+nittany dave Posted August 15, 2006 Posted August 15, 2006 It isn't a big thing so don't hold the presses or anything, but every time I log a few caches at the same time I wonder why we have to enter the GC prefix when going to the next cache page. After logging one cache, the input box labeled 'Visit another listing:' shows up and has GCXXXX in it. When you click in the box the GCXXXX disappears and you enter the full GCID of the cache. Since they all begin with GC, why not move the GC outside the box and only require the trailing 4 characters (or more in the future). The GC is also required from the Hide and Seek page, search pages, etc. Again, this isn't a big deal, but I was just wondering if there was a reason why this constant prefix should need to be entered every time.
+Jeremy Posted August 15, 2006 Posted August 15, 2006 Mostly because if we didn't, people wouldn't understand why it doesn't work when they do add the GC code. GCGC is a perfectly acceptable code. Another basic reason is because it didn't seem to be a big deal to type GC. In the 6 years running the site I don't think I've ever seen this suggestion. That doesn't mean it is a good one but it isn't really asked for. J
+Lil Devil Posted August 15, 2006 Posted August 15, 2006 Bookmark this page where the GC is filled in for you and doesn't go away when you click the box.
+Prime Suspect Posted August 15, 2006 Posted August 15, 2006 What's outside the entry box is usually a label, letting people know what should be entered there. So that would appear to mean "here's where you enter the GC code", and people would continue to enter the leading "GC". And with the current set up, there no confusing this cache with this cache.
+nittany dave Posted August 15, 2006 Author Posted August 15, 2006 (edited) Thanks for the replies. Like I said, it really isn't a big deal. I may have typed an extra 6000+ keystrokes over the last 4 years but it certainly isn't going to kill me and I do see a big potential for confusion! edit to remove silly idea because I didn't think it through! Edited August 15, 2006 by nittany dave
+darus67 Posted August 16, 2006 Posted August 16, 2006 Another basic reason is because it didn't seem to be a big deal to type GC. In the 6 years running the site I don't think I've ever seen this suggestion. That doesn't mean it is a good one but it isn't really asked for. Just for the record, I too have pondered the same question as the OP. I thought that the system could be made smart enough to figure out on its own and deal with it either way, if the leading GC was there, or not. Are all waypoints in the form GCxxxx? If so, it should be simple. If there are waypoints in the form GCyyy and GCzz that makes the problem a lot harder. Its kinda like when I forget to dial a "1" at the beginning of a long distance call. I get a message telling me I need to dial a "1" first. Why can't they just CONNECT ME?
+IV_Warrior Posted August 16, 2006 Posted August 16, 2006 I thought that the system could be made smart enough to figure out on its own and deal with it either way, if the leading GC was there, or not. Are all waypoints in the form GCxxxx? If so, it should be simple. If there are waypoints in the form GCyyy and GCzz that makes the problem a lot harder. No, they're not all GCxxxx, for example GC8
+JimmyEv Posted August 16, 2006 Posted August 16, 2006 This has bothered me too. I wish the 'GC' would stay and only the 'XXXX' would erase when I highlight the box, instead of the whole 'GCXXXX' disappearing, forcing you to re-enter the 'GC.' Silly and minor, but yet still troubling.
+RocketMan Posted August 16, 2006 Posted August 16, 2006 This has bothered me too. I wish the 'GC' would stay and only the 'XXXX' would erase when I highlight the box, instead of the whole 'GCXXXX' disappearing, forcing you to re-enter the 'GC.' Silly and minor, but yet still troubling. I too have always thought it was an unnecessary nuisance to have to add the GC every time. I think JimmyEv's suggestion would work well and would eliminate Jeremy's concern. RM
+welch Posted August 16, 2006 Posted August 16, 2006 I thought that the system could be made smart enough to figure out on its own and deal with it either way, if the leading GC was there, or not. Are all waypoints in the form GCxxxx? If so, it should be simple. If there are waypoints in the form GCyyy and GCzz that makes the problem a lot harder. No, they're not all GCxxxx, for example GC8 And won't the numbering go to GCxxxxx at some point anyways?
