Having to enter GC in front of cache codes

[+rvls]

Eric suggested I post my question here after I sent it to Geocaching.com

 

I'm wondering why the change was made requiring us to enter the GC infront of each cache code we enter. Before a couple weeks ago the GC was retained and you only had to enter the rest of the code. This change sure seems like a step backwards. Does anyone else like the old way better?

 

Lonnie S.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Yeah, I liked the old way better too. The old way had an issue also in that the cursor would jump to the beginning of the GC and you then had to move it back to the end with the arrow keys or the mouse. I think the change is due to GS's need to comply with standard programming. But it seems to me that the field could be set up to accept only the characters after the GC.

Edited August 7, 2008 by Cache O'Plenty

[+intolerable]

I prefer how it works now, but that's because I always cut/pasted in a GC code rather typing one in, so I had to delete the 'GC' anyways...

[+Corey]

...The old way had an issue also in that the cursor would jump to the beginning of the GC and you then had to move it back to the end with the arrow keys or the mouse.

And that probably only happened on certain browsers... often it worked for me.

...But it seems to me that the field could be set up to accept only the characters after the GC.

 

I've thought the simple way would be to have a static "GC", then a text box. But, then you couldn't copy/paste.

[+wkmccall]

I prefer how it works now, but that's because I always cut/pasted in a GC code rather typing one in, so I had to delete the 'GC' anyways...

 

Same here..

[+Cache O'Plenty]

 

I've thought the simple way would be to have a static "GC", then a text box. But, then you couldn't copy/paste.

Well, you could copy/paste if you were accurate in your "painting". Otherwise, you'd have to erase two characters rather than inputting 4 or 5. I think the number of times I enter a GC number far outweighs the number of times I cut/paste. So, net gain is with a static GC and input field for the balance.

 

Of couse, this will confuse people....

Edited August 8, 2008 by Cache O'Plenty

[AZcachemeister]

I prefer how it works now, but that's because I always cut/pasted in a GC code rather typing one in, so I had to delete the 'GC' anyways...

 

Same here..

 

Ditto.

I cut/paste out of CacheMate into Excel at the cache site, and cut/paste from Excel into GC.com as I process the days finds.

I got used to holding the backspace key before pasting, but if I don't have to, its less wear-and-tear on the keyboard!

[+Miragee]

If you want it the "old" way, you could use this page.

[+Wadcutter]

Why not eliminate the "GC" entirely? Is there a valid reason for all caches having to start with GC? By "valid reason" I mean something mandated by a programming code and not because it's always been that way or because someone wants a special tag on a cache number.

Edited August 10, 2008 by Wadcutter

[AZcachemeister]

Why not eliminate the "GC" entirely? Is there a valid reason for all caches having to start with GC? By "valid reason" I mean something mandated by a programming code and not because it's always been that way or because someone wants a special tag on a cache number.

 

You can do that with GSAK.

I think the reason it was set up that way was to provide an obvious indicator that a waypoint on your GPSr was a Geocache, and not your favorite fishing-hole.

[+TotemLake]

Why not eliminate the "GC" entirely? Is there a valid reason for all caches having to start with GC? By "valid reason" I mean something mandated by a programming code and not because it's always been that way or because someone wants a special tag on a cache number.

It may have started as an arbitrary prefix to identify the cache as GeoCache with the forward thinking there could be competitors out there. It also tends to trademark and market the name out there. When you see the GC code, you automatically think geocache, and by default geocaching.com. To change it now would be a historically incorrect thing to do.

[+uktim]

Why not eliminate the "GC" entirely? Is there a valid reason for all caches having to start with GC? By "valid reason" I mean something mandated by a programming code and not because it's always been that way or because someone wants a special tag on a cache number.

It may have started as an arbitrary prefix to identify the cache as GeoCache with the forward thinking there could be competitors out there. It also tends to trademark and market the name out there. When you see the GC code, you automatically think geocache, and by default geocaching.com. To change it now would be a historically incorrect thing to do.

 

And lazy IMO it's not even as if the G and the C are at opposite ends of the keyboard

[+Wadcutter]

You can do that with GSAK.

I do that already with GSAK and the world keeps turning. There is no rational need for "GC". Label your fishing hole by some other indicator. I've always managed to find my fishing holes, deer stands, camp sites, access roads, trailheads, vehicle parking points, etc by just labeling them with different names. So far I've never confused a one of them with a cache, and none of my caches are identified with the GC.

 

It may have started as an arbitrary prefix to identify the cache as GeoCache with the forward thinking there could be competitors out there. It also tends to trademark and market the name out there. When you see the GC code, you automatically think geocache, and by default geocaching.com. To change it now would be a historically incorrect thing to do.

That's what I figure too. It's the old line of "But it's always been done that way."

As far as "Historically incorrect", there have been constant changes since the beginning of Geocaching, some for the good, some that didn't work so well. Being "historically correct" is no reason to keep doing something that has no purpose only "because it's always been done that way". By removing "GC" and replacing with the usual mix of numbers/letters it would make room for a whole lot more cache ID combinations and would serve a useful purpose other than "because it's always been that way."

 

So far the only reason seems to be "because it's always been done that way."

[+The Jester]

You can do that with GSAK.

I do that already with GSAK and the world keeps turning. There is no rational need for "GC". Label your fishing hole by some other indicator. I've always managed to find my fishing holes, deer stands, camp sites, access roads, trailheads, vehicle parking points, etc by just labeling them with different names. So far I've never confused a one of them with a cache, and none of my caches are identified with the GC.

 

It may have started as an arbitrary prefix to identify the cache as GeoCache with the forward thinking there could be competitors out there. It also tends to trademark and market the name out there. When you see the GC code, you automatically think geocache, and by default geocaching.com. To change it now would be a historically incorrect thing to do.

That's what I figure too. It's the old line of "But it's always been done that way."

As far as "Historically incorrect", there have been constant changes since the beginning of Geocaching, some for the good, some that didn't work so well. Being "historically correct" is no reason to keep doing something that has no purpose only "because it's always been done that way". By removing "GC" and replacing with the usual mix of numbers/letters it would make room for a whole lot more cache ID combinations and would serve a useful purpose other than "because it's always been that way."

 

So far the only reason seems to be "because it's always been done that way."

It works to drop GC until you have one like this cache on your GPSr.

Edited August 11, 2008 by The Jester

[+TotemLake]

You can do that with GSAK.

I do that already with GSAK and the world keeps turning. There is no rational need for "GC". Label your fishing hole by some other indicator. I've always managed to find my fishing holes, deer stands, camp sites, access roads, trailheads, vehicle parking points, etc by just labeling them with different names. So far I've never confused a one of them with a cache, and none of my caches are identified with the GC.

 

It may have started as an arbitrary prefix to identify the cache as GeoCache with the forward thinking there could be competitors out there. It also tends to trademark and market the name out there. When you see the GC code, you automatically think geocache, and by default geocaching.com. To change it now would be a historically incorrect thing to do.

That's what I figure too. It's the old line of "But it's always been done that way."

As far as "Historically incorrect", there have been constant changes since the beginning of Geocaching, some for the good, some that didn't work so well. Being "historically correct" is no reason to keep doing something that has no purpose only "because it's always been done that way". By removing "GC" and replacing with the usual mix of numbers/letters it would make room for a whole lot more cache ID combinations and would serve a useful purpose other than "because it's always been that way."

 

So far the only reason seems to be "because it's always been done that way."

It works to drop GC until you have one like this cache on your GPSr.

 

Thus proving my point. (Thanks Jester.) My suggestions did not point to "because it's always done this way." I did point at marketing as a valid reason and it works. I also knew there were specific waypoint codes that would break as a result of that change thus my statement of historically incorrect to remove it.

 

There are two axioms at work here giving cause to leave it alone.

1. Don't fix what isn't broken. The consequences are typically not fully understood.

2. Change isn't always a good thing. Just because it is perceieved to be useless, the consequences are never fully figured in and can break that which isn't broken.

 

You haven't given a good reason to remove the GC except it costs 2 seconds more to type it in. As far as limitations are concerned, the number grows by X characters as needed. Will this render older GPSs obsolete? Yes and so what? That will happen with or without the GC code. Removing it only delays the inevitable. I can point to many things that rendered earlier versions obsolete.

Edited August 11, 2008 by TotemLake

[+Wadcutter]

It works to drop GC until you have one like this cache on your GPSr.

Still doesn't make any difference. If a person isn't sharp enough to be able to change their "home" name to something else then they're probably a bit too dense to figure how to drink water out of a glass.

 

I did point at marketing as a valid reason and it works.

 

Marketing? By whom? It's not like "GC" is branding like "Coke", "Kleenex", etc.

 

There are two axioms at work here giving cause to leave it alone.

1. Don't fix what isn't broken. The consequences are typically not fully understood.

2. Change isn't always a good thing. Just because it is perceieved to be useless, the consequences are never fully figured in and can break that which isn't broken.

Sorry, but that doesn't hold water. That's hasn't stopped TPTB from making changes in the past, whether the caching community wanted the changes or not. Changes have occurred quite frequently on the Geocaching site in the 6+ yrs I've been caching.

 

You haven't given a good reason to remove the GC except it costs 2 seconds more to type it in.

And you haven't given any reason at all for keeping GC other than it's always been that way and no one knows what will happen if it's dropped. My question has been, and remains, why is it needed? So far you haven't answer that other than "it's always been there."

 

As far as limitations are concerned, the number grows by X characters as needed. Will this render older GPSs obsolete? Yes and so what? That will happen with or without the GC code. Removing it only delays the inevitable. I can point to many things that rendered earlier versions obsolete.

"So what?" That's a bit elitist.

Older GPSr can enter 6 digits. 2 of those digits are occupied by GC thereby making the useable spaces 4 unless someone uses GSAK to remove the GC. Sorry, but in the real world out there not everyone uses GSAK so they are limited to 4 variable digits unless they manually delete the GC. That caused problems for some when Geocaching when to 7 digits. Go back in the forums and read the posts by some who weren't at all happy with the change to 7 digits. By eliminating the unneeded "GC" there would have been no need for increasing to 7 digit. But then "so what".

But I guess "so what" is a rational answer to some. Not at all a suitable answer. Sounds more like "let them eat cake." Wouldn't it be better to work within the community to resolve instead of just telling some "let them eat cake."? So far you haven't provided any rational reason for the GC, not even your speculation.

 

So explain - why should there be "GC" in the WP? So far you haven't provided anything other than "can't change because that's the way it was done and don't know what will happen" - or as I stated earlier, paraphrased, "that's the way it's always been done." It sure hasn't stopped TPTB from making other changes and not knowing the consequences.

Edited August 11, 2008 by Wadcutter

[+The Jester]

It works to drop GC until you have one like this cache on your GPSr.

Still doesn't make any difference. If a person isn't sharp enough to be able to change their "home" name to something else then they're probably a bit too dense to figure how to drink water out of a glass.

With GCxxxx I don't have to change what I want to call waypoints, as long as it doesn't start with GC. Without it, I'd have to read each and every code everytime I went to load the GPSr to make sure that there wasn't a conflict with a waypoint already on my unit.

I did point at marketing as a valid reason and it works.

 

Marketing? By whom? It's not like "GC" is branding like "Coke", "Kleenex", etc.

Just because you don't accept an idea, doesn't make the idea invalid. Marketing is a valid reason: it identifies that random string of numbers and letters you'd see on your GPSr's screen as a Geocache, not as anything else. Sure, many of the modern units allow symbols to show that but older unit don't.

 

Marketing isn't just about brand names. Take soda pop as an example. If there wasn't any labels all flavors would look the same (plain metal can) - it would be up to you to remember which one is root beer, which is orange, which is cola and so on. The labels are marketing - those that want root beer buy the ones labeled root beer, those who want orange... The same with waypoints on the GPSr - some are GCxxxxx, others are not. I know that the GCxxxx is the flavor I want, so that's what I look for.

[+Prime Suspect]

As far as "Historically incorrect", there have been constant changes since the beginning of Geocaching, some for the good, some that didn't work so well. Being "historically correct" is no reason to keep doing something that has no purpose only "because it's always been done that way". By removing "GC" and replacing with the usual mix of numbers/letters it would make room for a whole lot more cache ID combinations and would serve a useful purpose other than "because it's always been that way."

 

So far the only reason seems to be "because it's always been done that way."

If a land owner contacts someone at GC.com with a question about a container they've found, and it's marked with GCxxxxx (either on th outside or on the log), it's a reasonably good bet that it's traceable back to this site. If it has some other identifier, they can make the reasonable assumption that it's registered elsewhere.

[+Wadcutter]

With GCxxxx I don't have to change what I want to call waypoints, as long as it doesn't start with GC. Without it, I'd have to read each and every code everytime I went to load the GPSr to make sure that there wasn't a conflict with a waypoint already on my unit.

Here's the falacy of your idea tho. Earlier you wrote about using GSAK to drop the GC from the WP for the GPSr. So when you do that your WP doesn't show the GC and the "GCHOME" just "HOME" by GSAK's manipulation. Hundreds if not thousands of people are doing quite well managing WPs with the GC removed by GSAK.

 

I did point at marketing as a valid

Just because you don't accept an idea, doesn't make the idea invalid.

Sorry, but your excuse has nothing to do with marketing anything. Marketing to whom? Do you have to see the GC on your GPSr as an advertisement to remind you to frequent Geocaching? Sorry, but that's not marketing.

Again, you go back to saying you see GC as an identifier yet GSAK will remove the GC. So which is it?

 

And who said I don't like it. I'm asking why it is necessary. So far all you've done is speculate and come up with some pretty lame excuses, none of which are valid. You're grasping at some pretty thin air trying to rationalize something but not knowing. I asked why. You've just speculated and made some real reaches at that. Had Geocaching not started out in the beginning with the GC would you be advocating now for the inclusion?

[+TotemLake]

With GCxxxx I don't have to change what I want to call waypoints, as long as it doesn't start with GC. Without it, I'd have to read each and every code everytime I went to load the GPSr to make sure that there wasn't a conflict with a waypoint already on my unit.

Here's the falacy of your idea tho. Earlier you wrote about using GSAK to drop the GC from the WP for the GPSr. So when you do that your WP doesn't show the GC and the "GCHOME" just "HOME" by GSAK's manipulation. Hundreds if not thousands of people are doing quite well managing WPs with the GC removed by GSAK.

 

I did point at marketing as a valid

Just because you don't accept an idea, doesn't make the idea invalid.

Sorry, but your excuse has nothing to do with marketing anything. Marketing to whom? Do you have to see the GC on your GPSr as an advertisement to remind you to frequent Geocaching? Sorry, but that's not marketing.

Again, you go back to saying you see GC as an identifier yet GSAK will remove the GC. So which is it?

 

And who said I don't like it. I'm asking why it is necessary. So far all you've done is speculate and come up with some pretty lame excuses, none of which are valid. You're grasping at some pretty thin air trying to rationalize something but not knowing. I asked why. You've just speculated and made some real reaches at that. Had Geocaching not started out in the beginning with the GC would you be advocating now for the inclusion?

 

You're not reading carefully and tagging me with something I said when I didn't. I said it is an identifier. I didn't say GSAK will remove it. Someone else did. Yes I did speculate. And that's all I did. I didn't purport it to be fact. I just merely called it a valid possibility. Why are you so caught up in trying to make a statement of possibles into concrete?

[+TotemLake]

"So what?" That's a bit elitist.

 

Puhleeze. Choosing Magellan or Garmin over Lowrance can be called elitist. Moving forward from 5 year old technology is progressing past technological limitations. Elitist? Hardly.

[+The Jester]

With GCxxxx I don't have to change what I want to call waypoints, as long as it doesn't start with GC. Without it, I'd have to read each and every code everytime I went to load the GPSr to make sure that there wasn't a conflict with a waypoint already on my unit.

Here's the falacy of your idea tho. Earlier you wrote about using GSAK to drop the GC from the WP for the GPSr. So when you do that your WP doesn't show the GC and the "GCHOME" just "HOME" by GSAK's manipulation. Hundreds if not thousands of people are doing quite well managing WPs with the GC removed by GSAK.

Nope, not me. I admit GSAK can remove the GC, but I don't do that. That would be like removing the label from the can - now I have to guess what that series of letters/numbers mean. And your point about managing WPs with the GC removed is the same arguement you objected to with the "Just because it's always been done that way" = "Just because some do, not everyone has to do".

 

I did point at marketing as a valid

Just because you don't accept an idea, doesn't make the idea invalid.

Sorry, but your excuse has nothing to do with marketing anything. Marketing to whom? Do you have to see the GC on your GPSr as an advertisement to remind you to frequent Geocaching? Sorry, but that's not marketing.

Again, you go back to saying you see GC as an identifier yet GSAK will remove the GC. So which is it?

Your view of marketing is limited. It's not only about brand name, but also about identifying what the product is. If marketing was just about brand name, then every can in the store would be simply labeled "Brand X" - leaving you to figure out what product is in the can. But that GCW1N2 identifies that letter/number string as a geocache (product) from GC.com (brand name) - different from the W1N2 waypoint (trail intersection in a nearby park) and any geocache from other listing services. That way I know where to look up info about the waypoint: for geocaches I look at CacheMate, for trail interesections the map.

This is just what you are advocating for "other" waypoints - instead of geocaches being identified with a GC, all other waypoints must be somehow identified as different from the geocache letter/number string. I find it easier to have all the waypoints from one source identified as such. Besides it makes the round trip from GSAK to CacheMate to GSAK much easier - it's a unique identifier, where as "HOME" could be confused.

[+Wadcutter]

"So what?" That's a bit elitist.

 

Puhleeze. Choosing Magellan or Garmin over Lowrance can be called elitist. Moving forward from 5 year old technology is progressing past technological limitations. Elitist? Hardly.

That's exactly what you are suggesting. Not everyone is financially capable of moving up to the latest technology every time something new comes out. There are plenty of families caching who are getting by on a shoestring with used, 10 yr old GPSrs. It gives them family time together and they're doing the best they can with what they have. So for you to say "Will this render older GPSs obsolete? Yes and so what?" you're in effect telling those families and people you really don't care if they can't upgrade, and if they can't go with the latest then "so what". Yup, that's elitist. It has nothing to do with Garmin, Magellan or any other make. It has to do with not providing services to those who don't have the same abilities as the rest of us.

[+Wadcutter]

Your view of marketing is limited.

Gee, really? My old college professor might take exception to your statement. He seemed to believe I had a pretty good handle on marketing. What you are describing is branding. BTW, that's a marketing term. It has nothing to do with "Brand X". Did you miss that part of the marketing course that day when branding was discussed?

 

I find it easier to have all the waypoints from one source identified as such. Besides it makes the round trip from GSAK to CacheMate to GSAK much easier - it's a unique identifier, where as "HOME" could be confused.

So it comes back to your very first part of the sentence "I find it easier..." In all your discussions that's what it boils down to. "I find it easier..." But the question still remains which neither you nor totem have answered but have gone off on tangents which have not addressed the question - "Why is the GC there and why not remove it?" Marketing? Oh please. That's a grasp at thin air. If you don't know then don't MSU. It's a simple question. So far the only answers have been because that's the way it was in the beginning, so what let them eat cake, and marketing. Of those answers I will guess this time since that's what you've been doing. I'm guessing GC is there because "that's the way it was in the beginning".

[OpinioNate]

We removed the "GC" that was pre-populated in that field because in Internet Explorer it would jump the cursor to the beginning when you clicked it. That resulted in people accidentally searching for something like X34GC instead of GCX34.

 

As for labeling waypoints as GCXXX, there is one very good reason that should satisfy most people.

 

GC5CD3

TB5CD3

 

GCGXTQ

TBGXTQ

 

GCF623

TBF623

[+TotemLake]

"So what?" That's a bit elitist.

 

Puhleeze. Choosing Magellan or Garmin over Lowrance can be called elitist. Moving forward from 5 year old technology is progressing past technological limitations. Elitist? Hardly.

That's exactly what you are suggesting. Not everyone is financially capable of moving up to the latest technology every time something new comes out. There are plenty of families caching who are getting by on a shoestring with used, 10 yr old GPSrs. It gives them family time together and they're doing the best they can with what they have. So for you to say "Will this render older GPSs obsolete? Yes and so what?" you're in effect telling those families and people you really don't care if they can't upgrade, and if they can't go with the latest then "so what". Yup, that's elitist. It has nothing to do with Garmin, Magellan or any other make. It has to do with not providing services to those who don't have the same abilities as the rest of us.

Hey, my GPS is one of the ones that will get caught so it isn't like I'm being cavalier about it.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

We removed the "GC" that was pre-populated in that field because in Internet Explorer it would jump the cursor to the beginning when you clicked it. That resulted in people accidentally searching for something like X34GC instead of GCX34.

 

As for labeling waypoints as GCXXX, there is one very good reason that should satisfy most people.

 

GC5CD3

TB5CD3

 

GCGXTQ

TBGXTQ

 

GCF623

TBF623

Personally, I was glad that the prepopulated GC was dropped for exactly the reason quoted (Internet Explorer). Yes, I had to change to accomodate the new process - typing two known characters (it does become automatic given enough time). But, for me, it avoided the more complicated moving of the cursor or erasing the GC and starting over. It's now automatic.

 

And the GC was a valid identifier of a cache vs. parking coordinates, travel bug, coins (anyone notice that many travel bug coin identifiers (the code stamped on them) start with significant characters as identifiers?).

 

What everyone is complaining about seems to be "resistance to change". Of course, not all change is positive but many just resist any change, regardless of why.

 

Now, lets go caching.

[+Ronbu]

It seems that nobody had tried a second click --- the first used to eliminate the code except for the "GC" and jump the cursor to its left; The second used to jump the cursor back to the right of the "GC" ready to enter the number. Using that I never had a problem!

Haven't used it in the last month so may have to change my habits.

[+Ronbu]

I see too that it is now possible to enter Postcode for New Zealand and get a meaningful response. Haven't been able to do that before. Well done! And I quite like the new first page layout on GC.com.

Also with the new arrangement one can simply Highlight the unwanted characters and type in the new without removing the GC so probably the best of both worlds now.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Ronbu