FTF acknowledgements in listings

[noikmeister]

From a recent discussion on the ACT board:

To be honest, I have never posted "FTF" in a cache description before. I actually think it clogs the listing up a little bit.

From what I have seen it is something that is very prevalent in the ACT but not many other places. I too agree that it clogs up the listing and forces you to make one extra scroll on the Oregon!

I thought I'd move it to its own topic here so I don't hijack the thread

I'm not sure why this is. I do it for my caches perhaps because so many of the caches in the ACT already had it. It could also have to do with the mix of puzzle caches and demanding bush caches we have here. It makes the FTF on some caches worth something more than a driveby.

Even though I only started it because I thought it was a convention I now find that I like it. I even go to the effort of linking to the finder's profile. I quite enjoy an FTF hunt and I must vainly admit that I rush to update my public profile as soon as I get one.

Another aspect of FTF logging that I noticed, through was a convention and have continued to do with respect to my own logging is that when I accompany someone on a cache placement walk and log the cache, I always wait for the FTFer(s) to log their finds (naturally) but also log my find on the same date as they did, not the date it was hidden so that the real FTFer's log always appears first in the listing.

How many people are aware of and/or follow these "conventions"?

[honeysucker]

I try to wait a week or so before listing a find on a cache where i was present at placement.

I also think that anyone says they wont go for a FTF or find the thrill of FTF is deluding themselves I will admit I enjoy seeing my name as FTF not that it happens very often where I am.

I think it is good that a cache owner takes pride in his or Her cache and looks after it.

[Philipp]

How many people are aware of and/or follow these "conventions"?

I am aware that there are some conventions among the FTF-hunters but since it isn't my cup of tea I don't follow them at all.

Cheers

[Diadem]

I've never liked the practice. It does feel good to be the first but it's the act of geocaching that gives me greater pleasure.

I don't mind seeing my log as the earliest on the list but I don't need to see my name in the main description. I get the feeling that it places the FTF hunt as the ultimate goal in geocaching. The FTF gets the trophy and the rest are unimportant. When getting out there, being active and finding caches is to me the greatest goal of geocaching - the FTF is just a bonus.

But then again there are other caching practices that bug me and I've just learned to live with them.

[Papa Bear_Left]

When we moved to NZ some years ago, we noticed that almost every cache description had a list of the original contents in it.

Once we got to know some local cachers, we asked them why they did this, since it was out of date just about immediately, and they generally looked surprised, then slightly embarrassed, and told us that they'd only done it because that's what they'd seen on existing caches.
(It went right back to Donovan's original buckets, which had contents worth listing!)

When we came to WA and started placing caches, we were emailed by a couple of finders, asking if we'd forgotten the FTF card. There was such a strong tradition of having a card for the FTF (and, often, silver and bronze) that it was assumed to be an oversight if there wasn't one.
(We liked the idea and adopted it, and have done ever since.)


I suspect the tradition of acknowledging the FTF (and, sometimes, 2TF and 3TF) is something similar. It only really seems common in ACT and, to a lesser extent, Adelaide, although there's scattered placers who do it elsewhere. (Maybe they're ex Canberrans?)


Personally, I mildly disparage the idea. The concept that FTF is important isn't universal, and it looks a bit silly on a five year old cache with hundreds of finds. Who cares who happened to live close enough to this suburban trad to get to it first all those years ago? On a mega-multi or fiendish puzzle, it might retain some cachet.

[Big Matt and Shell]

When we moved to NZ some years ago, we noticed that almost every cache description had a list of the original contents in it.

Thats is funny, Shell and I did this on our first few listings as we saw it on another cache.

In line with the original question we have always published the FTF on the cache page as initially we were interested in the whole FTF race but it's just not as important to us now.

[pprass]

Yes we have noticed the growing practice of acknowledging the FTFer - especially around here where we assumed that cachers are just copying what they see in other caches - so it just grows. (I was actually going to raise this as a discussion point as well)

The first time I saw such an acknowledgement was years ago and it was for an impossibly difficult cache (for us in any case). Now in that instance the team that was FTF truley deserved to be acknowledged and from memory I think the second and third were also mentioned. Now a team is acknowledged (as PBL says) for being FTF when they simply happened to be close by a new cache that could just be a 1.0/1.5 - which to me is not such a great achievement in comparison.

But - it doesn't hurt anyone and the person that is acknowledged gets a bit of a buzz I guess, so although we don't do it and it has diminished what we thought was a deservedly high acolade, it seems to be a part of the game now.

[Richary]

But - it doesn't hurt anyone and the person that is acknowledged gets a bit of a buzz I guess, so although we don't do it and it has diminished what we thought was a deservedly high acolade, it seems to be a part of the game now.

I'm not sure the person being acknowledged will get the buzz though. Once I have found a cache and logged it I won't generally revisit that listing and re-read the description (unless it was so outstanding I watch it to see who else has managed the find) But as you say, it doesn't hurt anyone.

[Dippedidooda]

I've only happened on to this thread and not the earlier discussion elsewhere, but there was comment about the seemingly peculiar practice of listing the contents of the cache on the cache page. (Which becomes out of date after a few finds of course). I assumed that this occurred because on the GC site when you fill in the form to list the cache, it actually suggests to include it (the long cache description info) that suggests what to put in each box. So that's why the habit continues I guess.

[garnercx]

I must admit that when I first saw "original content lists" and FTF accolades in cache descriptions, I thought it was a bit weird, and not really the right place for that information.

When I placed my most recent cache, I had a pretty decent FTF prize, so I acknowledged the finder in a note.

I also made the original content list in a note, as it is only relevant at a point in time, and doesn't belong in the description.

[Rainbow Spirit]

If a new cache is close by I will attempt a FTF, then again every cache I find is a FTF for me.
I'm not fussed one way or the other as to whether the CO acknowledges the FTFer or not, I don't with my hides.

[blossom*]

I think it's just more clutter in the description to detail the FTF in the cache listing. Generally I don't care who found a cache first several years ago and if I do (becasue it's an especially difficult puzzle or whatever), I will scroll down to the first log and read the story it tells.

Similarly, I think listing the original cache contents is just more clutter in the description too. I think this is best listed as a Noted log if the CO thinks it's useful.

A cache description is best if it lists all the interesting information about the cache location, plus any details relevant to finding it. And only that.

[noikmeister]

I think it's just more clutter in the description to detail the FTF in the cache listing.

An extra line on a listing doesn't really constitute clutter, especially given the number of people who don't even bother to read the description at all. I think it is a good thing, especially for newer cachers to see their name "up in lights"

[garnercx]

An extra line on a listing doesn't really constitute clutter

Disagree. Clutter is exactly what it is. Clutter is a great definition.

I think it's something that has a time based context and therefore doesn't belong in the description. That's exactly what the logs are for, hence - clutter.

[noikmeister]

Disagree. Clutter is exactly what it is. Clutter is a great definition.

I think it's something that has a time based context and therefore doesn't belong in the description. That's exactly what the logs are for, hence - clutter.

Disagree. It doesn't have a time-based context. The initial contents of the container do and I agree, put that in a note. But the FTFer is always the FTFer.

A dinner table with stuff all over it is cluttered. A table with knives and forks is set for dinner and has only necessary things. Add a bunch of flowers or a candle to the table and I wouldn't call it clutter. I'd call it character.