FTF by a publisher

January 3, 2017

So recently our Publisher came out of the geocaching closet as a geocacher in the area. I have talked to other folks in other areas and they have stated that there is no way a Publisher is supposed to go after FTF seeing as they published the cache that they were going for. This publisher had gotten a FTF on one of my caches before I knew that they were the publisher. So recently I saw they got another FTF but with a group. I called him out because I believe that regardless of being in a group they should not be going for a FTF. Then he sent me a message... telling me to shove it.... I am thinking a publisher should be able to bite their tongue..

I mean that a publisher that takes what he knows prior to publishing has the advantage. I was just curious about what the geocaching community feels about it. I was told not to take this game personally but I just want to know what you think. Anyway good luck to all and have a great 2017

Eyeash

1.5k · January 3, 2017

On the surface, for a reviewer to go after ftf is tacky, but none of us know the full story. Was the cache published months earlier and possibly the reviewer forgot they even published it? and so on.

there are always two sides to every story. You have only told one.

Also, depending on how you "called him out" as you said, and what language you used to them, would have bearing on how they responded.

Edit:spelling

Edited January 3, 2017 by BC & MsKitty

7.3k · January 3, 2017

So recently our Publisher came out of the geocaching closet as a geocacher in the area. I have talked to other folks in other areas and they have stated that there is no way a Publisher is supposed to go after FTF seeing as they published the cache that they were going for. This publisher had gotten a FTF on one of my caches before I knew that they were the publisher. So recently I saw they got another FTF but with a group. I called him out because I believe that regardless of being in a group they should not be going for a FTF. Then he sent me a message... telling me to shove it.... I am thinking a publisher should be able to bite their tongue..

I mean that a publisher that takes what he knows prior to publishing has the advantage. I was just curious about what the geocaching community feels about it. I was told not to take this game personally but I just want to know what you think. Anyway good luck to all and have a great 2017

Eyeash

The term is "Reviewer".

:drama:

B.

10.1k · January 3, 2017

I'd tell you to shove it too. As long as the reviewer is not taking advantage of final coordinates for mystery, multi or letterbox hybrids, the reviewer is a geocacher, and has the right to hunt for geocaches. The fact that the reviewer found it as part of a group makes your argument even worse. The rest of the group found it, but the reviewer shouldn't?!? That's just bizarre.

January 3, 2017

1) Unless there's secret information included in the cache submission, there's no particular advantage to the reviewer pursuing a FTF.

2) This is one of the reasons why Groundspeak doesn't recognize the FTF as an "official" statistic.

3) Most reviewers are also cachers; that's how they got involved in the sport in the first place. (Of course, some reviewers are also dogs.)

4) According to Groundspeak, there are only three rules for finding caches: sign the log, trade even or better, and log your find online. Everything else is "optional".

5) You "called out" a reviewer and then criticize that reviewer for responding in-kind? Yeah, that's gonna work out well.

6)

1.3k · January 3, 2017

I don’t know that I would’ve told you to shove it. But you are in the wrong in this case, and without knowing how you worded it when you "called him out", I can’t say for certain whether I would’ve been able to bite my tongue either.

Looks like the reviewer found the cache and was FTF while caching with a group a full two days after the cache was published. Volunteers may be “first to find” for any traditional cache after it is published, so there's nothing improper here.

Best wishes to you, too, for a great 2017.

3.3k · January 3, 2017

I'd tell you to shove it too. As long as the reviewer is not taking advantage of final coordinates for mystery, multi or letterbox hybrids, the reviewer is a geocacher, and has the right to hunt for geocaches. The fact that the reviewer found it as part of a group makes your argument even worse. The rest of the group found it, but the reviewer shouldn't?!? That's just bizarre.

I agree that the reviewer should have full "rights" as a cacher - he or she wears two hats.

I suppose one thing that potentially gives the reviewer an edge is that he or she is the only person who knows exactly when the cache will be published. That means that the reviewer *could* publish the cache at a convenient time (for him or her) and perhaps even hit the publish button while close to the general area of GZ (using a smartphone).

This may or may not happen - but a reviewer claiming FTF creates "the appearance of impropriety," because he or she *could* have an advantage - IF FOUND SHORTLY AFTER PUBLICATION.

