Talk:Self checkout
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Is this page still a stub?
A significant amount of informatino has been added. There is still information that could expand on this article, with particular regard to the specifics of the technology used, but should the "Stub" status now be removed? --201.137.80.226 05:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's definitely big enough to be de-stubbed, and I went ahead and removed that stub tag. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
wow, so biased: its bad for the economy? what about jobs that are created by makers of machines benefit to consumer is negligible? the cost savings translate to the consumer as well, in a competative environment not to mention these are crappy jobs that are lost —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.115.159 (talk • contribs)
- You're welcome to try your hand at the article if you think it could be improved, Mr. or Ms. 65.93.115.159. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have to disagree with the statement that there is no benefit to the consumer. From my experience, it is a lot faster to use the self checkout than wait in line at a regular checkstand. Plus, I agree the article is highly biased. Are ATM machines a bad idea because they replace bank tellers? Are self-service elevators a bad idea because it eliminates the need for a elevator operator? Are self-service gas stations a bad idea since it removes the need for a gas station attendant? 208.186.37.107 22:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the idea of increased speed. The article states this requires the user to be relatively competant. Well, I used a conventional checkout to make a living while I went to college, so I consider myself competent. It has been my experience that self-checkouts CANNOT KEEP UP WITH ME. I have to slow myself considerably in my scanning and bagging of items to keep from alerting the attendant, and having to wait for them to plod over. And I quit doing this six years ago.
BTW, these crappy jobs are some of the best ways to get teens into the job market. No one is hiring them as CEOs, and these kids have to start somewhere. I also chafe at doing the work for the company. Am I getting a discount?
Can someone explain how these machines work? I scan Item A, then it will not let me scan Item B until I place Item A in the bag. I figured the big database of item names and prices also contained approximate weights so that a scale built into the bagging counter would be able to tell if I placed an item of appropriate weight into the bag. So far so good. However, when Item A is a greeting card (or similarly small item) I do not see how the scale can be accurate enough to record it yet sturdy enough to hold my entire cartfull of groceries. What am I missing? If such a scale can be build for a reasonable price, it would be nice if the article gave some indication how -- or had a link to an article on scales that explains how.
To throw in my two cents on the job-displacement topic: I think automation is always a good thing. Machines have been taking over simple jobs for several hundred years now. Looking at the big picture, the countries with the most automation also have the most robust, fastest-growing economies. It seems that installing automation simply frees people up to do things that they like better and are better at. The difficult question is: can this go on indefinitely, or will we eventually (perhaps soon) force an enormous percentage of our population into life-long unemployment because all of the jobs that are simple enough for them are also simple enough for machines? With current unemployment rates right in the region they have always been (for as long as there are statistics) this does not seem to be a problem yet, but I do not see a way to figure out how soon it will be a problem (if ever).
Someone should describe the problems that people have by not clearing the RFID tags and getting jumped by security when they walk out the door. I don't know enough about it to write it up, though.
I agree with those whove raised what is by far the most important point here. It takes a special kind of blindness for someone to evaluate this system as if it is merely a matter of efficiency. Sadly that special blindness is inherrent in 99.999999% of the worlds population. The fact is, this system is just another part in the large-scale conspiracy to eradicate employment for the underprivelidged, and put them on the streets. It is that simple. The choice here is only between whether you think thats good or bad.
5 Feb 07
I think automation is always a good thing. Hmm... Perhaps one should seek the opinion of a former US factory worker, first displaced by competition with someone in China who's willing to work for $120/mo (minimum wage in Beijing), who's now employed at WalMart in competition with a self-checkout machine that works for nothing. 4.224.216.106 (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Adding/removing link to NCR Self Checkout
I am new to Wikipedia and have much to learn. I'm trying to understand why the link to NCR's resources - news, info, white papers around Self Checkout, continue to be removed yet IBM's link remains. NCR has about 55% of the installed base and has installed about 2/3rd's of all Self Checkout for the last 5 years and exceeds the next closest 2 competitors combined. As the dominant leader in this space I would think a link to NCR's resources would be more than appropriate.
This article is biased and contains poor information. I am willing to make verifiable improvements if the goal here is to represent the truth. If this is just a tit for tat excercise to serve someones agenda then I hardly see the point. Help me unterstand the requirements for the link to stick and I'll make efforts to improve the overall content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedRiverGorge (talk • contribs) 03:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good point about the link. IBM's gone. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I guess I am still confused. If IBM and NCR both have useful information in the form of white papers and such via the links shouldn't they both be on here instead of not? Is the issue that these are comercial sites? If so I would argue that the other links are as well. Everyone has an agenda, but if they are contributing valid and supportable data shouldn't they be included? Where's the line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedRiverGorge (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
