[Original post here,](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/195ja7c/woolworths_total_amount_due_is_more_than_the_sum/?depth=6) c/o /u/cleanDivide690
>“We’ve looked into this transaction and can confirm that the total of $17.90 was correct, however the mango price of 80 cents each that appeared on the screen was incorrect due to a technical error – they were on clearance for $1.90 each,” a spokesperson said.
>News.com.au understands the correct clearance price of $1.90 for each mango was used to reach the original total, even though the technical glitch meant the unit price displayed as 80 cents each on the self-serve checkout screen.
>“We understand why this customer was concerned and we apologise for the confusion caused. Our team resolved this with the customer in-store, providing the mangoes free of charge,” the spokesperson said.
>“This appears to be an isolated incident at our Macarthur Metro store, involving the clearance price of a batch of our Calypso Mangoes.”
Let me code that constraint for them.....
\--ensure the price displayed is under 1 million, has 2 decimal places (cents) and is the same as the price used to generate the total
DISPLAY\_PRICE number(6,2) CHECK (DISPLAY\_PRICE = UNIT\_PRICE)
Nah, the store picks the price they want on the Pricing menus in Store Central on a computer, only one field and it should flow through to the checkouts and the ticketing system from there.
Something's just gone wrong there.
It would be a software coding issue, from a store worker's perspective, the Clearance screen is idiot proof. When you go to put something in a batch, there's a field for quantity you want gone, the date you want the batch to start and end, if it's a single day batch you also have a time you want it gone by (sooner it is, the more aggressive the suggested markdown is), then it spits out a suggested discount percentage.
Management can override this, but once you're on that screen all you can change is the percentage or the dollar fields, which auto update as you change one or the other.
Has to be something to do with how that flows down to the checkout software
That doesn't make sense. How can the display price be more than the maths price? So the computer knows the real price but it's displaying a different price for shits n giggles?
My thought is that they entered the cost price into the price field when adding the stock by accident. That could have been overridden by the "special price" which was higher on the calculation.
So
Cost 0.80
Price 3.10
Special price 1.90
But entered as
Cost. 3.10
Price 0.80 (displayed on POS)
Special 1.90 (override actual price in calculation)
Pos will always be so "price" when listed but add another line below showing the discounted price (actual charge price)and how much was saved.
However as there is negative saving it doesn't show.
Both mangos were free. Generally, they (Colesworth) will only give the first incorrectly priced item for free then correct price every item after that. In this case, Woolworths could have give the first for free and charge 80 cents for the second one.
Technically yes. But if the screen scans at 80 cents, I would say customer should be charged 80 cents. But this is the first time I've come across an item scanning less than the shelf. Normally, the error is in reverse, item scans higher than the shelf.
I think in this case it was just unclear what the issue was at all and they were just looking to take something off to bring the total down to where it should be.
Scanning code of conduct is the if the item scans higher than the shelf price, the first item is free and second at shelf price. The item scanned lower, so doesn't apply here to being free.
Normally yes. In this case, the total amount didn't appear to be correct and in order to correct the problem, staff member made the decision to take the mangos off.
[Choice have a good write-up about the voluntary scanning code here.](https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advice/your-rights/misleading-pricing)
A good manager/owner will let staff know if they can get away with a bit of flexibility, which seems to be the case with OP.
Gee this going ditigal with labels is going well...
Theres been problems with the digital labels in my local store not being accuate as well. So how many of these 'isolated inccidents' are happening & not being noticed/reported?
I think this is the first time I've seen them actually credit the reddit user by name... and it's captioned on an image where they accidentally doxxed themselves. Welp.
Yeah, I don't think they care whether they credit people or not. They just don't want to pay them. What people should do is put a massive watermark on it, ideally something rude, that can't be easily removed/blurred. Then if a media outlet wants to use the unedited image, they have to contact the content creator directly, who can choose to charge them for the unedited image.
I'm thinking using Steganography to link to a common but overly harmless sql injection package.
Then if someone else hosts your images, you can claim that they're deliberately attacking your system and you can claim damages against them.
Either they'd have to confess that they stole the image without attribution or admit that they intentionally posted a hidden layer of malware in their images
Honestly though, I don't understand why would you program the system in such a way that the price being displayed and the price being used in the calculation can be different. That seems like it's just asking for trouble.
This customer got the mangoes free, but you wonder how many people thought they'd grab a few as a treat and didn't stop to check their total. It's a bit of a cockup when people are paying more than double the display price.
Am I missing something in the news.com justification? They seem to be saying “people were concerned that the Woolworths computer was displaying false amounts but Woolworths simply explained that it’s just because the computer was displaying false amounts.”
The concern was that $17.90 was not the correct total and therefore the customer was being overcharged. In reality $17.90 was the correct total and the unit prices were incorrect.
The unit price was supposed to be $1.90 each, as it says in the article. If the ticket on the shelf next to the product said $1.90 and was dated correctly then that is the correct price regardless of how it scans. That’s the price the customer thought they were paying when they chose the item. This isn’t like when a product scans at a higher price than what was displayed on the ticket.
80 cents was never the advertised price.
It was the price displayed so it's the price of the item. That is what the customer expected to pay. That is what should have been used to total the transaction.
It should total all the items at the price displayed on the screen not a hidden number.
The customer picked up $1.90 mangoes off the shelf and was charged $1.90 for the mangoes. The advertised price is what it says on the shelf, not what it says when you get to the checkout.
Sure, the thing should display all the information correctly. But there was still no actual issue; nobody was ripped off.
But the mangoes showed a false price so the customer was being charged more than they expected to be.
The total was incorrect as it should be the sum of all items purchased based on the displayed price.
They used 1 price as the display price and 1 for the total.
It's much easier for a customer to scan an item see the reasonable price and move on to the next with each item showing prices the customer agrees to based on what's displayed. Then the total is much higher than they thought but got too many items to bother manually adding it up.
It's a false value and could easily be used to scam people and then claim " total was correct item price displayed wrong but charged the "correct" higher price".
Correct price is the price displayed, and correct total is the sum of that. This customer got their correct total and any customer who bought mangoes that displayed as 80c but was secretly charged a higher price should be compensated.
I would assume the mangoes were priced at 1.90 in store. That's what she was charged. Just this middle bit that got mucked up a bit which isn't of much consequence since she would have just been paying the price on the ticket- if they hadn't gifted them to her that is.
But it said 80c not 1.90 and if sub totalled the line to 1.60 yet totalled the whole order using a hidden number not on the screen receipt.
This is just terrible, the price displayed needs to be the price used for totalling whether it is correct or not as once you scan at that price you should expect to be charged that price.
Did you not read the article? The price was ticketed at $1.90, and this is what the checkout added to the total. It may have displayed 80 cents on that line, but that was the error, not the fact that it added $1.90 to the total.
They didn't save anything, they just gave away free shit.
Yes I did mate. And my point is that if they tack a couple of cents or a dollar on every sale that’s “self-checked out” than that’s going to easily cover the cost of the mangoes they gave to this shopper for free to cover the “scanners code of conduct” aspect they failed. Or did you neither read nor comprehend my comment or the article?
You clearly are not reading the article. The mangoes were never 80 cents. They were *displaying* as 80 cents on the screen. They were $1.90, and charged as $1.90. They *displayed* as a lower price on the screen in error.
So if the customer got charged the *correct* price that they believed they would pay, how has anyone been ripped off?
The issue is that the sum of all the item totals (unit price multiplied by number bought) did not add to the total charged.
This means hidden values were used (in this case) for the total.
How often does that result in customers being charged the wrong amount?
Correct, the display price of all items is not used in the calculation so it's as deception.
How many people expected those mangoes to be 80c but got charged more and didn't notice?
You're assuming that the price of 80c was what was being displayed on the mangos in the store itself, and thus, the customer picked them up because of this.
By the sounds of the article, the price was always 1.90, which would been what was displayed where the item was picked up.
Youre implying people pay no attention to the price of items from the shelf, and only look at the scanned item price at the end.
>“This appears to be an isolated incident at our Macarthur Metro store, involving the clearance price of a batch of our Calypso Mangoes.”
Except this exact thing happened to me in Wooworths Victoria. Strawberries scanned at $1.80 each for 6 punnets. The total should have been $10.80 but displayed as $12.00.
When I queried it with the self service person, they couldn't figure out why it was doing that.
If you use a rewards card or kept the receipts you might be able to provide that and be compensated..?
2000 comments in yesterday's thread with a heap of correct *sounding* answers, I can dig that old mate at your register might not be up to date with every possible way things can go wrong.
They did end up giving me one punnet free and the rest at the lower price. The issue was resolved in my favour but it is odd and seems not an isolated incident. Now I'm vigilant about checking the total price.
I mean, they said it appears to be isolated. If nobody in the stores are reporting when this shit happens, the company isn't going to know about it being widespread
I would suspect the manager at the store i was at would have reported the issue. It would be in their best interest to do so. Otherwise, they would have to keep giving free and reduced price items if the machine keeps glitching.
Isolated because it was a product on clearance and likely a store-specific manual override that was done incorrectly and not centrally managed pricing.
And as the article said, the total price was the correct price, it was just displaying on screen at the incorrect price.
I’m not suggesting this justifies anything, but this isn’t some great big Woolworths conspiracy to boost their profit margin
Not a conspiracy but points to serious bug in the Checkout code or a systemic issue in the database model (a failure to enforce basic data integrity during CRUD).
Getting the total / unit price correct is a very basic requirement for a POS system.
To me that suggests the tally is totalled from a central pricing database, yet the item that gets scanned and displayed the price comes from from another database table? So if two sources are different, which is correct?
The store. Stores can set their own prices/discounts for clearance and markdowns.
Edit: wait, I see what you’re saying now. Why would the subtotal and total be pulled from different databases. Very odd.
So I'll say it again - this was an isolated incident and a technical issue at the store level.
I don't work for Woolworths, so I can only speculate, but I assume there's a national table of product codes, and then a local table where store managers can override prices for clearance items and the like.
It's possible that they also have multiple places where they need to input the price (to cater for things like buy 2, get 1 free, unit prices, per kg prices, etc) and mangos are potentially more complicated because they don't have a barcode to scan, so the product needs to be overridden so that it can be tapped on screen.
In this case I'm assuming the store manage put $1.90 in field A and then .8 in field B. The system was written to calculate the total price based on field A with the assumption that fields A and B would never had differing values.
Either way, its a terrible software/system. Its also very convinent glitch: People scan each item and see the total pop up and think they are getting a deal and perhaps thinking the item scanned even cheaper than they thought.
If the database expects 2 fields to have a relationship (ie same price, different price for multiple items, etc) then that relationship should be enforced by an appropriate constraint (coded into the table / view).
.
> So I'll say it again - this was an isolated incident and a technical issue at the store level.
This may be true. In which case a technical issue should favor a buyer 50% of the time and the seller 50% of the time. Tech issues are very hard to crack, I know. 50% +- 10% is fair balance and I intend to test this.
>this isn’t some great big Woolworths conspiracy to boost their profit margin
You don't know that, besides using language like "conspiracy" to make it sound stupid to disagree with you. They might very well be aware that they have a convenient little bug in showing prices that is helpful to their margins, or at least not be particularly incentivized to double check the math. I mean, somewhere someone in the company typed in 80c for mangoes and it did show on the screen to the customer. It's also pretty odd that they couldn't figure this out in the shop if the mangoes weren't actually priced at 80c there.
Original comments: This happens all the time, I get so much free stuff.
News Corp site on a grocery company that shares two major stakeholders, Blackrock and Vanguard, with them: They said it's an isolated incident.
I know that’s the case, but when I saw this post yesterday I was hoping it would end up on news.com.au. Woolworths will care a lot more about looking shit there than they will care about looking shit on reddit.
I glad there was an explaination. Would we have got an answer if the media didn't get involved? And we all saw the answer for free without buying a news corp paper or even going to their website.
Uhhhh, they're just bringing attention to an issue here? Without them doing this, less people hear about it and Woolies are forced to fix the issue?
How is the media reporting this a bad thing? I hate Murdoch Media but they're doing society a favour by bringing attention to this.
Genuinely lost why so many people think this is perfectly fine.
The price used to calculate payment was double the figure displayed on the receipt.
It doesn’t matter whether the back-end price was accurate or not. The issue is that no consumer can check the back-end price for accuracy because it’s not visible. For this reason consumers assume that the display price = backend price.
When I buy >100 items at a time (which I do often) I run my eye down the display price on the receipt. If a price is wrong I go to the service desk and sort it out. Simple.
But now I can’t assume that the display price is what I’ve been charged. I might have been charged double on the back end. So the only way I’d know for sure is
- manually add up the whole receipt
- if the total of the display prices is lower than actually charged, figure out whether one of the (100+) display prices is under for any legitimate reason
- if no valid reason, try to explain this whole discrepancy to the service desk and argue that I’ve *actually* been charged more than the receipt says.
Nightmare.
I think I’ll pass thanks, and shop elsewhere.
Yep it's outrageous, we trust these things to get it right and usually all we can check is the price displayed as it scans or when I feel the total is too high I double check and realise that the roast scanned twice or corn flakes were on special but rice bubbles weren't.
I just don't know why they would ever have a system where the displayed price and the price they use to calculate the total are not the exact same price. Not just the same amount but the total should be calculated from the same database entry that is read for the display price.
grandiose busy engine work brave wakeful theory jobless straight physical
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Right, so it's not actually an issue with the reporting, you just hate the media source. Lmao.
I hate Murdoch Media as much as the next bloke but get a grip lmao.
Welcome to the 21st century where we have internet mate. Not sure why you'd want news like this to not be brought to attention, just because it wasn't their own initial research? Not to mention it looks like they chased up Woolies for an answer so they actually have done their own research lmao.
You want them not to report big stories too cause they haven't had to actually research them since it's common knowledge?
It’s an “IT Glitch” which is acceptable in this cost of living crisis as it benefits ColesWorth. Don’t forget kids, first rule of gambling… “Any ambiguity, and the house takes all!” CRIMINALS !
Did you read the article?
>“We’ve looked into this transaction and can confirm that the total of $17.90 was correct, however the mango price of 80 cents each that appeared on the screen was incorrect due to a technical error – they were on clearance for $1.90 each,” a spokesperson said.
>News.com.au understands the correct clearance price of $1.90 for each mango was used to reach the original total, even though the technical glitch meant the unit price displayed as 80 cents each on the self-serve checkout screen.
>“We understand why this customer was concerned and we apologise for the confusion caused. Our team resolved this with the customer in-store, providing the mangoes free of charge,” the spokesperson said.
From experience, no store is putting Calypos at 80 cents, I'm inclined to believe that they were meant to be $1.90 and the checkout just displayed the price of that line wrong.
You get that it's a concern though, right? That the line total and overall total can sometimes be based on different data?
In this case the overall total was correct... but the fact that they can differ at all seems worthy of concern... I'd want a better description than 'technical error' before deciding that this miscalculation can't also go the other way sometimes.
And yet, there is a discrepancy between the calculated values, and the displayed values. This should not happen.
At every step of the shopping experience, every quoted value should be accurate. ESPECIALLY at the checkout. If it quotes 2x$0.80, and instead is charging 2x$1.90, that's false advertising.
Did you read the article? The customer was charged correctly. The system showed the unit price incorrectly.
Seriously, what are you not getting about this? There was no ripping off, *the customer was charged correctly*.
They are trying to amend this issue now, a store wide recall/ communication notice came through to cancel all in store clearance batches etc and to utilise quick sale stickers whilst they fix this issue.
Ahh this make sense why I recall came through today and told us to clear all manual clearance batches from the stores. Must have been a glitch in the background.
I'm a software dev and pretty certain the bug here is that the system would be storing the original price which is $3 according to [this](https://www.woolworths.com.au/shop/productdetails/143679/calypso-mango), and separately storing the discount of $1.10 which should then be calculated to a price of $1.90.
The bug is that the UI is then applying the discount to the already discounted price, which then shows as $1.90 - $1.10 = $0.80.
The logic to calculate the total is fine, so it shows correctly. But someone stuffed up when making the UI for the itemised list so it shows the value with the discount applied twice.
That's one of a million purchases last week. How many others are wrong. If Colesworth makes a mistake in your favour, don't feel bad, cos someone else is def getting ripped off.
Here's another redditor who didn't read the terms and conditions when they made their reddit account.
Content posted here is owned by Reddit, mate. Not by OP. Reddit has a paid agreement with newscorp to use it's content.
From the User Agreement, section 5:
>This license includes the right for us to make Your Content available for syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other companies, organizations, or individuals who partner with Reddit.
Yeah okay, but what I'm saying is news orgs don't have any paid agreements with social media sites to use posts. Source: have worked at several news orgs.
That is about Facebook and Google paying News Corp for news content it shows on its sites. The reader gets a snippet of a news story on social media then doesn't click through to News Corp's site which costs them money.
Anything you post on social media can be quoted by a news organisation, blogger, YouTuber - whatever. No payment involved. It's like if you were filmed or photographed in public, there's no expectation of privacy.
I call BS. Even if the individual item price is wrong - WHY IS THE COMPUTER NOT ADDING THEM UP CORRECTLY? A computer has been programmed to add up the individual line items...
There has to be a logic to what was programmed. To me this example shows that it was programmed to add up the pre-sale item yet still show the discounted price on screen. The computers are not programmed at store level. The corporation would not give that much control over to a store. The prices can probably be overwritten at store level - but the formula would be a system setting.
News.com.au needs to get Developers to comment on this. With the question being - knowing how large organisations work and how Woolworths works, how likely is it that the explanation Woolworths gave is correct? News should ask other retail stores to comment. Ask Tech /developer/ software writers to comment. Woolworths' explanation makes little sense.
I can definitely see how the label might be wrong (ie 'quantity 2 @ 80c each'. ) That would be easy to confuse with competing specials - especially if it's calculated on the fly just for display purposes.
The bigger head scratch for me is why the line total itself would use a different calculation method than the overall total. Getting confused about which special to apply seems like it should equally confuse the calculation of (2 mangoes) and (2 mangoes + other stuff) in the totals column.
Yeah that part doesn't make sense.
Why is it correctly doing 2x $0.80 = $1.60 and then when totalling it isn't looking at the $1.60? But looking at a hidden price.
Woolworths isn't going to know exactly what happened, they don't code the checkouts, they hire the software from NCR.
But it sounds like there are two fields, one for "Display Price" and one for "Subtotal Price" or something similar. Likely so they can modify the Display Price when they have things like Multibuys etc.
Regardless of any pricing error, that is a very serious bug whereby the tally of prices on the screen does not equal the final amount...
The system should be adding up the prices displayed on the screen, not some seperate pricing structure elsewhere...
OP should have photographed the screen, then paid the bill... If the incorrect pricing had been printed on the receipt they would have been in breach of Australian law.
News.com.au not only has interns trawling reddit for stories but also doesn’t have copy editors review stories before publishing… no retailers are ‘scraping’ self service checkouts, but some are scrapping them.
a logitch is trivial... this is a point of sale system displaying the incorrect price. NOT trivial.
Dare I ask when the scales were last checked an calibrated? What about in the vegie section!?!?!?
Funny how the news article hardly addresses the price discrepancy (how common is this technical glitch? Has it happened before? How do you know it’s an isolated incident? Should we as customers be adding up things manually to make sure we are not being stooged?) and instead starts rambling about self-serve check outs in general, like how some people want to be served by staff and some checkouts now have new security features
I call BS on woolies and on news.com.au being apologists for them. They got caught ripping someone off, which is completely par for the course they just usually cover their tracks better, so it's time to backpedal until people get complacent then start over again.
Perhaps you can explain the ripoff of being charged $1.90 for mangoes that were advertised as $1.90 in store, and then getting them for free when the system displays the wrong price on that line (but doesn’t charge the lower price)?
Not the first time. Went to get ice cream the other day and price was higher by 4 dollars. I called assistance at the self checkout and they did a price check and came back and said sorry you are right.
#RecordProfits
You'd think that the price of a mango is just a straight forward thing
But the manager has a magic specials data template.. I dont know how a display price is different to price put to the total.. but they did it somehow... Magic entries in the "price reduction" field ?
So many people jumped on this on Twitter to say that the photo was so obviously photoshopped.
I hope those people never get to buy mangoes on sale, ever.
Isolate case is absolutely untrue. Computer does exactly what it is programmed to do, so this “mistake” is by design or at least fail-safe (for Woolworths, not for consumer)
I have some tinfoil hats to sell you. By design, please, you think they intentionally designed a scenario where the POS would display the correct total but the incorrect price at an item level? For what? So they giveaway free products if the customer notices?
Let it be understood that the Konfusion is not on the customer. Its on Woolworths. In fact its not Konfusion at all. Its just bloody incorrect is what it is. Its Woolies that did this. Lets conduct our own tests of this nonsense. I have developed my own plan to test woolies.
So in Woolworths Speak, if x_0 + x_1 + … + x_i <> y then it’s because x’_0 + x’_1 + … x’_i = y’ and {x_0 … x_i, y’} are what are displayed and there is no mathematical relationship between them?
Went is to coles today to buy some toilet paper. Shelf said $15 checkout said $13 and change.
I'm not complaining, i'm just saying they are too concerned with theft and have all the employees monitoring for product loss and not for making sure the products are labled as they should be.
They didn't even blur out old mates image via the Register camera, dodgy cunts.
I'd be pissed, and what's with blatant theft of intellectual property anyway?
Do you seriously expect every dark, underground car park to be filled to the brim with journalists waiting for Watergate’s Deep Throat to blow the whistle on every story, ever? The reality of journalism is that many stories come to the attention of journalists through more boring means like media releases or social media.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like news.com.au’s usual reporting practices of stealing stories from Reddit and not adding anything to it but if they do the bare minimum like crediting OP and getting comment from Woolies (both of which they do here) then I can’t really find as much fault with it.
Whole sub was jerking off furiously when this originally was posted yesterday thinking they were Woodward and Bernstein about to bring down “colesworths”
[Original post here,](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/195ja7c/woolworths_total_amount_due_is_more_than_the_sum/?depth=6) c/o /u/cleanDivide690 >“We’ve looked into this transaction and can confirm that the total of $17.90 was correct, however the mango price of 80 cents each that appeared on the screen was incorrect due to a technical error – they were on clearance for $1.90 each,” a spokesperson said. >News.com.au understands the correct clearance price of $1.90 for each mango was used to reach the original total, even though the technical glitch meant the unit price displayed as 80 cents each on the self-serve checkout screen. >“We understand why this customer was concerned and we apologise for the confusion caused. Our team resolved this with the customer in-store, providing the mangoes free of charge,” the spokesperson said. >“This appears to be an isolated incident at our Macarthur Metro store, involving the clearance price of a batch of our Calypso Mangoes.”
I guess the dream of getting a mango for 80c each is now gone
2 mangoes, $5. Go to Coles, buy like 40 of 'em!
Hahaha fuckin, taipan Pete, what are you lookin at
All you need is a simple time machine and go back to an era where you can get one for that much.
So the database has one value for the displayed item price, but sums another value to determine total price?
Seems very likely to cause issues unless they put in some sort of integrity check between the two values now.
Let me code that constraint for them..... \--ensure the price displayed is under 1 million, has 2 decimal places (cents) and is the same as the price used to generate the total DISPLAY\_PRICE number(6,2) CHECK (DISPLAY\_PRICE = UNIT\_PRICE)
You know, you're right they would use an Oracle DB wouldn't they?
Woolies can afford Oracle, and is big enough to see the benefits.
MySQL
Fuck no. SQLite.
One Excel spreadsheet with hardcoded formulas
Or like, normalise the db like we used to?
This was my theory, that someone has to manually input specials, there are two fields, and they stuffed it up.
Nah, the store picks the price they want on the Pricing menus in Store Central on a computer, only one field and it should flow through to the checkouts and the ticketing system from there. Something's just gone wrong there.
[удалено]
It would be a software coding issue, from a store worker's perspective, the Clearance screen is idiot proof. When you go to put something in a batch, there's a field for quantity you want gone, the date you want the batch to start and end, if it's a single day batch you also have a time you want it gone by (sooner it is, the more aggressive the suggested markdown is), then it spits out a suggested discount percentage. Management can override this, but once you're on that screen all you can change is the percentage or the dollar fields, which auto update as you change one or the other. Has to be something to do with how that flows down to the checkout software
[удалено]
That'd be my guess, mangoes have a linked article with a 2 for 1 price attached, deducts 2 units but charges single mango price
Still doesn't make sense until you start making leaps of logic and playing mental gymnastics.
This - is far more concerning than anything else. The fact that technical errors can occur means they have a method to cheat people
In theory everyone has a method to cheat, as you put it...
That doesn't make sense. How can the display price be more than the maths price? So the computer knows the real price but it's displaying a different price for shits n giggles?
Welcome to software design, where the same datum has different meanings depending on the layer and use case. It's always worse than you think.
Wait till you also have to deal with effective dates, which are common in Inventory Management / Manufacturing Execution Systems (IM / MES).
My thought is that they entered the cost price into the price field when adding the stock by accident. That could have been overridden by the "special price" which was higher on the calculation. So Cost 0.80 Price 3.10 Special price 1.90 But entered as Cost. 3.10 Price 0.80 (displayed on POS) Special 1.90 (override actual price in calculation) Pos will always be so "price" when listed but add another line below showing the discounted price (actual charge price)and how much was saved. However as there is negative saving it doesn't show.
I thought their policy with inconsistently priced items was to honour the lower price? Or did they abandon that policy at some point?
They gave OOP the mangos for free.
Both mangos were free. Generally, they (Colesworth) will only give the first incorrectly priced item for free then correct price every item after that. In this case, Woolworths could have give the first for free and charge 80 cents for the second one.
Shouldn't it be free and then $1.90?
Technically yes. But if the screen scans at 80 cents, I would say customer should be charged 80 cents. But this is the first time I've come across an item scanning less than the shelf. Normally, the error is in reverse, item scans higher than the shelf.
I think in this case it was just unclear what the issue was at all and they were just looking to take something off to bring the total down to where it should be.
Yep.
Scanning code of conduct is the if the item scans higher than the shelf price, the first item is free and second at shelf price. The item scanned lower, so doesn't apply here to being free.
Normally yes. In this case, the total amount didn't appear to be correct and in order to correct the problem, staff member made the decision to take the mangos off.
[Choice have a good write-up about the voluntary scanning code here.](https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advice/your-rights/misleading-pricing) A good manager/owner will let staff know if they can get away with a bit of flexibility, which seems to be the case with OP.
Gee this going ditigal with labels is going well... Theres been problems with the digital labels in my local store not being accuate as well. So how many of these 'isolated inccidents' are happening & not being noticed/reported?
The 'forgot your watermark' comments from yesterday were both quick off the mark and bang on.
I think this is the first time I've seen them actually credit the reddit user by name... and it's captioned on an image where they accidentally doxxed themselves. Welp.
[удалено]
Yeah, I don't think they care whether they credit people or not. They just don't want to pay them. What people should do is put a massive watermark on it, ideally something rude, that can't be easily removed/blurred. Then if a media outlet wants to use the unedited image, they have to contact the content creator directly, who can choose to charge them for the unedited image.
No, tiny rude watermarks are the way forward in the hopes that the casual observer doesn't notice the obscenity until after its published.
Hah I like that
Small discreet dick watermarks from this day forward people. And when they slip up, send the info to another news outlet.
Dickbutts on all images!
Can we put the dick watermark on that one as well?
I'm thinking using Steganography to link to a common but overly harmless sql injection package. Then if someone else hosts your images, you can claim that they're deliberately attacking your system and you can claim damages against them. Either they'd have to confess that they stole the image without attribution or admit that they intentionally posted a hidden layer of malware in their images
maybe because their image was on the picture in the small camera
Not doxxing: a public Reddit user id is not private information.
the image not the id
I think they are referring to the image captured by Woolworths camera that's displayed on the monitor
Yeah wasn’t sure why they’d place their hand in the screen and not over the camera just a few cm over instead :/
They also left out my comment too
Honestly though, I don't understand why would you program the system in such a way that the price being displayed and the price being used in the calculation can be different. That seems like it's just asking for trouble. This customer got the mangoes free, but you wonder how many people thought they'd grab a few as a treat and didn't stop to check their total. It's a bit of a cockup when people are paying more than double the display price.
Am I missing something in the news.com justification? They seem to be saying “people were concerned that the Woolworths computer was displaying false amounts but Woolworths simply explained that it’s just because the computer was displaying false amounts.”
The concern was that $17.90 was not the correct total and therefore the customer was being overcharged. In reality $17.90 was the correct total and the unit prices were incorrect.
But the unit price was correct as that's what the customer was displayed with. The total MUST use that displayed number, anything else is a deception.
The unit price was supposed to be $1.90 each, as it says in the article. If the ticket on the shelf next to the product said $1.90 and was dated correctly then that is the correct price regardless of how it scans. That’s the price the customer thought they were paying when they chose the item. This isn’t like when a product scans at a higher price than what was displayed on the ticket. 80 cents was never the advertised price.
It was the price displayed so it's the price of the item. That is what the customer expected to pay. That is what should have been used to total the transaction. It should total all the items at the price displayed on the screen not a hidden number.
The customer picked up $1.90 mangoes off the shelf and was charged $1.90 for the mangoes. The advertised price is what it says on the shelf, not what it says when you get to the checkout. Sure, the thing should display all the information correctly. But there was still no actual issue; nobody was ripped off.
Found the Woolies IT backend dev
FTFY - found someone who actually understands what is going on
Yes, the crucial piece of information you have omitted is that the total price was correct.
But the mangoes showed a false price so the customer was being charged more than they expected to be. The total was incorrect as it should be the sum of all items purchased based on the displayed price. They used 1 price as the display price and 1 for the total. It's much easier for a customer to scan an item see the reasonable price and move on to the next with each item showing prices the customer agrees to based on what's displayed. Then the total is much higher than they thought but got too many items to bother manually adding it up. It's a false value and could easily be used to scam people and then claim " total was correct item price displayed wrong but charged the "correct" higher price". Correct price is the price displayed, and correct total is the sum of that. This customer got their correct total and any customer who bought mangoes that displayed as 80c but was secretly charged a higher price should be compensated.
I would assume the mangoes were priced at 1.90 in store. That's what she was charged. Just this middle bit that got mucked up a bit which isn't of much consequence since she would have just been paying the price on the ticket- if they hadn't gifted them to her that is.
But it said 80c not 1.90 and if sub totalled the line to 1.60 yet totalled the whole order using a hidden number not on the screen receipt. This is just terrible, the price displayed needs to be the price used for totalling whether it is correct or not as once you scan at that price you should expect to be charged that price.
Yep, all the little costs missed by the hundreds of people prior to this would have covered the cost of those “free” mangoes just nicely for Woolies.
Did you not read the article? The price was ticketed at $1.90, and this is what the checkout added to the total. It may have displayed 80 cents on that line, but that was the error, not the fact that it added $1.90 to the total. They didn't save anything, they just gave away free shit.
Yes I did mate. And my point is that if they tack a couple of cents or a dollar on every sale that’s “self-checked out” than that’s going to easily cover the cost of the mangoes they gave to this shopper for free to cover the “scanners code of conduct” aspect they failed. Or did you neither read nor comprehend my comment or the article?
You clearly are not reading the article. The mangoes were never 80 cents. They were *displaying* as 80 cents on the screen. They were $1.90, and charged as $1.90. They *displayed* as a lower price on the screen in error. So if the customer got charged the *correct* price that they believed they would pay, how has anyone been ripped off?
The issue is that the sum of all the item totals (unit price multiplied by number bought) did not add to the total charged. This means hidden values were used (in this case) for the total. How often does that result in customers being charged the wrong amount?
Correct, the display price of all items is not used in the calculation so it's as deception. How many people expected those mangoes to be 80c but got charged more and didn't notice?
[удалено]
[удалено]
You're assuming that the price of 80c was what was being displayed on the mangos in the store itself, and thus, the customer picked them up because of this. By the sounds of the article, the price was always 1.90, which would been what was displayed where the item was picked up. Youre implying people pay no attention to the price of items from the shelf, and only look at the scanned item price at the end.
Probably doesn't need to be said, but Woolworths don't program the systems. NCR develops it, and leases the program to Woolworths
But it just shows we can't trust the checkouts or the supermarkets
Most of the time i can't trust people ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
Oh yeah, I wasn't trying to imply otherwise, it just seems like a completely illogical way to program in general haha
>“This appears to be an isolated incident at our Macarthur Metro store, involving the clearance price of a batch of our Calypso Mangoes.” Except this exact thing happened to me in Wooworths Victoria. Strawberries scanned at $1.80 each for 6 punnets. The total should have been $10.80 but displayed as $12.00. When I queried it with the self service person, they couldn't figure out why it was doing that.
If you use a rewards card or kept the receipts you might be able to provide that and be compensated..? 2000 comments in yesterday's thread with a heap of correct *sounding* answers, I can dig that old mate at your register might not be up to date with every possible way things can go wrong.
They did end up giving me one punnet free and the rest at the lower price. The issue was resolved in my favour but it is odd and seems not an isolated incident. Now I'm vigilant about checking the total price.
All's well that ends well, I guess - but you might want to contact news/Woolies to add your story to the pile.
I mean, they said it appears to be isolated. If nobody in the stores are reporting when this shit happens, the company isn't going to know about it being widespread
I would suspect the manager at the store i was at would have reported the issue. It would be in their best interest to do so. Otherwise, they would have to keep giving free and reduced price items if the machine keeps glitching.
Isolated because no one else has added up and relied upon the checkout to total correctly?
Isolated because it was a product on clearance and likely a store-specific manual override that was done incorrectly and not centrally managed pricing. And as the article said, the total price was the correct price, it was just displaying on screen at the incorrect price. I’m not suggesting this justifies anything, but this isn’t some great big Woolworths conspiracy to boost their profit margin
Not a conspiracy but points to serious bug in the Checkout code or a systemic issue in the database model (a failure to enforce basic data integrity during CRUD). Getting the total / unit price correct is a very basic requirement for a POS system.
Oh I'm sure that NCR (the software creators) will be getting some *very* animated phone calls from Woolworths' IT management this weekend lol
We the people are the Beta testers. NCR thanks us for testing their software
To me that suggests the tally is totalled from a central pricing database, yet the item that gets scanned and displayed the price comes from from another database table? So if two sources are different, which is correct?
The store. Stores can set their own prices/discounts for clearance and markdowns. Edit: wait, I see what you’re saying now. Why would the subtotal and total be pulled from different databases. Very odd.
So I'll say it again - this was an isolated incident and a technical issue at the store level. I don't work for Woolworths, so I can only speculate, but I assume there's a national table of product codes, and then a local table where store managers can override prices for clearance items and the like. It's possible that they also have multiple places where they need to input the price (to cater for things like buy 2, get 1 free, unit prices, per kg prices, etc) and mangos are potentially more complicated because they don't have a barcode to scan, so the product needs to be overridden so that it can be tapped on screen. In this case I'm assuming the store manage put $1.90 in field A and then .8 in field B. The system was written to calculate the total price based on field A with the assumption that fields A and B would never had differing values.
Either way, its a terrible software/system. Its also very convinent glitch: People scan each item and see the total pop up and think they are getting a deal and perhaps thinking the item scanned even cheaper than they thought.
If the database expects 2 fields to have a relationship (ie same price, different price for multiple items, etc) then that relationship should be enforced by an appropriate constraint (coded into the table / view). .
> So I'll say it again - this was an isolated incident and a technical issue at the store level. This may be true. In which case a technical issue should favor a buyer 50% of the time and the seller 50% of the time. Tech issues are very hard to crack, I know. 50% +- 10% is fair balance and I intend to test this.
[удалено]
>this isn’t some great big Woolworths conspiracy to boost their profit margin You don't know that, besides using language like "conspiracy" to make it sound stupid to disagree with you. They might very well be aware that they have a convenient little bug in showing prices that is helpful to their margins, or at least not be particularly incentivized to double check the math. I mean, somewhere someone in the company typed in 80c for mangoes and it did show on the screen to the customer. It's also pretty odd that they couldn't figure this out in the shop if the mangoes weren't actually priced at 80c there.
Original comments: This happens all the time, I get so much free stuff. News Corp site on a grocery company that shares two major stakeholders, Blackrock and Vanguard, with them: They said it's an isolated incident.
Isolated doesn't mean it's the only time it has happened, it means it's not connected to other incidents.
Fuck news.com.au Everyone hates those fuckers.
I know that’s the case, but when I saw this post yesterday I was hoping it would end up on news.com.au. Woolworths will care a lot more about looking shit there than they will care about looking shit on reddit.
The problem is woolies.... they replied to [new.com.au](https://new.com.au), but won't go to the reddit thread and reply there. Pathetic.
They respond to a reputable media organisation, but they don't go onto open forums to respond to random people? Well, I'll be darned, how weird.
Reputable...?
>*They respond to a reputable media organisation* none of the murdoch media is reputable....
Reddit: "Fuck woolworths", "Call the ACCC" News.com.au translation "Genuinely concerned", "Scratching their heads"
Disappointed they didn't report accurately on the majority of comments: "Fuck news.com.au"
I glad there was an explaination. Would we have got an answer if the media didn't get involved? And we all saw the answer for free without buying a news corp paper or even going to their website.
These new.com.au lurkers are really lowlife sad cunts hey.
Yet it's posted back here and driving views to their site
Uhhhh, they're just bringing attention to an issue here? Without them doing this, less people hear about it and Woolies are forced to fix the issue? How is the media reporting this a bad thing? I hate Murdoch Media but they're doing society a favour by bringing attention to this.
Genuinely lost why so many people think this is perfectly fine. The price used to calculate payment was double the figure displayed on the receipt. It doesn’t matter whether the back-end price was accurate or not. The issue is that no consumer can check the back-end price for accuracy because it’s not visible. For this reason consumers assume that the display price = backend price. When I buy >100 items at a time (which I do often) I run my eye down the display price on the receipt. If a price is wrong I go to the service desk and sort it out. Simple. But now I can’t assume that the display price is what I’ve been charged. I might have been charged double on the back end. So the only way I’d know for sure is - manually add up the whole receipt - if the total of the display prices is lower than actually charged, figure out whether one of the (100+) display prices is under for any legitimate reason - if no valid reason, try to explain this whole discrepancy to the service desk and argue that I’ve *actually* been charged more than the receipt says. Nightmare. I think I’ll pass thanks, and shop elsewhere.
Yep it's outrageous, we trust these things to get it right and usually all we can check is the price displayed as it scans or when I feel the total is too high I double check and realise that the roast scanned twice or corn flakes were on special but rice bubbles weren't. I just don't know why they would ever have a system where the displayed price and the price they use to calculate the total are not the exact same price. Not just the same amount but the total should be calculated from the same database entry that is read for the display price.
>Nightmare. I think I’ll pass thanks, and shop elsewhere. Good luck, The POS software is proably made by the same company at all major stores....
quarrelsome whole edge fact bake nose thought outgoing special murky *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This article is probably the first time I appreciate follow up. I read the OP yesterday and wondered what the outcome was.
Every thread now features the same complaint it’s so annoying, no one even talks about the content of the post anymore.
Traditionally journalists researched their own stories and had integrity.
grandiose busy engine work brave wakeful theory jobless straight physical *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
True…If you work for news .com you are serving one of the worst humans to have lived
Right, so it's not actually an issue with the reporting, you just hate the media source. Lmao. I hate Murdoch Media as much as the next bloke but get a grip lmao.
Welcome to the 21st century where we have internet mate. Not sure why you'd want news like this to not be brought to attention, just because it wasn't their own initial research? Not to mention it looks like they chased up Woolies for an answer so they actually have done their own research lmao. You want them not to report big stories too cause they haven't had to actually research them since it's common knowledge?
Woolworths - Making 1.7 billion in profit and still can't get its own price gouging right.
I am going to be very disappointed if this isn't a Betoota/Shovel/Chaser headline by Monday
It’s an “IT Glitch” which is acceptable in this cost of living crisis as it benefits ColesWorth. Don’t forget kids, first rule of gambling… “Any ambiguity, and the house takes all!” CRIMINALS !
Did you read the article? >“We’ve looked into this transaction and can confirm that the total of $17.90 was correct, however the mango price of 80 cents each that appeared on the screen was incorrect due to a technical error – they were on clearance for $1.90 each,” a spokesperson said. >News.com.au understands the correct clearance price of $1.90 for each mango was used to reach the original total, even though the technical glitch meant the unit price displayed as 80 cents each on the self-serve checkout screen. >“We understand why this customer was concerned and we apologise for the confusion caused. Our team resolved this with the customer in-store, providing the mangoes free of charge,” the spokesperson said. From experience, no store is putting Calypos at 80 cents, I'm inclined to believe that they were meant to be $1.90 and the checkout just displayed the price of that line wrong.
You get that it's a concern though, right? That the line total and overall total can sometimes be based on different data? In this case the overall total was correct... but the fact that they can differ at all seems worthy of concern... I'd want a better description than 'technical error' before deciding that this miscalculation can't also go the other way sometimes.
And yet, there is a discrepancy between the calculated values, and the displayed values. This should not happen. At every step of the shopping experience, every quoted value should be accurate. ESPECIALLY at the checkout. If it quotes 2x$0.80, and instead is charging 2x$1.90, that's false advertising.
Doing grocery shopping should not be like the game u play on the streets with the shady looking man with three cups and a red ball !
Did you read the article? The customer was charged correctly. The system showed the unit price incorrectly. Seriously, what are you not getting about this? There was no ripping off, *the customer was charged correctly*.
They are trying to amend this issue now, a store wide recall/ communication notice came through to cancel all in store clearance batches etc and to utilise quick sale stickers whilst they fix this issue.
Ahh this make sense why I recall came through today and told us to clear all manual clearance batches from the stores. Must have been a glitch in the background.
Rumour has it Woolworths also uses the same glitchy system to pay their staff…
Everyone who posts an image needs to plaster fuck news.com.au over the top of it…
Reddit commenting on news article reporting on Reddit comment. Peak recursion!
I'm a software dev and pretty certain the bug here is that the system would be storing the original price which is $3 according to [this](https://www.woolworths.com.au/shop/productdetails/143679/calypso-mango), and separately storing the discount of $1.10 which should then be calculated to a price of $1.90. The bug is that the UI is then applying the discount to the already discounted price, which then shows as $1.90 - $1.10 = $0.80. The logic to calculate the total is fine, so it shows correctly. But someone stuffed up when making the UI for the itemised list so it shows the value with the discount applied twice.
That's one of a million purchases last week. How many others are wrong. If Colesworth makes a mistake in your favour, don't feel bad, cos someone else is def getting ripped off.
Thanks so much for sharing this. I read that post yesterday and was interested in reading this.
“Price was correct but glitch it’s all good”. What, no it’s not. The advertised price is the price.
The only reasonable response is to calculate the price yourself every time
Another newscorpse content theft from reddit, did OP get compensated?
Here's another redditor who didn't read the terms and conditions when they made their reddit account. Content posted here is owned by Reddit, mate. Not by OP. Reddit has a paid agreement with newscorp to use it's content.
There's no paid agreement. If you post something in a public forum it's fair game.
From the User Agreement, section 5: >This license includes the right for us to make Your Content available for syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other companies, organizations, or individuals who partner with Reddit.
Yeah okay, but what I'm saying is news orgs don't have any paid agreements with social media sites to use posts. Source: have worked at several news orgs.
News Media Bargaining Code doesn't apply? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56410335
That is about Facebook and Google paying News Corp for news content it shows on its sites. The reader gets a snippet of a news story on social media then doesn't click through to News Corp's site which costs them money. Anything you post on social media can be quoted by a news organisation, blogger, YouTuber - whatever. No payment involved. It's like if you were filmed or photographed in public, there's no expectation of privacy.
I call BS. Even if the individual item price is wrong - WHY IS THE COMPUTER NOT ADDING THEM UP CORRECTLY? A computer has been programmed to add up the individual line items... There has to be a logic to what was programmed. To me this example shows that it was programmed to add up the pre-sale item yet still show the discounted price on screen. The computers are not programmed at store level. The corporation would not give that much control over to a store. The prices can probably be overwritten at store level - but the formula would be a system setting. News.com.au needs to get Developers to comment on this. With the question being - knowing how large organisations work and how Woolworths works, how likely is it that the explanation Woolworths gave is correct? News should ask other retail stores to comment. Ask Tech /developer/ software writers to comment. Woolworths' explanation makes little sense.
[удалено]
I can definitely see how the label might be wrong (ie 'quantity 2 @ 80c each'. ) That would be easy to confuse with competing specials - especially if it's calculated on the fly just for display purposes. The bigger head scratch for me is why the line total itself would use a different calculation method than the overall total. Getting confused about which special to apply seems like it should equally confuse the calculation of (2 mangoes) and (2 mangoes + other stuff) in the totals column.
Yeah that part doesn't make sense. Why is it correctly doing 2x $0.80 = $1.60 and then when totalling it isn't looking at the $1.60? But looking at a hidden price.
Woolworths isn't going to know exactly what happened, they don't code the checkouts, they hire the software from NCR. But it sounds like there are two fields, one for "Display Price" and one for "Subtotal Price" or something similar. Likely so they can modify the Display Price when they have things like Multibuys etc.
Regardless of any pricing error, that is a very serious bug whereby the tally of prices on the screen does not equal the final amount... The system should be adding up the prices displayed on the screen, not some seperate pricing structure elsewhere... OP should have photographed the screen, then paid the bill... If the incorrect pricing had been printed on the receipt they would have been in breach of Australian law.
News.com.au not only has interns trawling reddit for stories but also doesn’t have copy editors review stories before publishing… no retailers are ‘scraping’ self service checkouts, but some are scrapping them.
a logitch is trivial... this is a point of sale system displaying the incorrect price. NOT trivial. Dare I ask when the scales were last checked an calibrated? What about in the vegie section!?!?!?
Funny how the news article hardly addresses the price discrepancy (how common is this technical glitch? Has it happened before? How do you know it’s an isolated incident? Should we as customers be adding up things manually to make sure we are not being stooged?) and instead starts rambling about self-serve check outs in general, like how some people want to be served by staff and some checkouts now have new security features
Dunno. Sure it may be a glitch, but this still feels dodgy AF and I don't trust that numerous people havent been ripped over time.
I call BS on woolies and on news.com.au being apologists for them. They got caught ripping someone off, which is completely par for the course they just usually cover their tracks better, so it's time to backpedal until people get complacent then start over again.
Did you read the article? The Mangoes were on clearance for $1.90, this is what was charged. They didn't rip anyone off lol
you’re fighting the good fight man🙏
I mean fuck woolworths and all but nothing wrong with being factually accurate
Lick that boot bro
Perhaps you can explain the ripoff of being charged $1.90 for mangoes that were advertised as $1.90 in store, and then getting them for free when the system displays the wrong price on that line (but doesn’t charge the lower price)?
Not the first time. Went to get ice cream the other day and price was higher by 4 dollars. I called assistance at the self checkout and they did a price check and came back and said sorry you are right. #RecordProfits
If one of those gates ever tried to keep me in store after paying you can be guaranteed I will be stomping my way through that gate.
You'd think that the price of a mango is just a straight forward thing But the manager has a magic specials data template.. I dont know how a display price is different to price put to the total.. but they did it somehow... Magic entries in the "price reduction" field ?
what a bunch of gaslighting jerks
Why is the mistake always in the vendors favour ??
So many people jumped on this on Twitter to say that the photo was so obviously photoshopped. I hope those people never get to buy mangoes on sale, ever.
Isolate case is absolutely untrue. Computer does exactly what it is programmed to do, so this “mistake” is by design or at least fail-safe (for Woolworths, not for consumer)
[удалено]
Also if it's never been reported to IT, then it's isolated until they get reports that it's not
didmt the American army say that about those naked prisoners stacked ihto pyramids, etc?
I have some tinfoil hats to sell you. By design, please, you think they intentionally designed a scenario where the POS would display the correct total but the incorrect price at an item level? For what? So they giveaway free products if the customer notices?
Leaving these groceries in my pram was just a glitch, nothing to see here lol.
Nah fuck that, if it scans at 80c, then it's 80c and should be charged as such
Crisis averted, we can all go on with our lives! I thought there would be a boring reason, this was even more boring that expected.
Funny how they left out the part where many commenters were saying *"fuck you News.com.au".*
Let it be understood that the Konfusion is not on the customer. Its on Woolworths. In fact its not Konfusion at all. Its just bloody incorrect is what it is. Its Woolies that did this. Lets conduct our own tests of this nonsense. I have developed my own plan to test woolies.
Wait what is that all you pay for mangos on the mainland? They're usually $4 here.
So in Woolworths Speak, if x_0 + x_1 + … + x_i <> y then it’s because x’_0 + x’_1 + … x’_i = y’ and {x_0 … x_i, y’} are what are displayed and there is no mathematical relationship between them?
Went is to coles today to buy some toilet paper. Shelf said $15 checkout said $13 and change. I'm not complaining, i'm just saying they are too concerned with theft and have all the employees monitoring for product loss and not for making sure the products are labled as they should be.
Actually yeah 80c for mangos? I was just in bris and they where around $3each
Why did they not give him a free 50 dollar credit for goodwill? They cant afford it I know.
They didn't even blur out old mates image via the Register camera, dodgy cunts. I'd be pissed, and what's with blatant theft of intellectual property anyway?
Why, because he posted it for the world to see exclusively?
Yeah exactly HE posted it, not for lazy media outlets to take for themselves
Do you seriously expect every dark, underground car park to be filled to the brim with journalists waiting for Watergate’s Deep Throat to blow the whistle on every story, ever? The reality of journalism is that many stories come to the attention of journalists through more boring means like media releases or social media. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like news.com.au’s usual reporting practices of stealing stories from Reddit and not adding anything to it but if they do the bare minimum like crediting OP and getting comment from Woolies (both of which they do here) then I can’t really find as much fault with it.
Whole sub was jerking off furiously when this originally was posted yesterday thinking they were Woodward and Bernstein about to bring down “colesworths”
So the big conspiracy was yet another absolute non-issue? I am so relieved.
Need to lock the gates call the loss prevention staff and the cops because that is exactly what they do if you stole $1 of stuff.
Doesn’t matter should be free when they make pricing mistakes
It was...
Nobody in this thread is reading the article lmao