Edit: and two days passed, I see, so it's almost impossible to say he or she had an edge in this particular case.

Edited January 3, 2017 by wmpastor

3.7k · January 3, 2017

When we submit, we're told to add information about the hide. I've always taken that to mean hide style and/or location...so I guess even on a traditional, that's at least SOME sort of advantage that others might not have.

Even so, FTF is nothing official, so the OP is way off base in making an issue of it. Deal with it. I honestly wouldn't bat an eye if our reviewer was FTF on one of mine.

Edited January 3, 2017 by J Grouchy

January 3, 2017

I don't think calling out a reviewer via a note on the cache page was very tactful or effective. However, the reviewer is a sort of representative of geocaching and it was not tactful of them to respond in such a way to you. Sounds like it's coming down to a difference in personalities and not so much about geocaching. If it was me I would personally email them and Carefully select words that did not attack him but hold him accountable to standards if there is a question about reputation. Being angry is fine but why ruin the game because of a difference of opinions? The reviewer probably feels the same way. Sometimes a good apology goes a long way.

1.5k · January 3, 2017

I don't think calling out a reviewer via a note on the cache page was very tactful or effective. However, the reviewer is a sort of representative of geocaching and it was not tactful of them to respond in such a way to you. Sounds like it's coming down to a difference in personalities and not so much about geocaching. If it was me I would personally email them and Carefully select words that did not attack him but hold him accountable to standards if there is a question about reputation. Being angry is fine but why ruin the game because of a difference of opinions? The reviewer probably feels the same way. Sometimes a good apology goes a long way.

No one but the reviewer or the OP knows how the reviewer responded.

Did he actually say "shove it" or was the OP paraphrasing?

On a side note (sort of) a friend is a reviewer and I asked him about the finding of caches having a perceived unfair advantage. He said he rarely remembers the caches he has reviewed and published, other than maybe the name of it.

Not much of an advantage as far as I'm concerned.

Edited January 3, 2017 by BC & MsKitty

5.7k · January 3, 2017

Can't the reviewer just sign the log when they go check to see if the cache is there first? :unsure:

I hear that sometimes they take trackables too! :laughing:

January 3, 2017

No the reviewer really did say "shove it" and called the guy a swear word. The reviewer also went onto a Facebook geocaching page and complained about said geocacher. Neither of the two involved handled the situation well.

5.7k · January 3, 2017

No the reviewer really did say "shove it" and called the guy a swear word. The reviewer also went onto a Facebook geocaching page and complained about said geocacher. Neither of the two involved handled the situation well.

Was it a micro? :laughing:

9k · January 3, 2017

Agree with those defending the reviewer's find (far too many factors involve), but also agree that the reviewer was not very tactful in the response (or the fact that they towed a community 'grey' line by being amongst first finders) either.

Technically, the reviewer did nothing wrong.

In etiquette, the reviewer did nothing to help their reputation.

In rules, FTF is 100% arbitrary, so it's needless angst to worry even one bit about what people "claim".

15.3k · January 3, 2017

Agree with those defending the reviewer's find (far too many factors involve), but also agree that the reviewer was not very tactful in the response (or the fact that they towed a community 'grey' line by being amongst first finders) either.

I don't see much of a grey line. The find was 2 days after publication. It's a traditional cache. The volunteer reviewer found it as part of a group of geocachers.

I don't see any way the volunteer reviewer could have abused his position here.

I don't see any way the volunteer reviewer could have been perceived to have abused his position here, except perhaps by someone with the completely unreasonable expectation that volunteer reviewers should never, under any circumstances, get an FTF or be part of a group that gets an FTF. What's next? Volunteer reviewers should never find multi-caches or puzzle caches? Volunteer reviewers should never find caches with a difficulty rating above 1 star, or maybe (if we're feeling especially generous) 1.5 stars?

5.7k · January 3, 2017

I see two geocachers in a social media whizzing contest over FTF on a micro. :anicute: Is this even a reason to be butt hurt?

9k · January 3, 2017

Agree with those defending the reviewer's find (far too many factors involve), but also agree that the reviewer was not very tactful in the response (or the fact that they towed a community 'grey' line by being amongst first finders) either.
I don't see much of a grey line. The find was 2 days after publication. It's a traditional cache. The volunteer reviewer found it as part of a group of geocachers.

I don't see any way the volunteer reviewer could have abused his position here.

I don't see any way the volunteer reviewer could have been perceived to have abused his position here, except perhaps by someone with the completely unreasonable expectation that volunteer reviewers should never, under any circumstances, get an FTF or be part of a group that gets an FTF. What's next? Volunteer reviewers should never find multi-caches or puzzle caches? Volunteer reviewers should never find caches with a difficulty rating above 1 star, or maybe (if we're feeling especially generous) 1.5 stars?

I didn't mean grey in rules or rights, as I described. Grey as in community acceptability and interaction, and that's demonstrated in any discussion about FTF or reviewers-as-anonymous-drones (for lack of better term )

My thinking is that, if I'm a reviewer, though I'm technically allowed to find a cache first which I published, I'm probably going to avoid doing so even if no one knows I'm the reviewer, mainly because I wouldn't want to stir up a hornet's nest if it's ever discovered. This reviewer doesn't need to defend their actions, but they kicked the nest, and then reportedly responded in a way that really did not de-escalate. Not the smartest set of actions

Again, the reviewer doesn't seem to have done anything wrong. Just not too wise, if they knew how 'taboo' it would be to log the find (and they cared about reputation )

And yeah, it's an entirely arbitrary argument over claims to that nebulous statistical FTF.

January 3, 2017

Some perspective, for the reviewer in question....

I'm not sure their exact coverage range, but within a 50 mile radius, they published around 800 caches in 2016. My gut says you could double that to account for their entire range. For all of 2016, they found around 150 caches. Of those finds, about 75 were published in 2016. Of those 75 caches, only 4 were anything other than Traditionals or Events.

I don't know how many caches the reviewer has found in a group, but I know the reviewer has a small circle of friends that they enjoy hiking with. If the group happens to find a cache, of course the reviewer has a right to claim it as a find. None of the reviewers logs claim "First to Find".

For clarity, the cache that prompted this thread, was a regular sized gadget cache, not placed or owned by the person that started this thread. The reviewer was part of a group that found the cache, and then, as a group, worked for an hour to get the log. The reviewer was not the one the figured out what to do. The cache was "found" two days after publication. There were three DNF's the first day after publication.

Who is in the wrong? Both of them, but for different reasons. This should have been handled privately. Social media bickering (Facebook, the cache page, the forums) doesn't solve anything.

Edited January 4, 2017 by igator210

5.7k · January 3, 2017

Social media bickering (Facebook, the cache page, the forums) doesn't solve anything.

No, it doesn't. It says a lot about geocachers in general. They are an easily butt hurt group of people in my opinion. :anibad:

Don't even get me started on Waymarkers and their threats on who they know and who they are going to tattle on. It's nuts.

I do hold geocache reviewers to a higher standard though, and I think that the company they volunteered to serve does as well.

5.7k · January 3, 2017

So recently our Publisher came out of the geocaching closet as a geocacher in the area. I have talked to other folks in other areas and they have stated that there is no way a Publisher is supposed to go after FTF seeing as they published the cache that they were going for. This publisher had gotten a FTF on one of my caches before I knew that they were the publisher. So recently I saw they got another FTF but with a group. I called him out because I believe that regardless of being in a group they should not be going for a FTF. Then he sent me a message... telling me to shove it.... I am thinking a publisher should be able to bite their tongue..

I mean that a publisher that takes what he knows prior to publishing has the advantage. I was just curious about what the geocaching community feels about it. I was told not to take this game personally but I just want to know what you think. Anyway good luck to all and have a great 2017

Eyeash

If we're talking about your most recently published cache, please enlighten us. I see a micro in a park, and given the sat view and the terrain rating, I gather it's up a tree. I also see that two days elapsed between publication on Friday and the first few finds on Sunday, and I do not see any of those finders claiming "First to Find," just logging finds. I don't see that this is a mystery cache, nor do I see an indication that a special took is required.

What am I missing? What information would the reviewer have gotten through publishing your cache to gain an advantage over any other geocacher? Did you provide additional information in the note to the reviewer?

edit to add: just checked the calendar dates and saw that the cache was published on Friday and found on Sunday. So clearly the reviewer didn't time it to have an advantage over anyone if they live in the area and still waited a day and change to go find the cache over the weekend. Again, what am I missing here?

Edited January 3, 2017 by hzoi

January 3, 2017

Again, what am I missing here?

See my post #18 for more detail.

21.9k · January 3, 2017

If we're talking about your most recently published cache, please enlighten us.

No, that is not the cache in question. Let's leave it at that, so as not to drag an innocent cache owner into the discussion, OK?

The reviewer went geocaching with his friends a few days after a cache was published, and the group members were the first finders. FTF wasn't something the reviewer set out to do, even though that's perfectly acceptable for a traditional cache like the one in question. Being a reviewer does not mean that one must give up the ability to go geocaching with their friends. And, an occasional FTF on a traditional cache with a group of friends ought not expose a reviewer to unwarranted criticism, which is what provoked the reviewer (using his player account) to answer the allegations in rather strong terms.

13.7k · January 3, 2017

When we see caches that are only a half mile from the road not touched for days (how I get most FTFs today), if I was the CO, I'd be tickled someone finally searched it out.

I believe most Reviewers enjoy what they do (and they do it gratis), and wouldn't take the chance of ruining the relationship they have with fellow cachers over a "find".

This seems much ado about nothing...

14k · January 3, 2017

This whole thread just reinforces my belief that the FTF game degrades the game.

5.7k · January 3, 2017

If we're talking about your most recently published cache, please enlighten us.

No, that is not the cache in question. Let's leave it at that, so as not to drag an innocent cache owner into the discussion, OK?

You got it, boss. My bad.

5.7k · January 3, 2017

In other news, this is why I am (1) thankful to the reviewers for what they do and (2) glad it ain't me, because someone's always unhappy no matter what you do.

1.5k · January 4, 2017

In other news, this is why I am (1) thankful to the reviewers for what they do and (2) glad it ain't me, because someone's always unhappy no matter what you do.

AMEN to THAT! (both points)

Edited January 4, 2017 by BC & MsKitty

38.2k · January 4, 2017

Reviewers generally don't immediately go after FTF for appearances sake. But two days later? While caching with friends? Give me a break. There isn't even an appearance of anything wrong here. Other cachers had two days to make the find. The reviewer had no advantage over any other cacher.

January 4, 2017

Getting the FTF by the responsible reviewer immediately after publishing raises doubts (e.g. did he postpone the publication to fit his ability to find the cache?).

Getting an FTF after 2 days with a group (probably event) seems OK to me. Everyone in the area had 2 days to get the FTF even before the event (if there was one). I wouldn't even mention it.

What I can see here is a valid (to an extent) argument smashed by an invalid example.

January 4, 2017

As stated before, this cache was found by the reviewer with some of his other geocaching friends 2 days after publication and after others had already attempted to figure out the gadget cache. The solution to the gadget was not provided to the reviewer so he had no idea how it worked.

I think it is in very bad taste to bring up personal issues via a hateful note on the cache page (for which the OP isn't the CO) and on the forums. Also I don't think it was very kind what the Reviewer, under his personal account, said in response to the OP.

I don't think there is anything wrong with our reviewer getting the FTF on this gadget cache two days after publication with a group of friends.

This is not the place to complain about personal issues.

7.5k · January 4, 2017

This whole thread just reinforces my belief that the FTF game degrades the game.

Nonsense. Taking FTF too seriously made it not fun for the OP, but that's all to see here. The OP taking it too seriously doesn't make it less fun in general and didn't make it less fun for those seekers and their friend the reviewer, and it certainly doesn't have any effect on the game.

3.8k · January 4, 2017

I don't mind if a reviewer gets an FTF, even on day #1. What interests me is how reviewers can publish their own caches when the rest of us get scrutinized. Who reviews the reviewers?

9k · January 4, 2017

I don't mind if a reviewer gets an FTF, even on day #1. What interests me is how reviewers can publish their own caches when the rest of us get scrutinized. Who reviews the reviewers?

