Can Approvers Be Ftf?

2k · February 7, 2005

Can one of the approvers go out and seek a cache to be the FTF? Not that I'm claiming that in my area, though.

I've always wondered how this would work? What if you had a real active cacher who also enjoyed the FTF game. Could that person ever become an approver and still play the FTF game, since it would obviously be unfair to others in the area.

February 7, 2005

Most approvers won't try to be FTF on a cache they have reviewed.

That being said, if a few days have passed and nobody has found it, they might look for it and still get a FTF.

4.7k · February 7, 2005

i'd rather see the approver FF than one of the hiders.

a respectable approver will recuse himself from any FF race on a cache he approved.

38.2k · February 7, 2005

Of course they can, though in areas where FTF is a big deal, they'd be best off waiting a few days before giving the cache a shot.

2k · February 7, 2005

Of course they can, though in areas where FTF is a big deal, they'd be best off waiting a few days before giving the cache a shot.

Sure, that makes sense. I just didn'tthink it would be right for an approver to either find the cache before listing it, or listing it and immediately go out and find it.

Caches almost never last more than a few hours here w/o a find! Those crazy FTF people have nothing better to do, apparantly.

3.9k · February 7, 2005

Just a couple of days ago in this area we had an approver be FTF. Not sure if it was his approveal or not though.

The cache owner sent in the page for an easy 1/1 before hiding the container. The cache was approved about 30 minutes after submission, but the owner didn't hide the container until the next day.

Several no-finds before one of our local approvers found it. It was just a coincidence that it was an approver who came to look for it right after it was finally placed, but he was the FTF for sure.

5.7k · February 7, 2005

The cache owner sent in the page for an easy 1/1 before hiding the container. The cache was approved about 30 minutes after submission, but the owner didn't hide the container until the next day.

That is bad form. If the cache isn't placed yet, an approver note should be sent to the approver so that they know not to approve it yet.

--Marky

1.6k · February 7, 2005

The cache owner sent in the page for an easy 1/1 before hiding the container. The cache was approved about 30 minutes after submission, but the owner didn't hide the container until the next day.

That is bad form. If the cache isn't placed yet, an approver note should be sent to the approver so that they know not to approve it yet.

--Marky

Both bad form.

Caches that are theoretical, or are on the edge, should be discussed BEFORE the placement, rather than approved in theory.

Approvers should not be FTF, in any case. The importance of being FTF is lost on me, but as its important to some, the approvers should respect that element of the game and hold back.

5.7k · February 7, 2005

Can one of the approvers go out and seek a cache to be the FTF? Not that I'm claiming that in my area, though.

I've always wondered how this would work? What if you had a real active cacher who also enjoyed the FTF game. Could that person ever become an approver and still play the FTF game, since it would obviously be unfair to others in the area.

This is one of those classic "Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should" situations. If doing FTF's is really THAT important, don't volunteer to be an approver. But if you are just going to 'bout DIE if you can't FTF, then I'd suggest that a minimum waiting period of six months would be appropriate.

Is there just ONE approver per region? Do these approvers ever get to take a vacation? Or get ill? Or have a family emergency? You'd think that since these are volunteer positions that the kind folk who perform this service for us would have at least ONE backup person. Geez gang give 'em a break for crimminie sakes.

Edited February 7, 2005 by Team cotati697

1.1k · February 7, 2005

The thing is most approvers us an alias for approving so who would know like it raelly matters.

cheers

5.7k · February 7, 2005

The thing is most approvers us an alias for approving so who would know like it raelly matters.
cheers

THEY would know. And that is ALL that matters. "You can best judge a man's character by what he does when no one is looking" comes to mind. These FTF's must be really really important.

Edited February 7, 2005 by Team cotati697

February 7, 2005

I don’t see a problem with the approvers being a FTF.

I’m sure they won’t go out and hit a gazillion caches.

The ones, more than a few miles, from their home or approval area, are going to be far and few.

If they approve it today, and head out tomorrow am, it should be fine, IMO.

Once it hits the active page, it should be fare game to all.

If they cheat, by just going to the final cache, and not finding the 6 micro’s leading up to the big box. Now, that would be a problem!

Around here, sometimes the FTF competition is very tough, myself included.

I don’t think an approver, could get there faster, than some hard core cachers.

Anyway, the only two differences between us and the approvers are:

1) They take way to much abuse, from the general population!

2) They are overpaid, way too much!

They need to double their time volunteering, :lol:

just to come up in par with their salary.

SF1

February 7, 2005

The cache owner sent in the page for an easy 1/1 before hiding the container. The cache was approved about 30 minutes after submission, but the owner didn't hide the container until the next day.

