Poll

10 votes (35.71%)
15 votes (53.57%)
2 votes (7.14%)
1 vote (3.57%)

28 members have voted

JimMorrison
JimMorrison
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 597
May 4th, 2011 at 8:13:19 PM permalink
Quote: Doc

With regard to the original candy & tare weight question, I think I have to speculate a bit. My guess is that they intended for the tare weight to account for the weight of a bag that you put the candy in, not the individual wrappers, sticks, etc. Then, the price per pound would be applied appropriately for each type of candy, without charging you for the bag by the pound (or at all, for that matter). It appears, unfortunately, that the tare adjustment was not functioning properly, perhaps not for any amount of candy purchased.



I think you're wrong since he said each candy had it's own code and jelly beans for example did not have a TARE so therefore I think it was there so they could take into account the sticks etc. Otherwise why wouldn't every candy have a TARE to offset the bag?

Personally I don't have a problem with what the OP did at all.
EvenBob: "Look America, I have a tiny wee-wee, can anybody help me?"
Doc
Doc
Joined: Feb 27, 2010
  • Threads: 45
  • Posts: 7023
May 4th, 2011 at 8:30:17 PM permalink
Quote: JimMorrison

I think you're wrong since he said each candy had it's own code and jelly beans for example did not have a TARE so therefore I think it was there so they could take into account the sticks etc. Otherwise why wouldn't every candy have a TARE to offset the bag?

Personally I don't have a problem with what the OP did at all.


My assumption (clearly an assumption) was that each type of candy had its own code to indicate the proper price per pound. I did see that different products operated with different tare weights, but I suspect that this was one more aspect of an error in the tare weight adjustments. I doubt that the candy manufacturers even report an appropriate tare weight for their pieces of candy.

However, if I am mistaken (which I admit is quite common), just how would you design a system for "tare weight" to account for the stick in the suckers? Or for the wrappers on individual pieces of candy? It seems to me, it would have to be based on a percentage of the weight of the candy/stick/wrapper, not as a base weight to be subtracted from the total weight.

I think it is more reasonable to assume that the tare weight was supposed to be an adjustment for some fixed item that doesn't change with the amount of candy purchased; e.g., the bag. But the tare amount should be the same for all candies, if all are placed in the same kind of bag. If you want to adjust for the sticks and individual wrappers, just change the price per pound for that type of candy.
JimMorrison
JimMorrison
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 597
May 4th, 2011 at 8:32:59 PM permalink
Quote: Doc

My assumption (clearly an assumption) was that each type of candy had its own code to indicate the proper price per pound. I did see that different products operated with different tare weights, but I suspect that this was one more aspect of an error in the tare weight adjustments. I doubt that the candy manufacturers even report an appropriate tare weight for their pieces of candy.

However, if I am mistaken (which I admit is quite common), just how would you design a system for "tare weight" to account for the stick in the suckers? Or for the wrappers on individual pieces of candy? It seems to me, it would have to be based on a percentage of the weight of the candy/stick/wrapper, not as a base weight to be subtracted from the total weight.

I think it is more reasonable to assume that the tare weight was supposed to be an adjustment for some fixed item that doesn't change with the amount of candy purchased; e.g., the bag. But the tare amount should be the same for all candies, if all are placed in the same kind of bag.



I agree with what you're saying, I just bought into his theory about the stick, wrappers etc since every candy was different. If all other candies had one TARE and this one had something else I'd say that's an error. But with different TARE's it seems like they're trying to take into account different things. Pretty stupid to do it that way but some manager could have thought this was a fair idea or something.
EvenBob: "Look America, I have a tiny wee-wee, can anybody help me?"
FarFromVegas
FarFromVegas
Joined: Dec 10, 2010
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 878
May 4th, 2011 at 10:16:56 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Here was a similar advantage play that you may still be able to do. At the Plaza the slot ticket redemption machines paid a one dollar bill for a 96¢ ticket. So what some flea advantage players did was put $1 into a slot machine, bet 4¢; on one line, and repeat over and over. So they would have stacks of 96¢ tickets, and some for more than $1 on the times they did win. In other words, it was a no lose bet. You lose and you get your 4¢ back, you win and you get paid your fair winnings.

Personally, that is not something I would be comfortable doing.



I hope they felt really stupid when they hit something good with only a 4¢ bet! Not only would I not feel comfortable doing it, it seems like such a waste of time for so little payoff.

I'd rather take the four cents and go get two Blow Pops at Dween's store. :D
Each of us is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. Preparing for a fight about your bad decision is not as smart as making a good decision.
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
May 5th, 2011 at 4:01:58 AM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Here was a similar advantage play that you may still be able to do. At the Plaza the slot ticket redemption machines paid a one dollar bill for a 96¢ ticket. So what some flea advantage players did was put $1 into a slot machine, bet 4¢; on one line, and repeat over and over. So they would have stacks of 96¢ tickets, and some for more than $1 on the times they did win. In other words, it was a no lose bet. You lose and you get your 4¢ back, you win and you get paid your fair winnings.

Personally, that is not something I would be comfortable doing.


How about accepting $3 for surrendering a $5 bet or $8 for getting BJ on a $5 bet because they don't have a $2.50 chip?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
FinsRule
FinsRule
Joined: Dec 23, 2009
  • Threads: 119
  • Posts: 3674
May 5th, 2011 at 4:41:50 AM permalink
I'm surprised the OP didn't remove the wrappers and sticks from the suckers, place the lollipop on the scale, then reinsert the sticks and wrappers. Could have saved .01!
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 178
  • Posts: 10256
May 5th, 2011 at 4:49:42 AM permalink
Quote: weaselman

How about accepting $3 for surrendering a $5 bet or $8 for getting BJ on a $5 bet because they don't have a $2.50 chip?

That's within the scope of the pre-determined rules, not due to an error when setting up the tare value.

Ditto for the Plaza's 4¢ thing.

Similarly, I would not object to receiving only $2 on a $5 surrender of $7 on a $5 BJ, if it were posted. Of course, after the first time it happened, I'd only be betting in even dollar amounts....
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
May 5th, 2011 at 6:48:48 AM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

That's within the scope of the pre-determined rules, not due to an error when setting up the tare value.
Ditto for the Plaza's 4¢ thing.



Exactly.
In both cases they round up the value because they find the simplicity of it worth the expense. If they did not want to do that, they could have changed the machine programming, or get a bunch of 50 cents coins for the BJ table.

I actually think that the same is going on with the tare adjustment - the scale sensitivity is just not high enough to accurately handle low weights. I am pretty sure that the store knows about it. They had a few choices - they could require a higher minimum amount of candy per bag (if you want less then ten, just pay 80 cents each), or they could set the per pound price including the tare weight, but the chose to just leave it the way it is, because it was easier for them, or because they wanted it to be more convenient to the customers or for whatever other reason.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
Dween
Dween
Joined: Jan 24, 2010
  • Threads: 66
  • Posts: 339
May 5th, 2011 at 12:27:19 PM permalink
OP here...

I'll tell you what. Next time I go to the store, I will do the following:

1) Use the Self-Checkout lane, so I can see the weight and TARE info on-screen.
2) Buy 3 Charms Blow Pops (Wrapped + Stick)
3) Buy 4 Charms Blow Pops
4) Buy 3 Tootsie-Pops
5) Buy about a dozen Bit-O-Honey (Wrapped)
6) Buy about 20 Jelly Beans (Not wrapped)

I will report the TARE, price per pound, and my cost for each one. If the amount of candy I attempt to buy is not enough, I will place a coin on the scale to make it weigh more, so I can purchase it.

It has been a number of months, if not years, since I have bought Blow Pops from this chain, though I visit it weekly. I suspect nothing has changed.
-Dween!
Ayecarumba
Ayecarumba
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
  • Threads: 236
  • Posts: 6763
May 5th, 2011 at 12:33:04 PM permalink
I do know that the sensitivity of scales in the self-checkout lanes has greatly improved. Perhaps they have also figured out how to price items correctly. Would hiring someone with a college degree have helped the store management avoid Blowpopping all their profits away? hehe.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci

  • Jump to: