance of my house and I like to get FTFs when I can. It's exciting and sometimes the CO adds little perks.

 

Anyway, there are two members in my nearest town who are new, made accounts about two weeks ago. As far as I can tell, one account is the mom, the other is a kid.

 

They only have 4 finds of the few caches in town, all one-worded simple logs (which, I get it, but still).

 

The account of whom I'm assuming is the mom had a new cache published today (still 4 finds)..

 

I went to go check it out and maybe go run and find it, except I noticed there was already a log that sad nothing but: "FTF!"

 

However when I looked closer I saw that it listed the mom's account AND the kid's account as being owners of the cache, making the video (or whichever family member) the only log.

 

Based on coordinates it seems this cache is in their or someone's yard, although it's not mentioned in the very short and detail lacking cache description.

 

Obviously the co-owner wasn't actually the FTF if they basically placed it.

 

Now, I'm not butthurt or anything over this. Let the other account have their first FTF even if it's not exactly a true FTF...

 

I'm more or less wondering what the general guidelines or attitude around this is.

 

Should cache co-owners be able to post the first log and proclaim themselves FTF?

 

It doesn't really seem all that fair to me.

 

I'm gonna go out and look for it tomorrow maybe and see it/ figure it out in person. Finding a cache from someone with such few finds and a new membership is always hit or miss.

 

Do I say anything to the CO? Or just let it slide and let them do their thing?

[+Max and 99]

16 minutes ago, texasgeocachegirl said:

I know some people consider FTF's a bit arbitrary but I still have a notification for new ones... Very rarely are new caches published within a reasonable distance of my house and I like to get FTFs when I can. It's exciting and sometimes the CO adds little perks.

 

Anyway, there are two members in my nearest town who are new, made accounts about two weeks ago. As far as I can tell, one account is the mom, the other is a kid.

 

They only have 4 finds of the few caches in town, all one-worded simple logs (which, I get it, but still).

 

The account of whom I'm assuming is the mom had a new cache published today (still 4 finds)..

 

I went to go check it out and maybe go run and find it, except I noticed there was already a log that sad nothing but: "FTF!"

 

However when I looked closer I saw that it listed the mom's account AND the kid's account as being owners of the cache, making the video (or whichever family member) the only log.

 

Based on coordinates it seems this cache is in their or someone's yard, although it's not mentioned in the very short and detail lacking cache description.

 

Obviously the co-owner wasn't actually the FTF if they basically placed it.

 

Now, I'm not butthurt or anything over this. Let the other account have their first FTF even if it's not exactly a true FTF...

 

I'm more or less wondering what the general guidelines or attitude around this is.

 

Should cache co-owners be able to post the first log and proclaim themselves FTF?

 

It doesn't really seem all that fair to me.

 

I'm gonna go out and look for it tomorrow maybe and see it/ figure it out in person. Finding a cache from someone with such few finds and a new membership is always hit or miss.

 

Do I say anything to the CO? Or just let it slide and let them do their thing?

They won't last long doing that.  Everyone will be laughing at their silliness. 

It's happened in my area, and I don't think they played the game after the incident which the dad hid the cache, posted coords for the nano were 400 ft off, and his kid claimed FTF when he took him to find the cache. When called out for this behavior, he was upset and said, "I thought this game was supposed to be fun!" I told him my kids didn't think it was fun searching for a nano, when only the CO's kids knew where to go ( they certainly didn't use the coords on the page!) 

 

They are certainly allowed to, but they shouldn't!

 

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, texasgeocachegirl said:

I'm more or less wondering what the general guidelines or attitude around this is.

 

There is no official guideline about FTF. There may be some local practices but that's all. If you feel that you are the first to find, based on your own rules, you are free to log FTF.

[+VAVAPAM]

I've noticed a couple of teams in nearby cities whose partner placed a cache.  The other partner waited for somebody else non-partner) to claim FTF before logging his/her find.  Then again, they are long-time members and ADULTS.