There is a box on the cache submittal page that has to be marked whether the cache is in place or not. It should not be marked as ready and in place if it isn't.

February 7, 2005

Yes, the Reviewers are allowed to be FTF on caches. Out of fairness they agree not to use any unpublished information to their advantage. (i.e. final coords for a multi, solutions to puzzle caches)

2k · February 7, 2005

Yes, the Reviewers are allowed to be FTF on caches. Out of fairness they agree not to use any unpublished information to their advantage. (i.e. final coords for a multi, solutions to puzzle caches)

So are they allowed to approve a cache when it's convenient to them, i.e. "I'm going home from work now. I'll approve the cache now so I can hit it on the way home". Or, "Can't go out tonight ... I'll wait to approve the cache till the morning when I can".

21.9k · February 7, 2005

Volunteer reviewers ought to be able to be "first to find" on traditional caches which they've reviewed. This is because we have no special advantage or inside information, other than knowing about the listing the moment it becomes public. (Obviously, it would be unethical to claim a find prior to the cache being listed, although there are limited circumstances where a reviewer does check the physical location -- for example, if required by a park's cache permit procedure.)

That being said, if reviewers made a habit of jumping in the car the moment they pressed the button to list a cache, they'd be pretty unpopular and you'd see a lot more threads like this one. Most of us don't bother. We're too busy reviewing caches to worry about being the first to find them. But if I list a cache on Tuesday and I'm in that area on Wednesday after work, I ought to be able to hunt for that traditional cache.

Puzzles, multicaches and even virtual caches are a different matter. Unavoidably, the reviewer is in possession of "inside information" like the final cache coordinates. We should not use that information when hunting the cache. I will either wait until all details leave my head, which doesn't take long. Or if it's an especially cool cache in my local area, I'll ask another volunteer to handle the review so that I can enjoy finding it (including finding it first, if I wanted to). To prevent the appearance of impropriety, the reviewer of a puzzle, multicache or virtual cache should wait awhile before seeking it, in order to allow others the chance to be first finder.

2.3k · February 7, 2005

Yes, the Reviewers are allowed to be FTF on caches. Out of fairness they agree not to use any unpublished information to their advantage. (i.e. final coords for a multi, solutions to puzzle caches)

So are they allowed to approve a cache when it's convenient to them, i.e. "I'm going home from work now. I'll approve the cache now so I can hit it on the way home". Or, "Can't go out tonight ... I'll wait to approve the cache till the morning when I can".

Actually we wait until we get to the cache then use our wireless INTERNET enabled phones to approve them while we sign the log.

Give me an Freaking break here. IF you don't have faith in the integrity of your local reviewer then don't place a cache. But for gods sake don't insult us with statements like you just made.!!

Edited February 7, 2005 by CO Admin

20.7k · February 7, 2005

I don't see how an approver would have inside info to find a cache in most instances. There are only two ways that they would have an unfair advantage.

1) If they skipped the initial steps to find a multi. I have to assume that most people would not do this just to claim a FTF. You would miss out on most of the fun. Certainly, just because they have seen the coords would not give them an advantage. They are just long strings of numbers, quickly forgotten.

2) If they were somehow told the manner in which a difficult cache was hidden. I don't know why they would be privy to this info. Perhaps on the more obscure virts this would be necessary.

February 7, 2005

I see no problem with it, a FTF is no big deal to me.

20.7k · February 7, 2005

So are they allowed to approve a cache when it's convenient to them, i.e. "I'm going home from work now. I'll approve the cache now so I can hit it on the way home". Or, "Can't go out tonight ... I'll wait to approve the cache till the morning when I can".

Is FTF really this important to anybody? From my experience, FTF means you get to be the one to give the hider the correct coords.

5.8k · February 7, 2005

Each of us cachers has our own way of making a name for ourselves, for some it's by finding 5000 caches, for some it's always being FTF, others hosting Events, or specializing in puzzles, coveted sig items, etc. etc. etc....... For me it's by running my Gamecards, and for the reviewers it's just "being a reviewer". I don't think many of them would be trying to get FTF, I'm sure they don't have time. It's a nice surprise to get one, but I don't put too much effort into it. I think I have 3 with 300 total finds

1.4k · February 7, 2005

I've tried to be FTF on a handful of caches I've approved. But even though I get to the cache within a half an hour, I usually have to settle for STF

I'd have to have a helicopter and/or a police escort to beat the FTF hounds around here

February 7, 2005

Yes, the Reviewers are allowed to be FTF on caches. Out of fairness they agree not to use any unpublished information to their advantage. (i.e. final coords for a multi, solutions to puzzle caches)

So are they allowed to approve a cache when it's convenient to them, i.e. "I'm going home from work now. I'll approve the cache now so I can hit it on the way home". Or, "Can't go out tonight ... I'll wait to approve the cache till the morning when I can".

