Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The failure of self-checkout technology

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 621 posts

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#561

Post by penjelly »

thinker5555 wrote: post #329
CM30 wrote: post #248

It feels like almost all the issues with self-checkout technology come from the attempts to minimise shoplifting, which don't even seem that effective at doing that. In theory, a system that let you scan products the same way checkout staff do without any weight checks or bagging area rules or other interruptions would be incredibly efficient. Especially if you could do things like scan the same product multiple time…

> It feels like almost all the issues with self-checkout technology come from the attempts to minimise shoplifting, which don't even seem that effective at doing that. Agreed. And in some cases the issues almost feel like they're on purpose in order to drive people away from using the self checkouts. For example, when I use self checkout at my local grocery store, I have to hit a button to tell it I want to use my ow…

> while a store worker comes over and has to watch overhead video of me placing my empty bag in the bagging area for both bags 2 AND 3!

this is insane to me and if a manager was involved they should be fired. I dont think its reasonable to review video of a customer without probable cause they were stealing. In this case, the machines are so buggy (as you illustrated with your case) that a machine complaining is NOT probable cause. How to alienate your customers 101...

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#562

Post by selfmodruntime »

bigbuppo wrote: post #496
CM30 wrote: post #248

It feels like almost all the issues with self-checkout technology come from the attempts to minimise shoplifting, which don't even seem that effective at doing that. In theory, a system that let you scan products the same way checkout staff do without any weight checks or bagging area rules or other interruptions would be incredibly efficient. Especially if you could do things like scan the same product multiple time…

Companies want insurance to pay for their losses, and it turns out the only thing the videos find on self-checkout stands is that customers are frustrated that the machine is calling them a thief, when the shoplifters, big surprise, don't stand around in line for 15 minutes to walk out the door without paying. The loss prevention person at the door is more likely to find items you left behind than to stop a shoplifte…

Do retailers really have insurance for loss and theft? I thought they'd just factor it into pricing.

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#563

Post by selfmodruntime »

david-gpu wrote: post #305
dahfizz wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enjoy your homogenous, high trust society. We are all jealous.

> Enjoy your homogenous, high trust society "Homogeneous" in what way? Because in my experience the sort of "homogeneity" that leads to high trust is that of wealth/income, and it requires a generous social net.

Turns out, like almost all things, homogeneity has positive aspects, too. Weirdly enough, this almost seems like forbidden knowledge depending on what political side you are on.

Also, as Denmark recently discovered, homogeneity is not simply dependent on a social safety net but exists within a symbiotic relationship with the latter.

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#564

Post by selfmodruntime »

netsharc wrote: post #530
dahfizz wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enjoy your homogenous, high trust society. We are all jealous.

Whenever I see anyone use "homogeneous" in this context I always consider them a racist... Meanwhile Netherlands elected an anti-immigration right-wing government in their last elections: https://time.com/6339173/dutch-election-results-geert-wilder...

Being conservative on immigration (and in general) is not necessarily the product of racism.

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#565

Post by timabdulla »

selfmodruntime wrote: post #562
bigbuppo wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies want insurance to pay for their losses, and it turns out the only thing the videos find on self-checkout stands is that customers are frustrated that the machine is calling them a thief, when the shoplifters, big surprise, don't stand around in line for 15 minutes to walk out the door without paying. The loss prevention person at the door is more likely to find items you left behind than to stop a shoplifte…

Do retailers really have insurance for loss and theft? I thought they'd just factor it into pricing.

Highly doubt it. You can't insure the inevitable.

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#566

Post by jon889 »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #499
jtbayly wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. The majority of the problems that I run into with self-checkout are related to not being able to buy items I picked up off the shelf like Mucinex or children's cough syrup or alcohol without getting an employee to check me out... at self checkout. What's the point of "self" checkout if somebody is required —not by failure of the system but by rules—to come help me several times during the process? Edit: a…

I always gamble and scan any alcohol or age restricted items first. About half of the time, it throws an alert and flashes but lets me continue scanning, it just won’t let me complete and pay until someone has come over and approved. For some reason though, some idiot designer who never actually thought about how these would be used in reality, decided to make it so that the other half of the time it immediately stop…

Why don't you just scan the alcohol last then?

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#567

Post by johngladtj »

timabdulla wrote: post #565
selfmodruntime wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do retailers really have insurance for loss and theft? I thought they'd just factor it into pricing.

Highly doubt it. You can't insure the inevitable.

Sure you can, it just costs more than taking the loss

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#568

Post by kevincox »

jon889 wrote: post #566
d1sxeyes wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always gamble and scan any alcohol or age restricted items first. About half of the time, it throws an alert and flashes but lets me continue scanning, it just won’t let me complete and pay until someone has come over and approved. For some reason though, some idiot designer who never actually thought about how these would be used in reality, decided to make it so that the other half of the time it immediately stop…

Why don't you just scan the alcohol last then?

Because you still need to wait for the attendant to come. But you have no chance of scanning other items in parallel. (Assuming you don't know if this store will block scanning)

It is always optimal to scan these first. You have two cases:

Blocking: scan 1 + wait for attendant + scan rest

Non-blocking: scan 1 + max(wait for attendant, scan rest)

However if you scan these items last the wait is always the same:

scan rest + scan 1 + wait for attendant

This is never shorter than either of the previous two. It is equivalent to the blocking case and almost always longer than the non-blocking case.

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#569

Post by kevincox »

mr_toad wrote: post #539
bluescrn wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first hurdle with some self checkouts is before you even scan an item: Bags! If you've brought your own bag and it weighs more than the mass of a few protons, the system assumes you're trying to steal something, and a human has to intervene before you can even get started. And then they have to come back almost immediately to deal with age-restricted items or other glitches.

God forbid you have more than one bag, because that totally confuses the system.

Or that not all of your bags fit on the scale.

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#570

Post by throw1234651234 »

kevincox wrote: post #568
jon889 wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you just scan the alcohol last then?

Because you still need to wait for the attendant to come. But you have no chance of scanning other items in parallel. (Assuming you don't know if this store will block scanning) It is always optimal to scan these first. You have two cases: Blocking: scan 1 + wait for attendant + scan rest Non-blocking: scan 1 + max(wait for attendant, scan rest) However if you scan these items last the wait is always the same: scan r…

^ This post is just in case you forgot you were on hacker news.
Post reply on HN