 

Maybe Mom just wanted to give Kiddo a happy day with a co-owned cache and FTF.  You could TRY the "advice from helpful veteran" route: "Hey, I noticed you're new - welcome - and thought you might to know that typically ...."  Always running the risk of alienation, of course.

 

It's a little tweaky, but since you're not "butthurt" (HA!) over it, probably best to just roll your eyes, shrug it off, and let them learn as they gain experience. 

 

At least they're making new caches, yeah?

Edited September 29, 2019 by VAVAPAM
smoke got in my eyes

[+L0ne.R]

Their overall behaviour is not a good contribution to the geocaching community. It seems your recourse would be to ignore them by not hunting their caches.

 

If only there were a way to put cachers on an ignore list so we never see their hides (with the option to turn it off when hiding a cache so we can see all caches nearby). 

 

Perhaps another recourse is to leave a pseudo FTF log and explain how confusing and disappointing it was to see a FTF from what appears to be a co-planter. 

Edited October 2, 2019 by L0ne.R
spelling error

[+Touchstone]

6 hours ago, texasgeocachegirl said:

Based on coordinates it seems this cache is in their or someone's yard, although it's not mentioned in the very short and detail lacking cache description.

It's very common for Little Free Libraries to be on private property.  Most of the time, I see them at sidewalk or street level access, but I've seen a few that require accessing someone's front yard, like the one you referenced.   If you confirm that the latter is the case, it would probably be a benefit to other Finders to mention to the CO the following portion of the Guidelines:

 

" If you have permission to place a geocache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache. A community volunteer may ask you to provide contact information of the person giving permission. "

[+coachstahly]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Their overall behaviour is not a good contribution to the geocaching community.

 

Seeing as how the FTF side game isn't recognized by TPTB, I fail to see how this is a "bad" contribution.  Their actions, while a bit odd (but understandable for a newbie) and usually discouraged, don't really affect the integrity of the cache, only who found it first.  It isn't preventing other cachers from finding the cache.  It also is adding a cache to the list of caches in a rather sparse area, thereby allowing members another opportunity to find one in a cache poor area.  Now, should they not maintain the cache in a manner suggested by the guidelines, then you'll find me more sympathetic to the notion that it's not a good contribution.

 

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

It seems you’re recourse would be to ignore them by not hunting their caches.

 

If only there were a way to put cachers on an ignore list so we never see their hides (with the option to turn it off when hiding a cache so we can see all caches nearby).

 

So what if the cache they put out is actually a well maintained, properly labeled small cache?  Are you so willing to block them based on a newbie not really knowing the suggested protocol regarding FTFs (which aren't even recognized by TPTB) that you might miss out on some of the exact types of caches you wish you could find?  Why not give them the benefit of the doubt and chalk this up to a learning experience as a new member and a new CO?  Why immediately jump to the conclusion that they're bad for geocaching so they and their caches should be ignored?  Why not email them and offer up some suggestions as to future protocol about their own caches, both as it pertains to FTF as well as maintenance expectations?

[+coachstahly]

8 hours ago, texasgeocachegirl said:

I'm more or less wondering what the general guidelines or attitude around this is.

 

Should cache co-owners be able to post the first log and proclaim themselves FTF?

 

It doesn't really seem all that fair to me.

 

I'm gonna go out and look for it tomorrow maybe and see it/ figure it out in person. Finding a cache from someone with such few finds and a new membership is always hit or miss.

 

Do I say anything to the CO? Or just let it slide and let them do their thing?

 

As I mentioned in my previous reply, to some extent, I'm giving them a pass in this situation.  As I also mentioned above, if you're comfortable, send them a message or email about it.  Generally speaking, the other half of a team usually doesn't claim FTF, especially if they hid it together.  If the mom hid it for the child (without the child when hiding it) to get FTF, then I would also suggest that they create a separate account for the child so it doesn't look quite as bad.  The same would apply if the child hid it without the mom present - separate accounts.  The optics of this situation don't really look good because to an outsider, all they see is the CO's name and then the finder's name, which are one in the same unless they know more about the CO.  While there's nothing in the guidelines about finding your own caches, it's typically discouraged because you're not actually finding the cache since you know where it is.

 

I, personally, would rather send an email/message to the new cacher, thanking them for the new cache while also letting them know that you realize they're new cachers so they might not have an understanding of what they did regarding the find on this cache, both as FTF as well as a hider finding their own hides and claiming a find.  Otherwise, who is going to tell them anything different?  They'll just continue the practice.  Now, if they continue to do this, despite your interactions, then you can strongly consider doing what L0Ne.R suggests.

[+cerberus1]

8 hours ago, texasgeocachegirl said:

there are two members in my nearest town who are new, made accounts about two weeks ago.

As far as I can tell, one account is the mom, the other is a kid.

The account of whom I'm assuming is the mom had a new cache published today (still 4 finds)..

I went to go check it out and maybe go run and find it, except I noticed there was already a log that sad nothing but: "FTF!"

However when I looked closer I saw that it listed the mom's account AND the kid's account as being owners of the cache, making the video (or whichever family member) the only log.

Based on coordinates it seems this cache is in their or someone's yard, although it's not mentioned in the very short and detail lacking cache description.

Obviously the co-owner wasn't actually the FTF if they basically placed it.

Now, I'm not butthurt or anything over this. Let the other account have their first FTF even if it's not exactly a true FTF...

I'm more or less wondering what the general guidelines or attitude around this is.

Should cache co-owners be able to post the first log and proclaim themselves FTF?

It doesn't really seem all that fair to me.

I'm gonna go out and look for it tomorrow maybe and see it/ figure it out in person. Finding a cache from someone with such few finds and a new membership is always hit or miss.

Do I say anything to the CO? Or just let it slide and let them do their thing?

 

Whatever "butthurt" means,  by bolded it seems you have it enough to ask about an issue you have here.  

The number of "finds" of another has nothing to do with this issue ...

FTF, though recognized with notifications (and a PM...) isn't a thing here, or it would have been included in stats on your dashboard.

There is no guideline saying that one account can't find another account's caches even if they are family members...

 

With a 2/3rds who was a FTF monster,  we're both still amazed how seriously some take this side-game of the hobby.

When she had a 5T hide (that I placed for her) on her private account, many people asked why I didn't log it found the next time I did maintenance.

 - I just felt it's not a nice thing to do.    But, you know what ?    There's no guideline that says I couldn't...

We know of a few "team accounts" that all members are in the log somewhere well-before the "official" FTF logs in. 

We've seen many instances of  family members "finding" their relatives caches, and some really do hide the location.

 

Why not just forgetaboutit ?         Wouldn't you feel better letting them enjoy what might well be their short time in this hobby ?

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Their overall behaviour is not a good contribution to the geocaching community. It seems you’re recourse would be to ignore them by not hunting their caches.

If only there were a way to put cachers on an ignore list so we never see their hides (with the option to turn it off when hiding a cache so we can see all caches nearby). 

Perhaps another recourse is to leave a pseudo FTF log and explain how confusing and disappointing it was to see a FTF from what appears to be a co-planter. 

 

Wow.  A new person's "behavior" affects the geocaching community in your area ?   Most we know simply ignore it.  

The new folks catch on quick, and they either change, or leave the hobby.  I'd like to think they're afforded an avenue to change...

We've seen others go "all-knowing" on cache pages, and many times it backfired, with that person considered a prig by most.

[+MNTA]

Ignore it I think i the general consensus.

 

I'm a recovering FTF addict. I still try for them every once in awhile but not like I used to. My biggest dislike was new COs that did not know how to place caches well, whether it be coordinates off or location. One of my first FTFs was under a piece of garbage and another under a carpet sample. Even had one place in the ground cover of my neighborhoods entrance, after a week the area was destroyed because they did not know to place it in areas folks would know to look. They all get archived quickly and only a few catch on and improve their practices. More scrutiny needs to be performed by the reviewers of these newbies. Help them out.

 

If it bothers you watch it and when they stop playing the game edit your log with the FTF so project-gc can track it for you. After all you did earn it. You can spot this a lot of times the date is pre-publish.

[+kunarion]

10 hours ago, texasgeocachegirl said:

I'm more or less wondering what the general guidelines or attitude around this is.

 

Should cache co-owners be able to post the first log and proclaim themselves FTF?

 

It doesn't really seem all that fair to me.

 

It's common around here for a team to hide a cache, with one owner, and the rest waiting to log “until after the FTF”. Those guys have a legitimate claim to FTF, although if present as it's placed, it was certainly not a challenge to find it.

 

But I've always thought it made sense that the first person to find it is “first to find”. I don't mean games or guidelines or fairness, it's just chronological. Make a note of the time as people find it. Who in the chart has the fastest time? Who therefore found it first? The first is first, whether they claim it or not. In some cases, the cacher who finds it first has some valuable information for the Cache Owner, who may then make an adjustment so that future finders have a better cache experience. So it's good to know who finds it first, not by how they individually define "first", but the genuine first finder.

 

But you may say you're "FTF after publishing", as the first signer of a blank log once it's online on Geocaching.com. Some cachers log FTF based on being fastest to the online log page.  Or you may log that your whole team is FTF (everyone in the vicinity, just to be nice). Or you may be First On An Odd-Numbered Tuesday. Just for fun.

 

As mentioned, there are no official “FTF” stats. But in this game that has charts of stats, FTF is also a stat. If it were to become “official” it would become controlled. So just like the site now allows no more than one “Found It” log, various claims of FTF would also be disallowed. It may be OK if each cacher plays in the way that makes sense to them, and if you find it first, to allow others to find it first after you do. Or in the OP's case, you found it first after the previous guy found it first.

[+bflentje]

The best course of action is to ignore it and not be butt hurt. Part of being a FTF hound is to learn to unequivocally accept disappointment. FTF conflicts are a first world problem. And for the record, I hunt a rare FTF every once in a while. I might have 225 or so of them over 15 years.

[+kunarion]

2 hours ago, bflentje said:

I hunt a rare FTF every once in a while. I might have 225 or so of them over 15 years.

 

I may try for FTF after the FTF hounds have given up for the day.  If there's something about the cache that stumps them all (usually it's bad coords, sometimes it's just a unique hide), I like to go see what the deal is with this unsolved mystery.  Sometimes I find it.  Knowing it's not where the most accomplished finders may have looked, that's a clue for sure.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by kunarion
An atom bomb went off, so I hid in a refrigerator.

[+Ambrosia]

It's a common practice in the NW for people to log a new cache if they were with the owner when they placed it. Everyone around here has been doing that since we started in 2002. I guess it's a culture, and no one minds. We do what kunarion mentioned - there's a FTF after publishing, when someone finds the cache after it's gone live online.

 

It seems pragmatic to me - either you have found a cache, or you have not. That's how the website works (not wanting to ignore the cache, because then it ceases to exist essentially, which does not work for accurate history). And looking for the cache later, after you've already been to it, is pretty silly, imo.

 

[+CAVinoGal]

19 hours ago, texasgeocachegirl said:

Obviously the co-owner wasn't actually the FTF if they basically placed it.

 

I'm more or less wondering what the general guidelines or attitude around this is.

 

Should cache co-owners be able to post the first log and proclaim themselves FTF?

 

It doesn't really seem all that fair to me.

 

Do I say anything to the CO? Or just let it slide and let them do their thing?

 

Can of worms you've opened here!!  The following is my own personal opinion, nothing official (FTF is NOT official, it's an unrecoginized, though popular, side game).

 

Co-owners - are both names listed on the "Placed by..." section of the cache page?  There is technically only ONE owner, the submitter, who cannot clam a "find" on that cache.  Even a co-hider, co-owner, listed on the cache page, can claim a find.  As far as FTF, that's a bit of cheating, IMO, if they helped to hide it and know where it is.  But it's an unofficial side game, and if they want to claim an FTF, whatever...One of hubby's first hides has my name as a co-owner on the cache page; I've never claimed it as a "find" even though I *could*.  It doens't seem fair to me....

 

I have helped hubby create and place several hides, as he has done with my hides. He claims mine as finds (not the FTF, but at some point he'll sign the log and claim it).  I feel a bit guilty claiming his hides as finds, but I have made a few exceptions - if I am checking the welfare due to DNF's, I'll sign the log and claim it if it is actually in place.  And I will mention that in my log.  He still has several nearby that I have yet to "find" - I just don't feel right claiming it when I helped to hide it!

 

I would let it slide - they are newbs, may lose interest quickly, and move on.  If it continues, and becomes an ongoing issue, then I might say something when/if I ever met them in person at an event or something.  Otherwise, let it go.  Just my 2¢.

[+dprovan]

On 9/28/2019 at 11:48 PM, texasgeocachegirl said:

Do I say anything to the CO? Or just let it slide and let them do their thing?

Sure, talk it over with them. Maybe they think it makes sense. Maybe mom planted the cache and the kid really did run out and find it as soon as it was published. I think it would be fun to find out and an easy way to meet them. They aren't adversaries or opponents, just people you're playing a game with.

 

If you decide the FTF was invalid, then just ignore it. I'd try to make my FTF claim lighthearted. Maybe say "first to find after members of the CO's family" in the log. You get to decide if you're FTF. The CO doesn't have to approve your claim.

[+Goldenwattle]

12 hours ago, Ambrosia said:

It's a common practice in the NW for people to log a new cache if they were with the owner when they placed it. Everyone around here has been doing that since we started in 2002. I guess it's a culture, and no one minds. We do what kunarion mentioned - there's a FTF after publishing, when someone finds the cache after it's gone live online.

 

It seems pragmatic to me - either you have found a cache, or you have not. That's how the website works (not wanting to ignore the cache, because then it ceases to exist essentially, which does not work for accurate history). And looking for the cache later, after you've already been to it, is pretty silly, imo.

 

Yes, that's what we do. It's often mentioned that (cacher name) was with the CO when the cache was placed, but they won't be claiming FTF. They will log after the FTF. We sign lower down on the log, so that the FTF(s) can log above.

[+hzoi]

If they were there when it was placed and then signed the log, I'd consider that a beta test, at best.  But then I consider my FTF "quota" complete if I get one a year.

 

In this case, if the putative FTF is a child, I don't think it's worth ruining their day over semantics, even if the general consensus is that they didn't really earn "FTF."

[+dprovan]

20 hours ago, Ambrosia said:

It's a common practice in the NW for people to log a new cache if they were with the owner when they placed it. Everyone around here has been doing that since we started in 2002. I guess it's a culture, and no one minds. We do what kunarion mentioned - there's a FTF after publishing, when someone finds the cache after it's gone live online.

I see the "with CO when hidden" here in the San Francisco Bay area, and, as you say, it's claimed after the FTF has logged the find. I've done it a couple times myself. I think it's reasonable and I don't mind it, but I decided for myself that it's kinda silly, so I stopped. I might go back at a later date to sign the log and claim the find if I'm in the area for something else.

 

5 hours ago, hzoi said:

If they were there when it was placed and then signed the log, I'd consider that a beta test, at best.

I've heard people call it a beta test, but that's not really correct. A beta test would be if the CO gives you the coordinates before it's published so you can go make sure you can find it. I don't know of anyone that's done that since FTF is as good a beta test as any. People beta test puzzles, of course, but that's something else.

[+thebruce0]

As mentioned above, FTF is very arbitrary, even beyond the most common sensical understanding.  If you feel you were FTF, despite the child of the owner 'finding' it first on their own account, then log it as "FTF who is not owner's family!"   It's true, it's fair, and the CO can't really complain (and most people reading would understand that to actually be what ftf implies).  If they do complain, there's another great opportunity to connect and chat about the hobby.

Edited September 30, 2019 by thebruce0

[+hzoi]

15 hours ago, dprovan said:

21 hours ago, hzoi said:

If they were there when it was placed and then signed the log, I'd consider that a beta test, at best.

I've heard people call it a beta test, but that's not really correct. A beta test would be if the CO gives you the coordinates before it's published so you can go make sure you can find it. I don't know of anyone that's done that since FTF is as good a beta test as any. People beta test puzzles, of course, but that's something else.

Indeed - hence my "at best" comment at the end.

[+dprovan]

8 hours ago, hzoi said:

Indeed - hence my "at best" comment at the end.

I contest whether it would even be a beta test at best, but no big deal. I certainly hear "beta test" used that way a lot, so I suppose we can consider whether the term has acquired a different meaning in geocaching. But I argue against using the term that way since it makes those "finds" claimed because someone observed the hide sound way more important and valuable than they are.

[+thebruce0]

Yeah, are you really "beta testing" a cache placement, if say, you were there with the CO when it was placed?  Perhaps if the CO asked you after it was placed and before it was published to go and find it. Whether it's a traditional, puzzle, Wherigo, whatever, I'd consider that a beta test. The CO can make changes and 'fixes' if the beta tester has some critical feedback. But I agree, "beta test" is being thrown around a whole lot these days for post-publish, post-ftf logs by people who "helped" the CO place a cache, so they can claim the find... =/

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 Perhaps if the CO asked you after it was placed and before it was published to go and find it. Whether it's a traditional, puzzle, Wherigo, whatever, I'd consider that a beta test. The CO can make changes and 'fixes' if the beta tester has some critical feedback.

But I agree, "beta test" is being thrown around a whole lot these days for post-publish, post-ftf logs by people who "helped" the CO place a cache, so they can claim the find...

 

Yep, kinda agree. 

We both gave up the FTF side-game because we were pretty-much just "beta testing" for mostly new folks with few or no finds.

Few COs responding to "fixes" in email or the cache page did it for me.

The other 2/3rds, a FTF monster, finally had enough over her last, a roadside hide 400 feet off.   She did find it...

[+Ambrosia]

To be a beta tester, you can walk away while the cache owner hides the cache. Then, they can give you the coords, and you can search for it and make sure that the coords are good. We've done that.

 

[+Corfman Clan]

On 9/29/2019 at 8:19 AM, coachstahly said:

Seeing as how the FTF side game isn't recognized by TPTB...

TPTB do recognize the FTF game, it's often mentioned in their blog and other communications, they just don't track it on their website and apps.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

12 hours ago, Corfman Clan said:

TPTB do recognize the FTF game, it's often mentioned in their blog and other communications, they just don't track it on their website and apps.

 

It really wouldn't be possible to confirm who is FTF, unless every cache contained some sort of code that the FTF could remove after finding the cache and use it when logging the cache online.  But more than that, TPTB just don't want to get into the middle of all the drama that occurs in the FTF game.

[+coachstahly]

15 hours ago, Corfman Clan said:

TPTB do recognize the FTF game, it's often mentioned in their blog and other communications, they just don't track it on their website and apps.

 

Perhaps I should have said, "Seeing as how the FTF side game isn't officially recognized by TPTB...." 

 

There's no denying that the FTF is a real thing.  When someone hides a cache, there is someone who will be the first finder.  Rather than get entangled in all the drama that can occur, they don't officially recognize it as a statistic that can be officially tracked and recorded and displayed.  It's one of those things that we all know is out there and is part of geocaching but entertains way too much drama to be something that TPTB would want to be involved in determining who FTF honors "belong" to.