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

571–580 of 621 posts

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#571

Post by data_Is_Raciss »

david-gpu wrote: post #491
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most ways, as the research of Robert Putnam has documented well. https://wcfia.harvard.edu/publications/downside-diversity

I see no mention of whether they adjusted for age and urban vs rural settings. Dense metropolitan cores, where most economic activity happens, tend to be both younger and highly diverse ethnically as the jobs there attract migrant flows. It is unsurprising that younger people in dense metropolitan "the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects". That's…

[flagged]

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#572

Post by akvadrako »

Libcat99 wrote: post #437
TrackerFF wrote: post #387

You'd think the article was written by a rep from the cashiers union. I have no bad experiences with self-checkout. None. Going to a staffed-only checkout feels like going back 20 years in time. They take up more space, they can move slower, suddenly customers will kill the speed because they need to look for their coupons, pay with change, or whatever.

I use the self check out unless my order is huge and I need more space to pack it. The scan->wait->scan drives me nuts though.

That weighing thing doesn't exist on good self-checkouts.

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#573

Post by oytis »

jen20 wrote: post #358
neilalexander wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IKEA implementation is very close to ideal. An actual handheld barcode scanner attached to a long cable that you can move around as needed. Virtually no delay when scanning things. No need to place items on a scale. No need to pick each item up to pass it over an awkward fixed scanning surface. No problem if you want to use your own bags. No problem if you run out of space and need to move items back to the troll…

Agreed it’s very good compared to the incredibly poor systems in most places, but suffers from the same attention problem as other systems - prompts in the middle of the scanning phase (usually the “I promise I’ll attach this to a wall) that should be treasured up for the end of the process. Of course the scanner doesn’t know this so will happily beep each time as you scan 10 more things that don’t get registered bec…

> prompts in the middle of the scanning phase (usually the “I promise I’ll attach this to a wall)

Never seen that. Is it an American thing? Or maybe I just didn't by things that have to be attached to a wall.

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#574

Post by spicybbq »

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.

I work for a retailer and we certainly do not use a third party insurer, and I don't see why any other consumer retailer selling inexpensive merchandise would use insurance. It is priced in.

In fact, we use RFID tracking to know when goods are stolen, not to save money, not to catch shoplifters, but to improve inventory management and ensure that we get a replacement item on the shelf to avoid losing sales.

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#575

Post by vel0city »

o11c wrote: post #542
Arrath wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just pile my junk on the scale and bag it up after I'm done with the transaction.

This does mean you block the person behind you for much longer, but that's the store's problem not mine.

If it means there's never an "unexpected item in bagging area" it probably overall reduces time.

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#576

Post by kevincox »

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #341
alpaca128 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 How would it be more efficient than a traditional checkout? There's no way the average person can match the speed of a cashier who does that every day, and at least the supermarkets I've visited don't have enough self checkout machines to…

My neighbor works at a Walmart in the US and observes the following: They won't usually have more than 2 or 3 cashiers signed in at once. The cashiers are either elderly people who can't scan super fast or young people who don't care. So most people go to the self checkout unless they have a cart brimming full of stuff, and even then she sees more than a few go through the self checkout anyway. Is this Walmart being…

> Is this Walmart being cheap

> $15/hr. is nothing now

I think you answered your own question. They are failing to hire cashiers because they aren't willing to pay enough. So yes, they are being cheap.

There is a huge potential market for cashiers. There is no shortage. There is only a shortage for the price that Walmart has decided is worth paying.

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#577

Post by polski-g »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #474
logicchains wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dubai also has self-checkout machines that don't require you to weigh anything, just scan and go, and it's an extremely heterogeneous, low-trust society. People are just very afraid of the police and being deported.

Seems to work similarly in Singapore. Low trust can work when there are harsh punishments for violations. But do we really want to live in that type of society?

Do I want to live in a society in which criminals suffer the consequences of their crime? Is this a serious question?

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#578

Post by pimlottc »

bluescrn wrote: post #518
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…

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.

One workaround is to delay bagging (in your own bags) until after checkout, when you can just ignore its complaints. But the downside is having to awkwardly tetris your scanned items around the stupid plastic bag holders that take up half the bagging area...

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#579

Post by pimlottc »

Arrath wrote: post #507
whynotmaybe wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never use the "bag" function. When I've scanned the first item, I put it in the bag that's outside the scale and put the bag with the item on the scale.

I just pile my junk on the scale and bag it up after I'm done with the transaction.

I do this too, but most stores have plastic bag holders on the scale that clutter things put and make it harder to stack items before bagging.

Re: The failure of self-checkout technology

#580

Post by d1sxeyes »

throw1234651234 wrote: post #570
kevincox wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree it's a beautifully crafted response, and have nothing to add, it's exactly what my point was.
Post reply on HN