On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:37:20 -0400, 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¢?

I dunno about your "they were less accurate back then" statement. Pretty
hard to prove. Whether you're using a 'price sticker stamp thingy' or a
computerized system, it still calls for human "input".

> There were no shelf tags to check it against.

Which is still often the case in my neck of the woods...

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy