Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "ChattyCathy" > wrote in message
> > Behooves. Haven't heard that term in years <lol>. However, I think it's
> > one of those "It was a good idea at the time" things. "They" i.e. the
> > barcode boffins didn't take into account a) garbage in, garbage out - e.g.
> > I took a tin of tomatoes to the check-out the other day that allegedly
> > cost 50 bucks instead of 50 cents - had to raise hell about it before a
> > 'supervisor' was called to sort it out; b) how 'inventive' the staff could
> > be in making the system work to their advantage e.g. cases of purposely
> > 'fixing' the system to reflect the wrong pricing on certain items - and
> > last but not least... c) shoppers with less than optimal eyesight who find
> > it difficult to read the shelf tags - if they are actually even *there*.
>
> It was no better before bar codes. We used to do the pricing out of a book
> and stamp the cans. I'd say they were less accurate back then. Yes, fixing
> an obvious problems was simple, but if the can is stamped 69¢ does that mean
> it is correct or should it have really been 49¢? There were no shelf tags
> to check it against.

I remember (barely) those days and the benefits of spending an extra few
seconds looking at the stock of a given item on the shelf for a
mismarked one with a lower price. You could save a few dollars a visit
just by grabbing things from the back of the shelf.