Can you cite any caches owned and published by the same person?

AFAIK they don't review their own caches, regardless of the owner account being used.

ETA for clarity per Pup Patrol's comment below: 'regardless of the owner account' as in a reviewer publishing a cache placed by their own player account. Didn't mean reviewers not publishing any other reviewers' caches at all. A reviewer's cache by their player account will be reviewed by a different reviewer, not themselves.

Edited January 4, 2017 by thebruce0

7.3k · January 4, 2017

I don't mind if a reviewer gets an FTF, even on day #1. What interests me is how reviewers can publish their own caches when the rest of us get scrutinized. Who reviews the reviewers?

Can you cite any caches owned and published by the same person?

AFAIK they don't review their own caches, regardless of the owner account being used.

Other Reviewers review cache submissions by Reviewers.

At least that's the way it works here.

But this is off-topic for this thread.

B.

January 4, 2017

I don't mind if a reviewer gets an FTF, even on day #1. What interests me is how reviewers can publish their own caches when the rest of us get scrutinized. Who reviews the reviewers?

Isn't it obvious? The Watchmen do.

January 4, 2017

I don't mind if a reviewer gets an FTF, even on day #1. What interests me is how reviewers can publish their own caches when the rest of us get scrutinized. Who reviews the reviewers?

Can you cite any caches owned and published by the same person?

AFAIK they don't review their own caches, regardless of the owner account being used.

Other Reviewers review cache submissions by Reviewers.

At least that's the way it works here.

But this is off-topic for this thread.

B.

That is not the case here with the reviewer in question. He has published his personal caches from his reviewer account. But I don't see a problem with that. He is a good person and I have no reason not to trust him. And I'm not sure why anyone else would have an issue like this with their reviewer.

January 4, 2017

People like this are probably a big reason why Reviewers don't usually tell anyone their real identity

7.4k · January 4, 2017

People like this are probably a big reason why Reviewers don't usually tell anyone their real identity

Citation needed. Reviewers here don't appear to conceal their identities at all.

9k · January 5, 2017

People like this are probably a big reason why Reviewers don't usually tell anyone their real identity

Citation needed. Reviewers here don't appear to conceal their identities at all.

Heard from the horse's mouth, knowing some local reviewers. It may not be as common these days, but all our local reviewers used to be anonymous for precisely this reason, to avoid personal drama, conflict of interest.

January 5, 2017

But if the reviewers are seeing some reason to hide their identities - then doesn't that indicate that there's a problem that needs to get sorted out? (My personal view I could have added "in order to protect them from the silly accusations of some cachers")

January 5, 2017

But if the reviewers are seeing some reason to hide their identities - then doesn't that indicate that there's a problem that needs to get sorted out? (My personal view I could have added "in order to protect them from the silly accusations of some cachers")

It might. But the problem might be from the non-reviewers side of things. I'm sure there are at least a couple of people who play this marvelous game who are a bit unreasonable at times.

January 5, 2017

But if the reviewers are seeing some reason to hide their identities - then doesn't that indicate that there's a problem that needs to get sorted out? (My personal view I could have added "in order to protect them from the silly accusations of some cachers")

It might. But the problem might be from the non-reviewers side of things. I'm sure there are at least a couple of people who play this marvelous game who are a bit unreasonable at times.

Very true.

3.8k · January 5, 2017

I actually welcome my reviewers to come find my caches.. at any time. One is 250 miles north and the other is about 30 miles north.

Edited January 5, 2017 by bflentje

7.4k · January 5, 2017

People like this are probably a big reason why Reviewers don't usually tell anyone their real identity

Citation needed. Reviewers here don't appear to conceal their identities at all.

Heard from the horse's mouth, knowing some local reviewers. It may not be as common these days, but all our local reviewers used to be anonymous for precisely this reason, to avoid personal drama, conflict of interest.

Yes, it happens, that's not in dispute. There is no evidence that it is *usually* the case.

9k · January 5, 2017

Yes, it happens, that's not in dispute. There is no evidence that it is *usually* the case.

Well, that's not the statement you made is it

1. Reviewers don't usually tell anyone their real identity

2. Citation needed. Reviewers here don't appear to conceal their identities at all.

3. Some reviewers do hide their identities, they have in the past, to avoid antagonism directed at them personally.

Your statement #2 seems to be making a point that it doesn't happen, at least often, by extension that it doesn't happen around you. My point #3 was in support of #1 as being possible. It happens there, it happens in my experience - that doesn't mean it happens everywhere, but it certainly doesn't mean it happens nowhere. Does that make it "usual"? Well so far by these reports alone it seems to be 2 to 1, which I would personally define as 'usual'

But who knows. We'd have to poll the entire volunteer reviewer community to find out what actually is "usual" and how much that has changed over time, and differs by region (I would say this is a huge factor since some localized problem individuals can cause enormous headaches for their local reviewer team). As I said, it was more common here, but these days our reviewers have all been outed; at least, they don't make an excessive effort to keep their real identities separate from their reviewer id.

Is it "usual"? Who knows. But yes, it happens, and that's all I was saying, providing a "citation" for you of it happening in another region.

I'm sure there are even old threads talking about reviewer anonymity. But I'm pretty ambivalent about going to search for them. I'd rather type endlessly enough words that have likely bored the reader of this comment enough to the point of not even reading this far to see me type bum-butt, and continue to put out long run-on sentences towards the visual implication of the comment being just another wall of text.

7.4k · January 5, 2017

Yes, it happens, that's not in dispute. There is no evidence that it is *usually* the case.

Well, that's not the statement you made is it

1. Reviewers don't usually tell anyone their real identity

2. Citation needed. Reviewers here don't appear to conceal their identities at all.

3. Some reviewers do hide their identities, they have in the past, to avoid antagonism directed at them personally.

Your statement #2 seems to be making a point that it doesn't happen, at least often, by extension that it doesn't happen around you. My point #3 was in support of #1 as being possible. It happens there, it happens in my experience - that doesn't mean it happens everywhere, but it certainly doesn't mean it happens nowhere. Does that make it "usual"? Well so far by these reports alone it seems to be 2 to 1, which I would personally define as 'usual'

But who knows. We'd have to poll the entire volunteer reviewer community to find out what actually is "usual" and how much that has changed over time, and differs by region (I would say this is a huge factor since some localized problem individuals can cause enormous headaches for their local reviewer team). As I said, it was more common here, but these days our reviewers have all been outed; at least, they don't make an excessive effort to keep their real identities separate from their reviewer id.

Is it "usual"? Who knows. But yes, it happens, and that's all I was saying, providing a "citation" for you of it happening in another region.

I'm sure there are even old threads talking about reviewer anonymity. But I'm pretty ambivalent about going to search for them.

I was curious to know how the original forum user ascertained that this is the usual way of things.

January 5, 2017

Yes, it happens, that's not in dispute. There is no evidence that it is *usually* the case.

Well, that's not the statement you made is it

1. Reviewers don't usually tell anyone their real identity

2. Citation needed. Reviewers here don't appear to conceal their identities at all.

3. Some reviewers do hide their identities, they have in the past, to avoid antagonism directed at them personally.

Your statement #2 seems to be making a point that it doesn't happen, at least often, by extension that it doesn't happen around you. My point #3 was in support of #1 as being possible. It happens there, it happens in my experience - that doesn't mean it happens everywhere, but it certainly doesn't mean it happens nowhere. Does that make it "usual"? Well so far by these reports alone it seems to be 2 to 1, which I would personally define as 'usual'

But who knows. We'd have to poll the entire volunteer reviewer community to find out what actually is "usual" and how much that has changed over time, and differs by region (I would say this is a huge factor since some localized problem individuals can cause enormous headaches for their local reviewer team). As I said, it was more common here, but these days our reviewers have all been outed; at least, they don't make an excessive effort to keep their real identities separate from their reviewer id.

Is it "usual"? Who knows. But yes, it happens, and that's all I was saying, providing a "citation" for you of it happening in another region.

I'm sure there are even old threads talking about reviewer anonymity. But I'm pretty ambivalent about going to search for them.

I was curious to know how the original forum user ascertained that this is the usual way of things.

I was under the impression that Reviewers don't generally tell people who they are. That was an assumption. I know that is not always the case. But I don't know what the true numbers are. And does anyone really know what percentage of all the reviewers have kept their identities secret? No.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Sherminator18

2.6k · January 5, 2017

Regarding Reviewer identities (based on my experience in the UK).

1. Reviewers have a separate account that they generally use for finding (and usually also for placing) caches. Separate to the reviewers account.

2. Reviewers here generally log attending events under their reviewer account.

3. There isn't any generally available/published mapping of the reviewer to player accounts. E.g. if you look at the reviewer account, the profile generally won't say "my player account is X". Though I haven't checked them all, some might.

4. Reviewers attend events and talk to people. This can include talking about geocaches they have found.

5. We have a Facebook Group where you can ask questions to the reviewers, and there they respond with their real name generally. (Not caching name).

I know the finder account names and also the real names for my local reviewers:

- The current reviewer for my area I met before she was a reviewer, so I knew her by her finder name. Now I've seen her at events with her reviewer name.

- Some others I found their finder name by meeting them at an event. E.g. the discussion went: I introduced myself. Reviewer said "oh, I found your X cache last week". And either I asked them their caching name, or only one person found it that week.

- Some I've found out their identify from talking to friends who know their identities.

In summary, in my experience the information isn't published, but I don't see much effort to keep it secret, nor do I think it is practical to keep it secret. Our reviewers are all cachers, and experienced and respected cachers at that - which is way they were asked to be reviewers. So they know lots of geocachers, and by word of mouth, their finder account names get known to many.

Back to this specific example, I see absolutely no issue with a reviewer getting a FTF 2 days later as part of a group.

A reviewer logging FTF 5 minutes after publication would raise eyebrows.. which is why none of our reviewers would do that.

14k · January 5, 2017

This whole thread just reinforces my belief that the FTF game degrades the game.

Nonsense. Taking FTF too seriously made it not fun for the OP, but that's all to see here. The OP taking it too seriously doesn't make it less fun in general and didn't make it less fun for those seekers and their friend the reviewer, and it certainly doesn't have any effect on the game.

I said it reinforces my belief. The fact that you don't agree with it doesn't make it nonsense. A single cache doesn't define the FTF game. It's whole mentality that who claims to be first to find on a cache has become more important than maintaining civility in between player. It's all the drama that seems to frequently occur when there is a dispute regarding who found a cache first. That, I believe, is not good for the game.

January 5, 2017

Yes, it happens, that's not in dispute. There is no evidence that it is *usually* the case.

Well, that's not the statement you made is it

1. Reviewers don't usually tell anyone their real identity

2. Citation needed. Reviewers here don't appear to conceal their identities at all.

3. Some reviewers do hide their identities, they have in the past, to avoid antagonism directed at them personally.

Your statement #2 seems to be making a point that it doesn't happen, at least often, by extension that it doesn't happen around you. My point #3 was in support of #1 as being possible. It happens there, it happens in my experience - that doesn't mean it happens everywhere, but it certainly doesn't mean it happens nowhere. Does that make it "usual"? Well so far by these reports alone it seems to be 2 to 1, which I would personally define as 'usual'

But who knows. We'd have to poll the entire volunteer reviewer community to find out what actually is "usual" and how much that has changed over time, and differs by region (I would say this is a huge factor since some localized problem individuals can cause enormous headaches for their local reviewer team). As I said, it was more common here, but these days our reviewers have all been outed; at least, they don't make an excessive effort to keep their real identities separate from their reviewer id.

Is it "usual"? Who knows. But yes, it happens, and that's all I was saying, providing a "citation" for you of it happening in another region.

I'm sure there are even old threads talking about reviewer anonymity. But I'm pretty ambivalent about going to search for them.

I was curious to know how the original forum user ascertained that this is the usual way of things.

Let me clarify... Issues like this may be a reason why SOME reviewers remain anonymous.

Until recently both reviewers in my area were anonymous. As the OP posted, the one reviewer recently revealed his true identity. So I thought that it was common for reviewers to remain anonymous. Maybe that is a regional thing. I don't know what reviewers are like in other areas. But in my area the other main reviewer is still anonymous.

FTF by a publisher

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