Supermarket responds after Reddit user’s warning about self-checkout overcharge — ‘Was annoyed that the total amount due on my supermarket purchase did not equate to the individual items I purchased.’::‘Was annoyed that the amount due on my Woolies purchase did not equate to the individual items I purchased.’

      • arctickako@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Or it might be that Coles and Woolies are already under investigation for price gouging all while unsurprisingly posting record profits. Most Australians have felt the really quick rise of the cost of living, and are rightly skeptical of both supermarkets which basically hold a duopoly over Australian shops. They already do a bunch of sketchy shit, what’s to stop them from doing more?

          • arctickako@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Aight bud, that was to show why there’s already distrust towards both corporations. It’s not hard to see why people would be inclined to believe that Coles/Woolies are trying to fuck them over yet again.

      • Schmidtster@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Funnily enough humans have been scamming them at checkouts for decades. Adding stuff to the the scales for example, wrong fruit codes, lots of options.

    • mwguy@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Did they call someone over when they saw the discrepancy? Because, you know, mistakes happen.

      Not in software. The software is doing exactly what it was programmed to do.

        • mwguy@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          If there’re two different items calculations one “real” one and “display” that’s an intentional choice made because they know there can be discrepancies.

            • mwguy@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Can’t be just an oversight. This has to be an intentional design decision. The “simple” (and economical) way to build this system is to build it so that the scan reads the price from a database and that price is then displayed and used to sum the total.

              Keeping two prices, a display and a real one, is a design decision that adds a complexity to the system, makes it more difficult to administer and is an intentional design decision, especially if the numbers are allowed to differ.

              A coupon not being applied correctly could be a mistake with that coupon. A sale not being taken into account, a problem with that sale or that UPC entry in the database. Those could be issues with data entry and data management.

              This is different. This is intentional. And I’d bet, we’ve just found someone either cheating the tax man or embezzling funds.

          • Schmidtster@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Yep rounding errors occur, manual changes need to be inputted sometimes, display errors, sales mistakes. Nothing weird about that. In fact their policy probably has specific points to deal with discrepancies between list, scanned and total prices.