+GeoBlank Posted August 16, 2006 Posted August 16, 2006 I have also thought that this would be nice. If GC was not added the site could on post so it could be optional. That or when I click in the little box to log another find, keep the gc there, currently on focus it is removed.
Guyute1210 Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 I also believe that you can enter TBxxxxx and get the corresponding Travel bug as well.
+Jeremy Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 I'll look into just leaving the GC there instead of wiping it clean. That would simplify typing for power cachers.
+CO Admin Posted August 20, 2006 Posted August 20, 2006 While you are looking please consider that there are those of us who cut and paste the GC# from an email. If the GC is left won't GC1234 become GCGC1234 when I paste it?
+alexrudd Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 (edited) Ideally, there should be one text box that's smart enough for users to enter in either GCXXXX, XXXX, XXXXX or even GCGCXXXX. It can't be that difficult, except for a handful of codes like GCGC. (Now I'm pushing it, but it could even be able to distinguish TB and JP and go to the resulting page) Edited August 21, 2006 by alexrudd
+Lil Devil Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 ...except for a handful of codes like GCGC. Or GC84 vs GCGC84. Even though there are a relative few special cases like that, it's a good reason why not to try to make the box too "smart." There are bound to be times when it simply fails. The existing mechanism may take a few more keystrokes, but there will never be a time when it shows you a cache that is different than the one you asked for.
+darus67 Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 Its always the "few minor exceptions" that cause the MOST work for programmers.
+Pablo Mac Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 While you are looking please consider that there are those of us who cut and paste the GC# from an email. If the GC is left won't GC1234 become GCGC1234 when I paste it? When you copy and paste from an email message, double-click on the "GC" in the field in your browser before you paste, and it will come in as GCXXXX.
+ekhoc Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 And won't the numbering go to GCxxxxx at some point anyways? Hope not, the maximum length of a waypoint code being 6 characters..
+Prime Suspect Posted August 21, 2006 Posted August 21, 2006 And won't the numbering go to GCxxxxx at some point anyways? Hope not, the maximum length of a waypoint code being 6 characters.. Sorry, but we will be going to GC10000 in the not-distant future. If you've got a GPS that only accepts 6 characters, you'll need to make adjustments (drop the leading "G" for instance).
+welch Posted August 22, 2006 Posted August 22, 2006 And won't the numbering go to GCxxxxx at some point anyways? Hope not, the maximum length of a waypoint code being 6 characters.. Yes some gps recievers only have six digits for naming, with is of course a con. But apperently adding another digit to the end is the best database solution and is what's planned.
+IV_Warrior Posted August 22, 2006 Posted August 22, 2006 And won't the numbering go to GCxxxxx at some point anyways? Hope not, the maximum length of a waypoint code being 6 characters.. Yes some gps recievers only have six digits for naming, with is of course a con. But apperently adding another digit to the end is the best database solution and is what's planned. I often see that linked as what WILL happen, but if you read the post, Jeremy says "the worse that will happen is a digit will be appended to the end". Has he stated somewhere that it is what will happen, or are they considering different options?
+welch Posted August 22, 2006 Posted August 22, 2006 And won't the numbering go to GCxxxxx at some point anyways? Hope not, the maximum length of a waypoint code being 6 characters.. Yes some gps recievers only have six digits for naming, with is of course a con. But apperently adding another digit to the end is the best database solution and is what's planned. I often see that linked as what WILL happen, but if you read the post, Jeremy says "the worse that will happen is a digit will be appended to the end". Has he stated somewhere that it is what will happen, or are they considering different options? I've always thought it was like that because he was joking about Y2K. I actually think he has stated it a couple times, but finding them would require reading everything he's posted the last year or two (or remembering when/where he said it, and I'm not Markwell )
Recommended Posts