My favorite is how home depot lists stuff in stock on the search results page, but then when you click the individual item it's out of stock.
It's a store. Why the fuck would a store ever show me an item -- at least by default -- that it isn't willing to sell me? Like who exactly wants that "feature"? It makes attempting to buy something from home depot's site an infuriating experience.
Even better, you can reserve items to pickup at Home Depot online which are not actually in stock. Website quantities are not tied to point of sale, and are instead manually enteted by staff when they have the opportunity/bandwidth.
(Or at least that was the explanation given by Home Depot's customer support.)
I feel like I'm using a different homedepot.com than everyone else on this thread. I'm not aware of an option to reserve things for pickup at the store, only to purchase them and pickup at the store. Every time I have done this they send an email when the order is ready to be picked up, and then I go there and pick up all the items. Not saying you didn't have the experience you did, just wondering if they actually do things differently in different parts of the country.
I don't think they are. When the parent commenter said reserved for pickup, I assumed they meant some way to say "hold these at the counter for me to come purchase". What I am saying is that in my experience, you are making a purchase, someone at the store is pulling the items from the shelf and setting them in a special area, then you get an email/text that the order is ready, meaning that everything is ready to go, they had all the items, and no other customer will be able to purchase the items that you ordered.
"hold these for me until I get there" is exactly the same as "don't let someone else buy them before I get there". Whether you pay before you get there or after doesn't change the fact that the item is being held for you so that no other customer will be able to purchase the items that you ordered.
We can break down your two statements and put them piecemeal side by side:
I assumed they meant... "hold these..."
What I am saying is... "pulling the items from the shelf..."
You're completely correct. What I was trying to communicate, and what I should have emphasized, is that it's not just a send and forget kind of process. After the items have been set aside you get an email/text to confirm that things are ready to pickup and in my experience everything that I've ordered is there when I go to pick it up. So I'm saying that the things that were listed as in stock on the website are actually in stock at the store, and I get a confirmation once everything has been "secured" for me.
The first part sounds like a pretty terrible UI bug - it should be showing as out of stock everywhere :thinking: maybe the search results don't cross-check your selected store location but the detail page for an item does. (not excusing it just thinking where the issue could be)
A couple of reasons to show items they can't sell you right now in the search results...
1. The best reason I can think of is if you click into it and it isn't available then they could show "similar" items and cross-sell you on those - and maybe actually help you find a good alternative.
2. If you are searching for a specific item then the result should show you that item regardless of availability or you'd just keep looking for it and be confused about it never showing up in their results.
3. Maybe SEO? More listings - even out of stock listings -> more SEO juice
One of the items I tried ordering that was cancelled showed 34 in stock at that store while I was on the phone with them (immediately after the delivery person left) trying to find out why they cancelled my items and they were saying the items were probably out of stock in that store.
And if you have three stores within a couple of miles of you that all claim to have a bunch of stock of an item but you order from one that suddenly (allegedly) runs out, you get to go all the way back down the hill because they don't migrate stock between stores.
This is one of the reasons I don't buy things from Home Depot if I can help it. I've gone to multiple stores thinking something was in stock to only find they were all out of stock. On top of that, the staff there are almost helpless when it comes to finding things that aren't on the shelf itself. If it's up top, be prepared to waste an hour trying to get someone to fetch the item. (If it's there!)
Their poor system can work in your favor though. Went to go pick up my order after it being cancelled at multiple places. Turns out, at this one, they only had 2 of the 4 items at pickup. I tell them it says there are more in stock, they confirm. We go hunting for the remaining 2. Takes 30 minutes for them to fetch the remaining two from the top with my help (without my help, they would have never found it!). We go back to the register, they punch in that they're giving me 2 more. I go home with all 4 of my items. I was never charged for the full order. Only the initial 2.
Is it? They rung me up with it - it's up to them to decide what to charge me. I'd put as "bank error in my favor." I only noticed later when I was making sure they didn't overcharge me when looking at my bank account. (They had to charge and refund about 3x)
It's still stealing, the correct move would be to go back and pay the correct amount as you likely would have done if they overcharged you.
That said, I doubt you could legally be held responsible and I see no problems with what you did morally either. If you noticed at the time I'd find it morally questionable, but you can't fix every mistake.
Not just that, but like, the parent commenter actually got his items rung up in the store. So the parent wouldnt have even noticed they didn’t get charged for those items unless they were constantly checking their bank account for actual dollar amounts charged for every purchase. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would be able to claim that the parent commenter is at fault here.
I walk up to a cashier, and he by accident drops $10 in my shopping cart (without me noticing). Then he proceeds to inconspicuously take those $10, look at it, and silently put it back in the bag (again, without me noticing). I discover those $10 only when I get home. I had no idea it was even there, and the store employee definitely looked through every single item in my bag and saw those $10, but just decided to put it back there. Did I steal those $10?
I struggle to even call it something like "theft by accident", which would be if the cashier forgets to scan an item because they didn't notice it. In my hypothetical scenario, the cashier noticed and picked up the item.
Yes. You have acquired it without the intentional consent of the owner, who presumably thought it was your $10. I don't think it's a crime nor would I find you personally responsible.
>If you saw someone drop it, sure. If you know the owner of the hundred dollar bill, sure. But otherwise?
Presumably the owner would retrace their steps and try to find what was lost. Most people would do this for a hundred dollars, but you can also imagine a child doing it for a quarter. Is it theft if you say you haven't seen it? How about if you never run into the person but intended to say you haven't seen it?
At what point it becomes "theft" is tenuous at best. I'd rather call many things "theft" and withhold judgment until I learn the details as it limits instantaneous judgments upon hearing of a thief.
As for your definition, at what point something becomes unlawful is never clear, and nobody's actual definitions for concepts ever mirror a dictionary definition.
I think you're just taking a word that already has a definition and redefining it. Or at least greatly stretching the definition.
And assuming theft unless otherwise proven? That's weird to me too, especially combined with your follow up of limiting instantaneous judgement. How on earth is assuming someone committed theft limiting judgement?
There are common definitions of what words mean. If the meaning of words become arbitrary then we lose the ability to communicate effectively.
An action was taken, e.g. picking up a quarter off the side walk. There is no need to put another label on it randomly, just call it what it is, picking up a quarter. By using a word that already has a commonly accepted meaning, and a negative one at that, and associate it with an innocent action you're already labeling it in a negative way for everyone else. Everyone (or at least majority of other people) thinks a thief is a bad person. If only you don't think so and label someone else doing nothing bad a thief, then you're labeling someone a bad person.
It's like me calling you a rapist. But I don't mean rapist in the typical way, I just mean anyone that has sex. So to me a rapist is not a bad person and I'll withhold judgement until I have more information. So I can just go around calling you a rapist right?
What are they? People assume their definition is common, but everything is much less clear than that. This causes frequent disagreements, and it's best to get more information.
>There is no need to put another label on it randomly, just call it what it is, picking up a quarter.
There is no need for me to label the action at all unless I'm in a position to explain what I mean. My position on the action is primarily private. Changing the definition is more useful in the other direction, when you call someone a thief I don't assume I have any idea what they did or what kind of person that makes them.
>Everyone (or at least majority of other people) thinks a thief is a bad person.
Using such labels to judge an entire persons worth is ridiculous in a number of ways. There are too many ways that both of us would consider innocent that can get you labeled a thief. I was almost booked for stealing $40 of gas after realizing I lost my wallet after filling the tank. Am I a bad person because of that?
>So I can just go around calling you a rapist right?
This started as me labeling an action as theft. If I walked around blindly calling people thieves I would expect the misunderstanding to cause problems for me.
That's what I mean with the rapist example too. If you have sex with someone, do I have the right to call you a rapist first and withhold judgement until I have more information? If for me a rapist isn't necessarily a bad act.
No, you are jumping straight into calling someone a rapist. If I described perfectly consensual sex and you replied "it's rape" with no explanation, you should also expect repercussions for the misunderstanding.
Labeling an act primarily privately and publicly labeling a person are vastly different.
This might answer your question though. If you pointed at someone and said "this person is a rapist," I would withhold judgment until learning more details. A label is not enough to evaluate someone's life. And I try to limit who i casually toss such labels onto, preferring to give some detail into their act.
"bank error in your favor" is not a real thing and a bank will definitely hold you accountable for that. But I honestly read your description as HD just giving you the extras as a gift for your hassle.
This has long been an issue I've had when trying to use online shopping/curbside pickup for grocery stores, and this comes even before the COVID-19 pandemic arrived and pushed more of us fortunate to live in cities where online grocery buying is a thing to....well start buying groceries online.
Found myself just as baffled/apoplectic as you are: why would this be on your online storefront if you don't have the inventory for me to actually buy?
Even Amazon Prime delivery via Whole Foods has this problem, to bring it back around to the thread topic.
Interestingly it's something that small e-commerce stores are much better about, it would seem (though I don't really have any data backing that up)
Last year I tried setting up a subscription for some pet food from a mid-sized pet store chain.
The first order went through fine.
3.5 weeks later I get an email saying my next order is about to be processed, now is the last chance for cancellations, etc. I ignore it, as I want the order to be processed.
A few days later I get an email saying they're out of stock and they'll retry again later. I get these emails every day for 2 weeks, and then my order is automatically cancelled.
This happens for 2 or 3 months before I get fed up and cancel the subscription.
If I put in an order effectively a month in advance you'd think they could make sure they had enough stock for that upcoming order.
(And it wasn't a complicated order, just multiple boxes of a single SKU.)
>> why would this be on your online storefront if you don't have the inventory for me to actually buy?
Twofold:
1) They're betting that you'll still buy something once you're surrounded by merchandise.
2) This allows them to play games with shrink, imventory, and insurance.
Personally, I think this is due to "Microservices". You have a separate "search" microservice whose data is out of date or misaligned with the "product listing" microservice. Same goes with Amazon and international delivery on some level. It's gotten better over the years, but there is still such a mismatch such that you can't "filter" only "international" delivery items.
It's a store. Why the fuck would a store ever show me an item -- at least by default -- that it isn't willing to sell me? Like who exactly wants that "feature"? It makes attempting to buy something from home depot's site an infuriating experience.