I have yet to see a reviewer increase their find count after becoming a volunteer, let alone the FTF count. In most cases what I see is a drop in their rate of finding caches because they have less time to get out there.

They do this because they love the sport, they are not out to cheat themselves out of what they love.

2.1k · February 7, 2005

This isn't an original idea, but it hasn't been mentioned here yet.

There's nothing that stops a reviewer from going to a cache *before* they approve it and signing the logbook, taking any FTF prize, and then going home and approving it online.

That having been said, a little over a year ago (Oct 2003), there were suggestions solicited from the forum audience for reviewer guidelines. The FTF paradox and Self-Reviewing Their Own Caches were the two gigantic topics that took up the thread (the infamous "Tough Nuts" thread). We have not been privy to the results/implementations of that thread's suggestions by Groundspeak for a definitive set of Reviewer Guidelines.

The way the reviewers are talking in this thread, my guess is that the results did not include any mandates on special FTF criteria for reviewers.

6.7k · February 7, 2005

Actually we wait until we get to the cache then use our wireless INTERNET enabled phones to approve them while we sign the log.

This almost perfectly sums up the situation!

You have good people busting their fanny to promote and enable this game, volunteering a LOT of their time to do the approver job to the best of their ability, and a small crowd of vocal conspiracy theorists accusing them of every sin under the sun!

Ludicrous!

Hooray for our Approvers, they make this game work!

I vote we raise the membership by $100 a year and start paying the approvers!

5.8k · February 7, 2005

I hope a few more features come with that $100 dollar increase.

21.9k · February 7, 2005

The thing is most approvers us an alias for approving so who would know like it raelly matters.
cheers

Not true. Well over half of the volunteers either do their review work under their "real" geocaching name or, like me, keep separate accounts but make no secret about their actual identity.

And for those reviewers who prefer to remain "in the closet," don't you think that consistently being FTF on caches might cause some suspicion? Figuring out the identity of an anonymous reviewer seems to be as big a challenge for some as being FTF. Why give them evidence?

Regardless of whether a volunteer's identity is publicly known, we're bound by the same standards, summarized by Hydee above.

2k · February 7, 2005

Give me an Freaking break here. IF you don't have faith in the integrity of your local reviewer then don't place a cache. But for gods sake don't insult us with statements like you just made.!!

Sorry - I'm not making any accusations on anybody! I'm just wondering out loud if this has been discussed before. Since many of the most active cachers also play for FTF, I was wondering if they were ever approached to be an approver, and how they would handle it.

2k · February 7, 2005

So are they allowed to approve a cache when it's convenient to them, i.e. "I'm going home from work now. I'll approve the cache now so I can hit it on the way home". Or, "Can't go out tonight ... I'll wait to approve the cache till the morning when I can".

Is FTF really this important to anybody? From my experience, FTF means you get to be the one to give the hider the correct coords.

Actually that's only happened twice to me ... in general, coords are generally very good, or close enough.

2.1k · February 7, 2005

...a small crowd of vocal conspiracy theorists accusing them of every sin under the sun!

Ludicrous!

Indeed it would be if that were the case. Instead, it is not. Not a single post in this thread has accused *anyone* of doing *anything*. The question was simply "are they able to do so". The answer is "yes, but they don't".

I think I'm going to have to make the RIF website part of my signature soon.

1.4k · February 7, 2005

I have yet to see a reviewer increase their find count after becoming a volunteer, let alone the FTF count. In most cases what I see is a drop in their rate of finding caches because they have less time to get out there.

They do this because they love the sport, they are not out to cheat themselves out of what they love.

Hydee is quite right on this one. We all have full lives, with families and responsibilities that have nothing to do with geocaching. We choose to spend some of our 'caching' time reviewing instead of finding. We do this because it's the least we can do to help keep geocaching going strong.

21.9k · February 7, 2005

Sorry - I'm not making any accusations on anybody! I'm just wondering out loud if this has been discussed before. Since many of the most active cachers also play for FTF, I was wondering if they were ever approached to be an approver, and how they would handle it.

