Talk:Scanner Price Accuracy Code

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that 92% of complaint calls about the Scanner Price Accuracy Code are not legitimate complaints? Source: ""Ninety-two per cent of calls are not valid scanner code complaints," he said. "That tells me there are a lot of people who aren't familiar with the scanner code."" Special code means shoppers charged full price for sale items could get them free

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Awet Tesfaiesus; see my DYK tracker

Created by Mindmatrix (talk). Self-nominated at 18:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC).

• Article is long enough and new enough. Generally well-sourced, hook cited and interesting, no significant issues with text and copyvio undetected. QPQ is done, so good to go. Juxlos (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P6

Dubious statement

The article states that "About 92% of the 1000 annual calls received by the committee are not legitimate complaints". This is misleading: First, neither source says claims were not legitimate (which suggests claimants were acting fraudulently) they say claims were not valid, suggesting either that claims don’t meet the criteria set down by the agency (ie they haven’t approached the company first, or that the company isn’t part of the agreement) or that they are from 'dissatisfied customers' taking the opportunity 'to air their shopping-based grievances through an industry committee'. Second, the purpose of the quoting the statistic, which is less than those received previously, is to emphasize that people don’t know about the scheme, not that they are doing something wrong.
It needs fixing; but as it has now found itself on the main page as a Did You Know item, I feel we are stuck with the wording until that is resolved. Thoughts? Swanny18 (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The term 'legitimate' has, as one of its definitions, 'valid'. See the entry at wikt:legitimate (entry 2), or also legitimate at Merriam-Webster (entry 4) and legitimate at Collins Dictionary (entry 4 of British English entry). There was no attempt to mislead here. I may tweak the phrasing sometime in the future to remove the point of confusion. Mindmatrix 19:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)