The Banana Trick and Other Acts of Self-Checkout Thievery | Hacker News Reader

The Banana Trick and Other Acts of Self-Checkout Thievery

theatlantic.com

18 pointsIntronExon28 comments

The thing that upsets me most about self checkouts is just how artificially slowed down they are

I used to be a cashier and bagger at a local supermarket. We were expected to be able to be able to keep up a pace from 20-30 scans per minute, including handling the money, counting change, etc, and baggers were expected to keep up, no matter the size of the order.

Meanwhile I struggle to get self checkouts to recognize more than one scan every ten seconds. I wish I could just log into one of the main, unused lanes and scan myself out. It would take significantly less time.

The banana trick shows that the security implemented in self checkout is simply a sham. Just open them up completely and let us go through them at a higher throughput. You can probably eliminate yet another cashier at that point.

I've used a lot of these systems in the UK, but I don't work in that industry (I'd love to be corrected by someone who does!) but my impression is that these machines are primarily slow because of a combination of awful software and sloppy guard periods around their operations in an attempt to help with UX.

Some of the examples I've used are catastrophically broken; the machines in low-to-mid-tier supermarkets (ASDA and Tesco) are in this category. Some of the machines are so bad that they are obviously malfunctioning – extensive delays between scanning and registering an event on the screen, or failing to react to button presses, that kind of thing. The software on these machines is embarrassingly bad. These ones also have a deliberately enforced delay when scanning multiple instances of the same item, which is utterly confusing, though presumably intended to prevent accidental double-scans. Combined with the enforced "pick-scan-weigh" workflow they're a total pain to use.

On the other hand, some of the implementations of this technology are great. The machines in the relatively higher-end supermarket Waitrose are fast and efficient; the settings appear to be tuned much more leniently. In smaller stores, there now seem to be quite a few with no weighing system at all; these are particularly great to use. Waitrose also has a pre-registered portable scanner system which can use either a dedicated device or a mobile app, and this is also a good experience.

The impression I get is that manufacturers can tune various parameters to suit the shrinkage requirements of a particular retailer. I'd wager that in lower-cost supermarkets or those subject to higher shrinkage, these settings are more aggressive. It's a shame, because when the technology is well-implemented I much prefer using it. When it's bad, it's unpleasant being repeatedly screamed at by poorly-implemented bug-ridden software.

I'm not convinced any parameters you could set on the systems would noticeably affect shrinkage, except possibly by dis-incentivizing people from using them entirely!

The worst is when you have a self-checkout that adds a wait between scanning identical items. If I buy more than one of the same items, I scan other things between them otherwise the system makes you pause for several seconds because it thinks you are trying to scan the same thing twice even if you've already put the first item into a bag that's on the scale.

As a cashier, some systems allow you to type a quantity before scanning an item to simply multiply that scan. I wish self checkouts would let me scan my former employee badge and "unlock" all the features of a full checkout

Look for a self-checkout that has a handheld scanner on a cord. 100% of the Target units I've used have them.

The hand unit works way faster than the scanned-laser on the tabletop.

I’ve also realized this, and I had been using the machines that way, until an employee very sternly told me to “abstain from using the handheld scanner”.

To which, I cannot find a logical reason for..

I'd just ignore that. Note that you also need the scanner for scanning your Cartwheel/Wallet barcode (like the regular cashiers do).

Must be easier to cheat? Palm another barcode etc.

it's because there are cameras connected to loss prevention who look at "ticket switching" every bit as much as any other method of shop lifting

I think you should have to take a simple intelligence test as you walk into a store. If you refuse or fail you don't get to use the self checkout. This should be a very very simple test like being able to read a number properly and pick something out of a list....when I stand there watching people use those machines I really feel like 90% of them would fail.

Sometimes I understand why you feel that way. But I think there's some bias; as an engineer I can work out why these machines operate the way they do, to some extent. From the perspective of someone with no experience in this field, I imagine it's a much more frustrating experience, especially when some of the machines are so god-awful to use.

You say that, but it doesn't take engineer levels of understanding to read the instructions in big, bright letters on the screen, which seems to be a skill many people lack when facing these devices.

I think it just comes down to yet another example of smart people forgetting how to function when faced with an electronic device, regardless of past experience with critical thinking and problem solving. It's willful helplessness.

That's right, it's the users who are stupid, and not the designers who didn't focus enough on the UX.

It is not an indicator of stupidity, but if you haven't seen people lose all problem solving skills when faced with an automated system, you may need to expand your social circle.

When it comes to technology, some people have realized that screaming for help and blaming the system is an option, and seem to always pick that over reading a simple instructional sentence presented in bright colors directly on screen.

If you've ever been "the family tech guy/girl", then you likely have experienced this or understand.

Ya sometimes it really is the users that are stupid. There are just some things some people shouldn't use. That's just the way of the world. If someone has trouble checking their email or doing basic computer tasks or even what should be simple life tasks, chances are they will struggle with a self checkout and no amount of good ux wil change that. Some people just can't or won't learn such things.

Okay. And I get that your original comment was mostly in jest. But ... to what end, exactly? Fine; some people can't use self-checkout counters. But there are typically multiple counters, and nearly every one I've ever seen used operated on a British queue-based system instead of a line, so one person taking a long to check out shouldn't slow you down significantly.

And I don't even think I agree with your premise, anyway. If Amazon can work out the kinks out of their magic-zero-checkout stores, then that's the best UX experience.

I think you're just upset cause you'd fail the test. It's cool most stores still have cashiers to assist you.

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> “Anyone who pays for more than half of their stuff in self checkout is a total moron,” reads one of the more militant comments in a Reddit discussion on the subject. “There is NO MORAL ISSUE with stealing from a store that forces you to use self checkout, period. THEY ARE CHARGING YOU TO WORK AT THEIR STORE.”

That's the most entitled thing I've read all year, but I look forward to the next 11 months.

That's the most morally bankrupt thing I've read all year, and, IIRC, beats anything I read last year.

If you ask on the thievery forums they argue it is rightous and equivalent to the corporation minimizing their tax bill, at the significant cost to societies health and wellbeing, to enrich shareholders.

It could be argued that they are correct.

That makes it equivalent. It doesn't make it righteous. In fact, the way they talk about the corporations doing things "at the significant cost to societies health and wellbeing" shows that they know what the corporations are doing is morally wrong. Arguing that it's equivalent just shows that this is also morally wrong.

There is no sane argument for "righteous" for this behavior.

Was Robin Hood righteous? One could see similarities in their tales. Robbing the rich (shareholders, corporations, “elites”) to give to the “poor” (lower classes, themselves). Just at a higher abstraction.

The difference is the thiefs action is illegal, the corp actions legal but hated by the masses (who it could be argued don’t understand the nuances of tax accounting), but who should hold power in a democracy.

It is what it is, and those forums are growing at an exponential rate as the punishments disappear. Worrying.

It could be argued that they are correct.

For extremely small values of "correct". It's apples-to-oranges; I have to pay taxes, one way or another. I don't have to shop at Tesco.

I find the pseudo-moralizing about law-abiding citizens to be rather grating.

If a stranger in front of me dropped a $20 bill I would certainly let them know. However, that doesn't mean I am a law-abiding citizen. My empathy does not prevent me from stealing from grocery chains, whether faced with a human cashier or a machine. My morality is not based on law, nor should law equate to morality in all cases.

I was expecting the “banana trick” to be the case where dropping the leading 9 from the item code will ring up organic produce as the cheaper regular version (9nnnn vs nnnn).

I admit, I use this banana trick. It's the only way that I shoplift. I place down organic bananas, but using the touchscreen I navigate through "Select by Picture" -> "Fruits" -> "Bananas".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com