Thanks for your response. I'll answer your question by noting that I was a frequent first finder prior to May 2003 when I joined the volunteer group. Being FTF used to be fun for me. After a year of being the guinea pig to correct bad coordinates and wasting gas to dash across town, the appeal wore off. Since becoming a reviewer, I think my FTF total is about six caches, some of which were purely by accident (i.e., a day or more later), some were placed at a distant event cache I was attending, etc. Cache reviews and forum moderating have definitely put a damper on my ability or desire to dash out and find a new cache. After I list the two caches within ten miles of my house, there's still a bunch more in Toledo, Columbus, Cleveland, Erie, State College and Charleston waiting for me. At midnight I'd rather take care of the remaining reviews instead of jumping in the cachemobile. Just as Hydee noted above, the workload plus our ethical rules take care of the problem. Finally, having grabbed a lot of FTF's in the past, I am very happy to let other enthusiastic new geocachers experience the thrill of seeing a virgin logbook.

February 8, 2005

Nobody answered a question I had in another topic, so I will venture it here...

Do approvers get to approve their own caches...Seems a little unfair if they do. Sure they are supposed to know the rules, but whats to keep them from stretching that 528 feet rule for a stage in their multicache, etc?

38.2k · February 8, 2005

but whats to keep them from stretching that 528 feet rule for a stage in their multicache, etc?

Hydee!

5.7k · February 8, 2005

Actually we wait until we get to the cache then use our wireless INTERNET enabled phones to approve them while we sign the log.

This almost perfectly sums up the situation!

You have good people busting their fanny to promote and enable this game, volunteering a LOT of their time to do the approver job to the best of their ability, and a small crowd of vocal conspiracy theorists accusing them of every sin under the sun!

Ludicrous!

Hooray for our Approvers, they make this game work!

I vote we raise the membership by $100 a year and start paying the approvers!

I'll second that suggestion.

2.3k · February 8, 2005

Nobody answered a question I had in another topic, so I will venture it here...

Do approvers get to approve their own caches...Seems a little unfair if they do. Sure they are supposed to know the rules, but whats to keep them from stretching that 528 feet rule for a stage in their multicache, etc?

Yes we are allowed to approve our own caches. Some of us do, Some of us don't. Whats to stop us from stretching the rules, NOT A DADGUM THING except the fact that Groundspeak has put its trust in us and none of us would violate that trust. Whats to stop a cacher from lying about a cache placement to the reviewer. Nothing. Whats to stop you from lying on your income tax's. Nothing. If your that kind of person then thats who you are no matter what the rules or guidelines are. The reviewers we have here are all good people If you don't trust them it wouldn't matter what assurances you were given you still wouldn't believe it.

Edited February 8, 2005 by CO Admin

5.3k · February 8, 2005

It may not be practical for an approver to get a lot of FTFs. In my area the approver has to cover a very large area. Trying to get to a FTF that can be 2 or 3 hours away can be very time consuming and trying for a FTF may not be all the doable.

5.8k · February 8, 2005

Trust me, JV would know ALL ABOUT FTF's

February 8, 2005

It may not be practical for an approver to get a lot of FTFs. In my area the approver has to cover a very large area. Trying to get to a FTF that can be 2 or 3 hours away can be very time consuming and trying for a FTF may not be all the doable.

This is very true. I frequently cover a state I don't live in. It would be very difficult for me to be FTF there.

With my work schedule, it would be very hard to be FTF in my own city!

2.7k · February 8, 2005

I feel safe here in CO with my caches, there is no rush to be a FTF, they wait to see if someone survived the hunt.

Then they go looking.

2.3k · February 8, 2005

I feel safe here in CO with my caches, there is no rush to be a FTF, they wait to see if someone survived the hunt.

Then they go looking.

To do one of yours I'd have to take a medical support team with me.

Edited February 8, 2005 by CO Admin

February 8, 2005

If they skipped the initial steps to find a multi. I have to assume that most people would not do this just to claim a FTF. You would miss out on most of the fun.

I'm sure that there are many instances (my recently-approved first and so-far only hide being one) where a major part of the purpose of the cache is to show seekers something the hider thought was neat, and which, in earlier days, might have stood alone as a virtual.

In the case of my cache if you had the final coordinates and just went directly to the cache, skipping the first stage, you'd find a fairly unremarkable cache; just a container hidden in some ivy, with the usual trinkets. It's only the first stage that makes this cache any better or any more interesting than the blandest of traditional caches.

I'm working on a second cache for which this will probably hold true as well. I've found something neat, that I want to show my fellow cachers; but I have yet to figure out where I am going to hide the actual cache.

February 8, 2005

I was once asked to address this question in a local list, which I did. Since it has come up here, I will also answer it here in case locals who read here are interested or if it helps see another general reviewer perspective.

My policy is that I do not FTF any multi-caches or puzzle caches that I review. That is because I am given the coordinates for the stages and final cache as part of the process. Although I would never "cheat" and use those, a FTF could always lead to the appearance of that, and so I don't do FTF on those. It helps that I also don't care much about being FTF. In rare cases involving puzzles, I have asked another reviewer to take the cache because I like puzzles and don't want to accidentally get a spoiler in a reviewer note. Even when I ask another reviewer to take the cache, I still avoid being FTF. If for some reason a hard puzzle went unfound for sometime and I did not review it, I might consider asking the cache owner if they minded if I was FTF, but I would do that only with the owner's permission and wouldn't feel comfortable taking any special FTF prize.

With regular caches, I also avoid FTF, but don't sweat it alot. I would never plug the coords in my GPS, hit the approve button and run out of the house to get the cache. But if the cache is still sitting there unfound a few days later and I want to go caching and it is a cache I want to find, I will find it. But even there I would avoid taking a FTF prize if I listed the cache. Generally even with "regular" caches I try to avoid FTF. I would rather see others who like to get FTFs get that.

As for reviewers listing their own caches: I don't. I pass those off to another reviewer and leave the normal reviewer note to cover any issues etc., just like any other cacher should. It doesn't bother me though if some reviewers want to review their own caches. The reviewers tend to have a good history and know the rules, so I am not worried about things getting listed there that shouldn't. I personally prefer to have others list my caches though.

2.7k · February 8, 2005

To do one of yours I'd have to take a medical support team with me.

If I win the Lotto before May, I'll get a chopper and fly you to the Dessert and you can be FTF, the *ell with what anybody says.

2.3k · February 8, 2005

To do one of yours I'd have to take a medical support team with me.

If I win the Lotto before May, I'll get a chopper and fly you to the Dessert and you can be FTF, the *ell with what anybody says.

Deal!

5.3k · February 8, 2005

Trust me, JV would know ALL ABOUT FTF's

What! I have not had a FTF for a week.

2.7k · February 8, 2005

So are they allowed to approve a cache when it's convenient to them, i.e. "I'm going home from work now. I'll approve the cache now so I can hit it on the way home". Or, "Can't go out tonight ... I'll wait to approve the cache till the morning when I can".

Is FTF really this important to anybody? From my experience, FTF means you get to be the one to give the hider the correct coords.

It's true that most of the time it is just for bragging rights. Sometimes there is coveted FTF item. I have one geocacher in my area that leaves a FTF pin in all the caches he hides. Then you have the occasional Handspring Visor FTF prize like in this cache, see first log entry.

Edited February 8, 2005 by Bushwhacked Glenn

1.4k · February 8, 2005

Yeah, I have given away Palms as a FTF prize:

Oscar The Grouch

Once approved they are fair game to go find by anyone, including approvers. It doesn't matter to me if an approver wants to search for my cache. I hide 'em for others to find and to give back to the sport.

February 8, 2005

Yes, the Reviewers are allowed to be FTF on caches. Out of fairness they agree not to use any unpublished information to their advantage. (i.e. final coords for a multi, solutions to puzzle caches)

So are they allowed to approve a cache when it's convenient to them, i.e. "I'm going home from work now. I'll approve the cache now so I can hit it on the way home". Or, "Can't go out tonight ... I'll wait to approve the cache till the morning when I can".

Actually we wait until we get to the cache then use our wireless INTERNET enabled phones to approve them while we sign the log.

Give me an Freaking break here. IF you don't have faith in the integrity of your local reviewer then don't place a cache. But for gods sake don't insult us with statements like you just made.!!

BRAVO !! :huh:

7.2k · February 8, 2005

Nobody answered a question I had in another topic, so I will venture it here...

Do approvers get to approve their own caches...Seems a little unfair if they do. Sure they are supposed to know the rules, but whats to keep them from stretching that 528 feet rule for a stage in their multicache, etc?

Yes we are allowed to approve our own caches. Some of us do, Some of us don't. Whats to stop us from stretching the rules, NOT A DADGUM THING except the fact that Groundspeak has put its trust in us and none of us would violate that trust.

And, to take that a step further, if we were stretching the guidelines on our own hides I would guarantee that we would not last long as reviewers. If we did that with our own caches we would surely do it with others. If it was pointed out we would not be allowed to continue.

To do one of yours I'd have to take a medical support team with me.

If I win the Lotto before May, I'll get a chopper and fly you to the Dessert and you can be FTF, the *ell with what anybody says.

:huh:

Can Approvers Be Ftf?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment