The end of scab tills

[Orang Utan]

No, that's how it used to work (and maybe still does in your local). In recent years, if you add anything but a couple of flimsy plastic bags it will require approval.

Not in my experience

 

[Puddy_Tat]

I've never seen anyone putting their bag in the bagging area.

if you do just pile stuff up in the bagging area, then pay, then stuff things in to bags, people who are waiting get annoyed with you.

Just the idiotic public.

 

[T & P]

You have to wonder how all these chain supermarkets that have been in business for pretty much a century or not far off, even surviving through harrowing wartime periods, managed to stay above water with all those human employees manning individual checkouts. A miracle and no mistake.

I’ve mentioned it already on another thread but I am particularly pissed off by Sainsbury’s app constantly bombarding me with extra point rewards if I use one of those infernal Star Trek phasers to scan my shopping instead of using the tills. Even the scab tills. Because apparently cutting cashiers by 75% is not enough, and the much reduced staff in charge of overseeing dozens of scab tills are now seen as surplus to profit margins. The cunting fucks

 

[PTK]

You have to wonder how all these chain supermarkets that have been in business for pretty much a century or not far off, even surviving through harrowing wartime periods, managed to stay above water with all those human employees manning individual checkouts. A miracle and no mistake.

I’ve mentioned it already on another thread but I am particularly pissed off by Sainsbury’s app constantly bombarding me with extra point rewards if I use one of those infernal Star Trek phasers to scan my shopping instead of using the tills. Even the scab tills. Because apparently cutting cashiers by 75% is not enough, and the much reduced staff in charge of overseeing dozens of scab tills are now seen as surplus to profit margins. The cunting fucks

Ah, I wondered why people used the phasers. Yes, I think the same about the closure of bank branches.

 

[kabbes]

Not in my experience

This is that thing where you deny that something could possibly exist just because you haven’t experienced it in your own small world, isn’t it? And then, in six months, we’ll find a post from you complaining about the very thing because it has now happened to you.

 

[Orang Utan]

This is that thing where you deny that something could possibly exist just because you haven’t experienced it in your own small world, isn’t it? And then, in six months, we’ll find a post from you complaining about the very thing because it has now happened to you.

No, it’s a thing where some people struggle with ‘new’ technology and others don’t. As borne out by observation. Also supplemented by my observations at work of people using similar tech - the vast majority rarely encounter such problems, but a small minority do, with some asking for assistance, claiming the tech is rubbish and never works.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Ah, I wondered why people used the phasers. Yes, I think the same about the closure of bank branches.

I use them because it's much nicer to pack my bags as I go.

 

[kabbes]

No, it’s a thing where some people struggle with ‘new’ technology and others don’t. As borne out by observation. Also supplemented by my observations at work of people using similar tech - the vast majority rarely encounter such problems, but a small minority do, with some asking for assistance, claiming the tech is rubbish and never works.

So it’s just not possible that the attempt to balance the user’s need for flexible technology that implicitly trusts them with the institution’s need for secure technology that prevents theft has moved too far in the direction of security? The technology, in your view, is always perfectly aligned, and any difficulties in use are necessarily due to the user, not the system design?

And when a supermarket installs a new version of their machine that operates in a different way, any new difficulties that arise from the new machine are also the fault of the user? The old system was perfect and now the new system is perfect. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

 

[Orang Utan]

No, all those words are yours and your interpretation only. If i had said what you just said, I would have said it. Maybe in less words

 

[kabbes]

No, all those words are your and your interpretation only.

In which case, the machine can be at fault.

 

[Orang Utan]

In which case, the machine can be at fault.

Of course, sometimes it does fuck up. But IME it’s more often the user who has made a mistake. I’m not defending Big Supermarket or the tech. I think we need manned tills. I’ve said so on this very thread and criticised their overzealous security methods. So fuck off with your pompous assertions.

 

[kabbes]

And let’s not kid ourselves, the direction of travel is to make these things more frustrating to use, because the incentive is for the supermarket to prevent theft, not make the experience better. For example, they recently changed the machines at our local supermarket. It used to be that you scanned put items in the bag without interruption. So if you had three of the same object, you could just go boop boop boop with one of the objects and then put all three in the bag at once. But they changed it so that you now have to scan an item, put that item in the bag and then wait for the machine to register that the new weight in the bag is correct before you can scan the next item. That makes the whole process take longer than it did before. It’s objectively more rubbish for me, the user, than it used to be.

 

[kabbes]

Of course, sometimes it does fuck up. But IME it’s more often the user who has made a mistake. I’m not defending Big Supermarket or the tech. I think we need manned tills. I’ve said so on this very thread and criticised their overzealous security methods. So fuck off with your pompous assertions.

You’re the one making pompous assertions! You’re the one dismissing people’s experiences and saying that your default assumption is user error. That’s as pompous an assertion as you can get!

You were literally telling Nine bob note that their experience was likely wrong, because it wasn’t your experience.

 

[Orang Utan]

You’re the one making pompous assertions! You’re the one dismissing people’s experiences and saying that your default assumption is user error. That’s as pompous an assertion as you can get!

again with putting your own words in my mouth.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

You’re the one making pompous assertions! You’re the one dismissing people’s experiences and saying that your default assumption is user error. That’s as pompous an assertion as you can get!

You'd have a wild time on a IT helpdesk.

 

[Orang Utan]

Escalators don’t work. Because every now and then someone trips while getting on or off one. Let’s get rid of them!

 

[kabbes]

Look at this exchange, OU, and tell me that you’re not pompously asserting your experience as trumping all others. You even use the words, “not in my experience” and “never happened to me” as your justification for saying that “it’s not always the tech’s fault”

Carrier bags stopped being free in england a few years ago (earlier in wales, and possibly also in scotland) so many people do take their own - or pay for something that's a bit more robust than a carrier bag.

what's bloody annoying is that many automatic tills object if you use your own bags, despite (in theory) having a 'put your own bag/s in the bagging area then press here to continue' function.

How is this an issue, unless your bag is too big to fit on the scale?

it shouldn't be, but what frequently happens is it says 'unexpected item in bagging area' or similar and then won't do anything until the over-worked staff member comes and tells it to stop being silly

Never happened to me. It’s not always the tech’s fault!

ok, then. please can you explain the correct / incorrect way of putting a bag in the bagging area?

press the button that says you are using your own bag, then put the bag on the scale, making sure it’s not caught up on any side bits, then scan away

No, that's how it used to work (and maybe still does in your local). In recent years, if you add anything but a couple of flimsy plastic bags it will require approval.

Maybe not, but it's never the fault of the unpaid and untrained workers.

Just the idiotic public.

Not in my experience

 

[Orang Utan]

he doesn’t like it up em!

 

[brogdale]

Poundshop (shite scab tills) spymaster

 

[hash tag]

Escalators don’t work. Because every now and then someone trips while getting on or off one. Let’s get rid of them!

Quite right, they don't work for folk with mobility issues, in wheelchairs or prams which is why lifts are going in to many places.

 

[Orang Utan]

Quite right, they don't work for folk with mobility issues, in wheelchairs or prams which is why lifts are going in to many places.

Which is why they also have lifts

 

[Cid]

Quite right, they don't work for folk with mobility issues, in wheelchairs or prams which is why lifts are going in to many places.

But they have higher capacity which alleviates pressure on lifts. And fine for some (often widely shared) types of mobility issue.

Although, to be specific rather than analogous, escalators are wildly expensive, so wouldn't be surprise to see fewer of them.

 

[Cerv]

And let’s not kid ourselves, the direction of travel is to make these things more frustrating to use, because the incentive is for the supermarket to prevent theft, not make the experience better. For example, they recently changed the machines at our local supermarket. It used to be that you scanned put items in the bag without interruption. So if you had three of the same object, you could just go boop boop boop with one of the objects and then put all three in the bag at once. But they changed it so that you now have to scan an item, put that item in the bag and then wait for the machine to register that the new weight in the bag is correct before you can scan the next item. That makes the whole process take longer than it did before. It’s objectively more rubbish for me, the user, than it used to be.

it's frustrating because it so obviously doesn't need to be that way.
point of sale software for (old fashioned) staff-operated tills has for ever had a button for multiples to press before scanning the barcode. so you tell it "3 of these" and scan just one.
it would be simple to add the same option to self service tills. and adjust upwards the item weight check accordingly.
but I guess someone's worked out that it'd open too much potential for fraudulent mis-scans. too easy to scan multiples of a cheap item that makes up to the weight for an expensive one.
so we're stuck doing it the slow way.


which does remind me of something I must vent about.
when the staff have logged in, the screen shows details of the error - item scanned, expected weight, actual weight.
in Lidl the other day my pack of butter failed the check. I noticed when the staff ok'd it that the till was reporting an actual weight of 249.5g
I've been sold a short measure! should have insisted on a replacement or refund.
but seems crazy that they've set the allowed error margin to be that low. I'm sure other supermarkets allow a greater leeway so fewer false alerts are generated.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Carrier bags stopped being free in england a few years ago (earlier in wales, and possibly also in scotland) so many people do take their own - or pay for something that's a bit more robust than a carrier bag.

what's bloody annoying is that many automatic tills object if you use your own bags, despite (in theory) having a 'put your own bag/s in the bagging area then press here to continue' function.

When I go into Tesco for jam doughnuts, there are carrier bags hung up at the entrance to the scab tills. I can't believe the number of people who scan them instead of pressing "Using my own bag".
I consider this my payment for doing their job.

 

[Cid]

it's frustrating because it so obviously doesn't need to be that way.
point of sale software for (old fashioned) staff-operated tills has for ever had a button for multiples to press before scanning the barcode. so you tell it "3 of these" and scan just one.
it would be simple to add the same option to self service tills. and adjust upwards the item weight check accordingly.
but I guess someone's worked out that it'd open too much potential for fraudulent mis-scans. too easy to scan multiples of a cheap item that makes up to the weight for an expensive one.
so we're stuck doing it the slow way.


which does remind me of something I must vent about.
when the staff have logged in, the screen shows details of the error - item scanned, expected weight, actual weight.
in Lidl the other day my pack of butter failed the check. I noticed when the staff ok'd it that the till was reporting an actual weight of 249.5g
I've been sold a short measure! should have insisted on a replacement or refund.
but seems crazy that they've set the allowed error margin to be that low. I'm sure other supermarkets allow a greater leeway so fewer false alerts are generated.

Yeah I don't really get weight errors shopping in Tesco. I think. Will have to try and take note. Having to scan individually is er... personally I couldn't give the slightest fuck if I'm honest . It's a bit swings and roundabouts between simplicity of interface and ability to be slightly more efficient. I would guess that, other than theft, it might be a bit prone to user error, for what is probably not an enormous time saving. I mean supermarkets do want as high a throughput as possible on every till, so if it was easy, they'd probably roll it out.

Presumably the most efficient shop is to use the scan-as-you-go, but I have no desire for periodic checks. Even if they're definitely super friendly and all about you not getting overcharged and not related to theft at all. Nope. You're fine, valued customer. Tesco:

From time to time, the Scan as you Shop system will prompt us to check a few products at random in a customer's trolley. This is to make sure everything's working as it should be and that you're being charged the right amount. Occasionally, if we suspect there's a problem, we may need to rescan all of your shopping. Don't worry. If this happens to you, one of our Customer Assistants will be on hand to help.

 

[kabbes]

Having to scan individually is er... personally I couldn't give the slightest fuck if I'm honest .

It’s more that there is a noticeable delay between putting it in the bag and it being ready for the next item. So that makes the whole process frustrating. The old system didn’t seem to care, you just scanned and chucked the thing in the bag while you were already scanning the next thing. Much quicker and, more importantly, not frustrating.

It's a bit swings and roundabouts between simplicity of interface and ability to be slightly more efficient. I would guess that, other than theft, it might be a bit prone to user error, for what is probably not an enormous time saving. I mean supermarkets do want as high a throughput as possible on every till, so if it was easy, they'd probably roll it out.

I really don’t agree with that. I don’t think the supermarkets actually give a fuck how slow it is for the customer, so long as the customer is not actually put off shopping they’re there. A faster throughput doesn’t really help the supermarket that much.

 

[Cid]

It’s more that there is a noticeable delay between putting it in the bag and it being ready for the next item. So that makes the whole process frustrating. The old system didn’t seem to care, you just scanned and chucked the thing in the bag while you were already scanning the next thing. Much quicker and, more importantly, not frustrating.

Yes I know, I just can't say I'm overly bothered and there are obvious reasons for doing it. And probably some non obvious ones.

I really don’t agree with that. I don’t think the supermarkets actually give a fuck how slow it is for the customer, so long as the customer is not actually put off shopping they’re there. A faster throughput doesn’t really help the supermarket that much.

Of course they do. Efficient processes are just good practice in any system. They may not give a fuck past a certain point (probably to do with queue times and capacity for stores to support them), but they absolutely give a fuck.

 

[kabbes]

Yes I know, I just can't say I'm overly bothered and there are obvious reasons for doing it.


Of course they do. Efficient processes are just good practice in any system. They may not give a fuck past a certain point (probably to do with queue times and capacity for stores to support them), but they absolutely give a fuck.

“Efficiency” is relative to the purpose you are trying to achieve. For example, from the NHS’s point of view, it’s efficient to have me turn up at 8am for an appointment and then wait until 3pm before they’re ready to see me. That’s not remotely efficient for me, though. I content that it is “efficient” for the supermarket to offload as many of them social externalities as possible onto the customer, rather than pay a single penny to resolve them.

 

[Cid]

“Efficiency” is relative to the purpose you are trying to achieve. For example, from the NHS’s point of view, it’s efficient to have me turn up at 8am and wait until 3pm before they’re ready to see me. That’s not remotely efficient for me, though. I content that it is “efficient” for the supermarket to offload as many of them social externalities as possible onto the customer, rather than pay a single penny to resolve them.

It's a system. A supermarket is a number of components that operate relative to one another. Within that system are a number of parameters that can be adjusted to do things like optimise queue times relative to staffing, optimise throughput at peak hours (where people might genuinely decide to use an alternative) etc. Time spent at till will be one of those parameters... it's just that in this case it clearly isn't a significant enough one to warrant the change, or the risks from theft etc don't balance it out.

 

[kabbes]

Explain to me why making people queue for longer on exiting the system is a constraint to that system. Within bounds, of course — but so long as everybody manages to pay and exit, how is the system being constrained?