Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 March 31

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 31

When Gallup doesn't provide trust to interviewees, how much of a bias does it introduce?

I just received a call from someone who said he's from Gallup and who asked me to participate in a poll about current politics. I agreed, and he proceeded to ask me my age. At that moment I said that I've seen too much privacy related crimes, and asked if I could call him back, or if he had any way to prove that he's really from Gallup. He didn't, which precluded the interview.

Doesn't that unnecessarily increase the bias? I know there's always some bias, because there may be some correlation between someone who's willing to be interviewed and their political opinions, and there are some ways to estimate that away. But the need to protect oneself from fraudulent phone calls seems very fundamental to me; there must be a whole big sector of the population that is excluded from such polls. Compared to that, setting up a system so you can call back to be interviewed seems like a trifle. Is that really not worth it? ThinkPaddy (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You might consider the possibility that he wasn't from Gallup but was just phishing. Was there a number on the caller ID? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that. I did consider it, which is why I was cautious. But it did have a caller ID, and I called it, and it was a long winded automatic phone system that said it was Gallup. ThinkPaddy (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Polling by phone is just about useless anyway, as you will get too low of a participation rate, and there's no reason to think that those who choose to participate are a representative sample of the entire population. If they paid people they might get a more acceptable participation rate.

Plus, these days younger people are likely to have cell phones only, and the phone polls tend to only call land lines, introducing yet another bias. StuRat (talk) 02:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting - would that explain why he asked me whether this was a cell phone or landline? ThinkPaddy (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like they use an auto-dialer that just dials a range of numbers, versus having any type of database to work off, as those would be sure to list the type of line. This lack of a database makes it sound more like phishing. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it could be because I changed my phone number from a landline to a cell phone. ThinkPaddy (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

For an example of how opinion polling can go dreadfully wrong, read United States presidential election, 1936. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I find the premise dubious. At best I have been asked to give an age range, never been asked my age.

μηδείς (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly - that's what felt fishy. ThinkPaddy (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

(It's not Bug's premise, so you shouldn't indent from his reply, as if you are replying to him.) StuRat (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And is your age in the range of 36 years and 243/365ths thru 36 years and 244/365ths ? :-) StuRat (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No. (That was easy!) ThinkPaddy (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course you can always jerk them around. Like telling them you're 93 1/2 years old and that you've lived most of your life in converted dumpster. And if that doesn't work, ask them for money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I could lie, and do that with relish when a website forces me to enter information that they have no right to know. And when I get calls for commercial surveys, I do ask "what's in it for me", which usually surprises them. But I feel different about politics; I think there is something like civic duty (lower case; not the thriller). I have some respect for political polls, since I believe they provide a valuable service to democracy. ...

They most certainly don't. People are supposed to vote for the right person for the job. When a poll suggests one candidate is leading, it makes people vote for who they think is going to win instead.

This is compounded by 80% bullshit, 100% of the time. Unless respondents have a chance at winning something (an Amazon gift card, this time). You can trust those numbers, because they're large. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting blog. I especially like the fact that people positively react to rewarding the admission of ignorance. We should do that in meetings at work! ThinkPaddy (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Which leads me back to my original question: Isn't Gallup missing its obligation to society when they refuse even such a small effort to ensure the validity of their survey? ThinkPaddy (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Which leads me back to my original comment: How do you know it was really Gallup calling? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course I don't know, which is why I didn't follow through. When I redialed their number 402-952-4444, I thought that it was pretty likely, since the voice message sounded authentic. But I now I looked up http://www.phonelookup.com/1/402-952-4444, which increased my doubts. Is it possible that it actually is Gallup's number, but it's being hijacked by phishers? ThinkPaddy (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I googled that phone number, and this is one thing that came up. Compare their 2012 experience with your recent one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

There's not much to compare, as we didn't get that far. But if it that's the interview they wanted to conduct, then I don't feel I missed out on a civic duty, or that I even would have been "fortunate", as some people put it on the page you link. In that interview, they didn't give the interviewee any chance to give her opinion on any issue. The information they collect is already collected in a much more democratic and precise way: By elections. ThinkPaddy (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

By asking who they voted for, they could compare their results with the actual results and estimate the bias in their results. As to the link, they asked for age ranges rather than a specific age. Which is what you would expect. The guy who called you was either a scammer or a really poorly trained Gallup worker. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The number 402-952-4444 does belong to Gallup, according to the above. If it was a scammer, then they must have tricked the phone system to display that number. How easy is that? If, OTOH, it was Gallup, then why do you assume that the age question has to be always exactly the same? ThinkPaddy (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Spoofing CallerID is said to be easy. (Doesn't make it useless!) I've had a few calls from clearly invalid numbers. —Tamfang (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Or he was lonely. And looking for other lonely people. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I once got a call from a heavy breather, and hung up. Then I realized I could have had some fun, and regretted it, but *69 didn't work, ironically. μηδείς (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Ha! You could have fooled me on any other day! ThinkPaddy (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I am not kidding. It was on my line in a college dorm. I would try to think of something funnier and more subtle for April Fools, like "Why do Europeans speak English so poorly?. (Hilarious, but not so subtle.) μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll have you know that Europeans speak English VERY well. They just don't want to. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 09:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I have actually had the scenario in that skit happen to me in real life, KageTora. I was at a different branch of the gym from the one I usually worked out in, and asked an attendant where the showers were. The response, in perfect English, was "I am sorry, I don't speak English, you'll need to ask someone else." I responded that that was perfect English and was told, "I'm sorry, I really don't understand, I can' help you." (there were two sentences, I can't say I am remembering exactly, since this was about 15 years ago.) I did then get an answer when I re-asked the question in Spanish. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually did it myself in Japan a number of times, Medeis - as you know, I am fluent in Japanese, but sometimes I just didn't have time to mess around (buying tickets for trains, etc.), so I would pretend to be a dumb foreigner and get someone to do it for me by walking straight to the front of the queue and asking someone how to use the machines. It was fun at the time, but in retrospect, it was probably not a nice thing to do. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (もしもし！) 04:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, KageTora, so I hereby declare you evil. But this attendant was speaking perfect, phonetically correct upper-middle-class Manhattan English. I have always told taxi-drivers that I don't speak any Spanish, only Russian, while addressing them in idiomatic and phonetically Caribbean Spanish. But not to gain advantage. I always admitted the joke. (The same with Wolof language and Haitian creole speakers whom I addressed in French, and told them I only spoke English. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It's often easier to come up with apt responses after disconnection. Like, "How long have you had that case of tuberculosis? I have a physician to recommend. His name is Dr. Vinny Boombatz. Call him at this number [e.g. the number of the local police department]." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've heard that some phone polls with delicate questions ("Have you ever used heroin?") ask the respondent to roll a die, say "yes" if it comes up 1 or 2, say "no" if it comes up 5 or 6, and tell the truth otherwise; then they can throw away N/3 from the "yes" column and N/3 from the "no" and have some confidence that the remainder is truthful. Similarly, to reduce the danger of phishing, Gallup could say, "Roll two dice, add the result to your age and tell me the result." —Tamfang (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice idea. But it only works if the interviewee has complete trust in the interviewer. It's even more vulnerable to people cheating: If there's even a trace of a subconscious fear that you may get in trouble for saying "yes", then some of the ones who rolled 1 or 2 will say "no" regardless. Since you're subtracting the numbers, the difference will have a disproportionally large effect on the bias. ThinkPaddy (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Do any restaurants allow you to order from your home PC ?

...but still eat at the restaurant ? The reasons I would want to do this are:

1) Nutritional info is normally only available (in the US) on their web site, and in a huge PDF file that's both very wide and very long, making it quite time consuming to actually compare items.

2) It seems silly for me to explain what I want, then have the waitress try to write it down, then try to communicate that to the kitchen staff, when I could type it in myself with so much less possibility of error (like them mishearing "French" dressing as "Ranch").

3) They could start cooking it before I arrive, but they presumably would also want payment in advance to do that.

I imagine I'd walk in and say "I have order # 328" (for that day). So, do any restaurant chains offer this option ? (I don't mean ordering it to go and then sitting down to eat it at a fast food place, I mean having full table service.) StuRat (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Up front, I'll just say google "online menu order" and there's a national breadstick chain that will pop up as allowing you to order on line.

But for gosh sakes, Stu, you have to realize that the restaurant as an institution is so old that the word tavern comes not from Latin, but from Etruscan. Wenches often used to work for free just for the sake of getting tips.

And Wawa allows on site computerized ordering for many, but not all cooked items. Having cooked and waited and having used semi-computerized systems I can tell you that they are never meant for customer or wit-staff convenience, but as a way to do accounting on the cheap and to prevent theft.

Someone still has to read the printout, call the order, cook and pack or serve it. The purpose of the waitress is not to mess up your order, but to make sure you get exactly what you want, how and when you want it. That's why she get 1/2 or 1/3 of minimum wage--tips for good service.

There's a reason Horn & Hardart's went out of business, and people kick soda machines. Maybe you should consider grocery stores like Shop-Rite that allow you to call in, and even deliver in dense urban areas. The nutrition labels are on the packaging, and you can cook everything you want to your own exact specifications.

μηδείς (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Some key points:

A) I want full service (a waiter or waitress).

B) If they are printing out the order then reading it to someone else, instead of just displaying it on a terminal the kitchen staff can read directly, that's another inefficiency, but that's beyond the scope of my Q.

C) The more times the order is translated from person to person, the more garbled it will get. See the telephone game.

D) Food vending machines remain popular, but I do think they need an attendant, in case things go wrong. They could make them a lot fancier, too, like a machine that cooks your pizza to order, with toppings you selected.

StuRat (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's the waitress who is personally responsible for taking your order accurately, including advising you of options and answering questions about the food item(s). It is her responsibility to refer it properly to the head cook on-line. It's her responsibility to prepare some items, like water, soup and salad. And it's her responsibility to make sure what you got was correct, and to check soon after you start eating whether everything is okay. That is personalized service, not the telephone game. μηδείς (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

First off, it sounds like you're wanting to do this on your own. That's weird, for a start. You shouldn't really be eating in a full service restaurant on your own. But if you're really determined to do it, you should just go there, bring a book, give the waitress your order and read your book while waiting for it to be delivered. If you're really that bothered about weighing up the different nutritional values, just do that on the computer before you leave. The chances of the waitress getting your order wrong are infinitesimal. --Viennese Waltz 07:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In my experience the chance of them getting my order wrong is more like 50-50. You must go to much better places than me. StuRat (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I entirely agree the concept proposed in the OP is weird, eating on your own in a full service restaurant is not weird in and of itself, especially when near public transport hubs, where travellers would frequently be on their own. Have done it myself. 131.251.254.81 (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"You shouldn't really be eating in a full service restaurant on your own." But only in Indiana can you actually be turned away by the restaurant owner for seeking a table for one (if it's against their prejudices"religious beliefs").

Seriously, lots of people eat on their own in restaurants. I've done it myself many times, and I know plenty of other people who have done the same. What on earth would make you make a remark like that? RomanSpa (talk) 10:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

A couple of problems with the proposed plan. What certainty does the restaurant have that you will turn up, and at the time you stipulate? What is the pay off for the restaurant to keep a website updated continuously for a small number of people who don't have time to wait a few minutes for the service staff to get their order or require extra information about their food. I do not recall in several decades of restaurant visiting ever having a wrong order caused by erroneous transcribing by the waiting staff. Richard Avery (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not high class dining but Panera allows you to order via their web site or their mobile app. You can then eat at the restaurant. Dismas|^(talk) 09:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I order on my phone, using their website, at Subway, Five Guys, Taco Bell, and Moes. I assume that not all restaurants support online ordering, but the ones that I visit do. Plus, I get to be a major ass and walk straight to the front of the line and tell them I ordered online. 209.149.113.207 (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

All of those are counter service, not table service restaurants as Stu wanted. I am not aware of any table service restaurants, with wait staff, that allows online ordering and eating in. Some normally table service restaurants offer "curbside pick up" and online ordering (that is, you order online, and pick up your order to take home, places like Outback Steakhouse do that) but I've never heard of someone ordering online for table service. It may be one of those ideas which is in such low demand that no one thought of implementing it. --Jayron32 14:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Just saying "that's weird" isn't very helpful. Instead you should list specific objections the waitstaff or customers might have.

As for it not being a popular option, I'd like to see evidence of this, where it's actually been tried. Presumably the same objection initially existed to ordering take-out food online, and that's now quite a popular option.

Benefits the the restaurant would be reduced waitstaff needed, since they no longer need to take as many orders, fewer mistaken orders which have to be redone at their expense, and hopefully more satisfied (and thus more returning) customers. Getting customers in and out more quickly also effectively gives them more tables to use every hour. As for them not wanting to risk the customer not showing up, I already covered that with the customer paying in advance (if they expect the food to be prepared in advance). However, some chains do allow you to order take-out food which they prepare in advance, and pay for when you pick it up. I don't see why the risk is any worse for dine-ins.

As for viewing the nutritional info before heading in, that's what I do now, but I am often disappointed to find the item I selected isn't carried at that location. If I could order it in advance, hopefully they would need to reveal that they don't carry the item at some point in the process, where I can still review the nutritional info and make a second choice.

Regarding them needing to "keep a web site up to date", they likely already have all the infrastructure in place for pick-up or delivery options. All they would need to do is add an option for dine-in. (They might have to do a few minor tweaks, like adding some dine-in only options, such as the buffet.) StuRat (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Without any references to back this up, I think the reason that this can't work was mentioned above: the restaurant would be committing to cooking your meal and saving you a space without any guarantee that you would actually show up. Let's say you pay in advance. That's fine, then. The wasted food is still covered. But they lose the table and the potential for a walk in on that one. Mingmingla (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to have thought that thru logically. If I did arrive they would get X dollars in exchange for a given amount of food, a parking space, table time, and waitstaff service. If I don't arrive, the same exchange occurs, except they may give up on me sooner than I would have left, and reclaim the table, and they have no waitstaff requirement at all (and therefore no tip), and I don't take up a parking space. It works out the same or better for them. And if they can sell my food to somebody else, then they do even better. As it happens, here in Detroit, it's rare that all tables are full, but quite common that they lack the staff to handle the customers they do have. StuRat (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@StuRat: There are quite a few restaurants that allow one to order ahead over the phone or online, and then dine-in. And many companies selling (and hyping) systems to allow even more restaurants to do so. If you want particular examples (rather than just proof of existence), it would help to know your rough geographical locations... if you are comfortable revealing it, of course. Abecedare (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought everyone knew I live in Detroit, by now. StuRat (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That link to the online order service for BJ's is just the type of thing I'm looking for: [1]. Unfortunately, we can't order BJ's by phone here in Detroit. Too, bad, because that really sounds awesome ! StuRat (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Quick search shows several burger and pizza places in Detroit supporting the order-ahead dine-in option. And if you call and ask, as this Chicago Tribune article suggests, I am sure you'll find many more. Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

And some web-services/apps for what you are looking for:

• Letsorderonline
• RushOrder (LA area)
• Settle (Bay Area)

There are plenty more, mostly local website. If you search google for "pre-order", "order ahead", "order online" options, it should provide you with geographically-customized results. Abecedare (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting. Those are third party sites. I wonder why restaurants wouldn't use their own websites, as they do for ordering take-out or delivery. Adding middleman just means somebody else gets a cut of the profit. StuRat (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Economies of scale; benefits of economic specialization; Ricardian notion of comparative advantage. Essentially the last few centuries of economic theory and history. :) Abecedare (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

But then why wouldn't the same logic apply when they set up take-out and delivery options on their own web site ? Also, I'm mainly concerned with large chains, which already have the economy of scale working for them. StuRat (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Even big firms, say Starbucks, McDonald's etc, almost certainly don't design, manufacture, service, and run these systems in-house, but instead contract with multiple specialist retail IT firms in the area. The details are surely trade secrets, but you can get an idea of the market area by looking at the trade-press and trade-show participants; eg [2], [3], [4], [5].

The general question of what and why companies hire employees to do and what they hire other companies for (you have to pay, either ways) is covered academically by Theor(ies) of the firm which have garnered multiple Nobel prizes (Ronald Coase, Oliver Williamson, Jean Tirole etc), and in the "real-world" provides employment to hundreds of thousands of business consultants. Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If starting from scratch I see your point, but already having a web site that allows take-out and/or delivery orders but then deciding you need to outsource to a different web site for dine-in orders would be a bit like having a factory that makes left foot shoes and deciding you need to outsource the production of right foot shoes, rather than tweaking your factory to do both. StuRat (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Do any restaurants? arbitrary break I

• Stu, in most places (presumably all, in the US), once prepared, it's illegal to resell food that's been brought back to the kitchen. Basically all one can do is say, the customer wants his steak better done. Otherwise it has to go in the trash. In fact, I got in a very brief argument once at the Wendy's off Fulton Street in lower Manhattan when I ordered four triple burgers with no cheese or toppings (enough for a meal and seven bag-lunches) and they came with cheese.

When I opened the bag and found they had that disgusting fake-orange cheese on them (I had told the clerk "cuatro burgesas triples, sin queso, sin nada, solo pan y carne") I removed and threw out the tops of the buns, and returned the burgers to the manager. He yelled at me that I shouldn't have done that, since he couldn't resell them. I told him I did it deliberately, and asked if he wanted a report to the health department for reselling food. After that I was told to go to the manager's window (no waiting in line!) and to place my order directly with him.

As for tips and table space, certain tables a assigned to certain waitresses, usually based on their skill and seniority. This is a matter of competition. If the waitress works on tips per table per hour, she's not going to want her table sitting empty for 20 minutes. Nor does the tip come out of the restaurant's charges, so someone not paying a tip does not in any way benefit the restaurant.

The best that's going to happen if you order on line and want table service is that the hostess will take your order number when you arrive, advise the cook you are there, and seat you. The only time saved will be the time from seating until the waitress hangs the ticket on the cook's wheel. Everything else will be the same.

Otherwise you can call ahead to Denny's, tell them your order (the hostess, who may be a manager, and who doesn't get tips) will take your order, and if you want to eat it their she will direct you to the counter (as at a diner) or to the bar.

• Some restaurants here in Germany have their menus on tablets, including all nutritional information, and you order wirelessly from your table. The food is then served at the table by a waiter or waitress. I remember at least La Baracca (a somewhat upmarket Italian chain), and one Sushi place. I'd be surprised if this style wouldn't be more popular in e.g. Japan or Korea. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The food would never be brought from the kitchen, if the person ordering it never arrived. Many restaurants also take your food away, after a meal, to put it in to-go containers. Doesn't that go back into the kitchen ? That never seemed very sanitary to me, plus they only seem to put half of the food in the containers, so I always insist on packing it up myself. StuRat (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Stu, I get the impression that you have never worked at a restaurant. I have been a cook and a waitrix at several branches of three national chains, as well as a specialty German/Italian cuisine restaurant run by a Swiss owner, my sisters, my brother-in-law, his best man, and my best friend and an ex whom I used to diddle in the stock room all have similar experience, with me working for about six years, full time. My grandparents ran a two-generation family restaurant in Philly under my last name in which my father worked as a child. So although this is all OR and probably belongs at wikia, I know whereof I speak.

Doggy-bags never go back into the kitchen. In some places they bring the to-go containers to the table, which is what I prefer, because I won't make the mistake of packing the house dressing I didn't like and have it leak onto my entrée. In fancier places like Asia de Cuba the server packs the material for you off "the floor" (the area not accessible to customers) but also off "the line", the area where cooked food is prepared. This is similar to the behind the counter area at diners and the area between the waitresses' station at Denny's.

As for food never picked up, it is usually given to employees to eat who are on break. There's the rare case of the guy who orders a rare steak and then changes his order. If someone orders another steak medium while the orphaned steak is on the grill then there is no problem. Once the steak is plated for a ticket and in the window, if the order is canceled the meat cannot be resold. If an inspector were present and saw you change the side orders and serve it to a new customer, you'd be found in violation.

(This is not to say cooks obey the rules. Dropping a burger or steak that had fallen on the floor into the deep frier for a few seconds was a normal way to "clean it off" that could get you fired if the manager and the inspector both saw it. The same method was used to make well-done steaks well-doner and crispy bacon crispier) I have also seen waitresses hand milkshake tins to cooks and ask them to pee in it, so they could dunk a truculent customer's T-bone in it before serving, and even worse types of poisoning. Not at the better restaurants, though. Usually.

In any case, this idea that food can easily be re-used is wrong. The goal for the head cook (a position I got paid handsomely for in the 80's, $600 for 40 hours or less, with free meals, drinks, and marijuana) is to coordinate the whole kitchen, usually cooking for 4-12 tables at once, making sure that every plate was finished at the same time, so that the 20-minute well-done rib-eye and a 30 second slice of Prime rib and all the other items with different cooking times came out fresh and hot and served to the customer within a minute of being ready. We never wanted cancelations, they were never a benefit, and only occasionally could they be re-used. Otherwise, they were fed (illegally) to the staff on break, at a "loss" to the business. μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, I point out that it's not a loss if they've been paid for the order in advance. I also think there's a wide variation from what they are supposed to do and what they actually do. I sent back a salad at Outback because it had croutons I didn't order, and it came back with only the ones on top removed, showing me they obviously just picked them out with their fingers and brought the same salad back out. Somehow I doubt if that's what they are supposed to do. Now I just pick them out myself. StuRat (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

But there is a loss to the waitress if one of her tables is held empty when there are other guests waiting to be seated. In the case of the salad, no, she should not be picking the croutons out by hand. You shouldn't have to say it, but its the reason I unwrapped and threw out the top bun on each of the cheeseburgers. Otherwise I'd've gotten the same burgers back with the cheese scraped off, which has happened before. The thing to say would be, can I have an entirely new salad? (Maybe add you have an allergy.) μηδείς (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You're assuming they are turning people away because all the tables are taken. That just isn't the case in Detroit, in general, due to a loss of population. They are often short-staffed, but rarely short on tables. And I, in particular, hate crowds, so avoid any time when they would be the least bit crowded. I'm sure Outback knew I wanted a new salad, they just didn't care what I wanted. StuRat (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Larry Niven wrote a short story about a fully automated restaurant with automated waitbots and computerized ordering (pre-www). IIRC, The patrons ended up getting stuck in their booth with a robot that kept presenting a bill for services unrendered and shocking the patrons when they tried to escape. You're always going to have to deal with some interface which may be flawed, human or machine. See entropy, Murphy's law, Peter principle and Westworld. [Here's an accurate description of the story, "Intent to Deceive".]

When eating at Outback, do you expect an Australian accent? The kitchen is most likely staffed by underpaid minorities and illegals, not to mince words. If you order house salad, the cook doesn't make it. The waitress gets it out of a bin in the waitress station. "They" didn't do this, nor did "Outback" do it, the waitress did. But you want table service, so of course you have to deal with a waitress. And if she's simply ferrying orders, she's not going to be expecting big tips nor putting the work into it. If you want good service you need to go to a busy place with an owner manager that's been in business for a good deal of time. Use the wisdom of the crowd; such places are busy because people enjoy the food and service.

Funny story about the Australian accent. They do have somebody with an Aussie tongue on the phone answering machine who announces hours, their address, etc. However, they changed their hours to include weekday lunch, then changed their location, and both times it took them like a month to get the message updated with the proper accent. So, apparently they would rather lose customers who think they are closed or can't find them (since they were sent to the wrong location), than record even a temporary message without the Aussie accent. Bizarre priorities, those. StuRat (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't be making this about outback, but I ate there once with my parents and refused to go back. My parents ate there twice, they had four order errors between them, including getting the wrong type of potato. The got most of their meal comp'ed by the manager. I think you just need to either order fresh produce from a grocery that allows orders by phone for pickup, or go to a better quality restaurant. Novelty chains like Outback are actually a step below McDonalds, which used to rely on a clown, a burglar, and some sort of purple thing to sell their food. They abandoned that model years ago, and they rely on uniformity at a certain standard to survive. Outback gives cut-rate service and depends on nostalgia for "Crocodile" Dundee for sales. (At this point, much of this thread should probably be hatted as advice combined with defamation.) μηδείς (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I notice they have a food contamination problem there, too. There often seem to be random food items mixed in with the dressing. Apparently they either use the same spoon or leave the dressings uncovered, so whatever was flying around in the kitchen ends up in there. And once the dressing had bleach in it (a poor job of rinsing after they washed out their containers, I hope). But cheap is right. For $7 at lunch, you get unlimited soup, salad, and bread. That's hard to beat, even at fast food places. StuRat (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that federal law in the US only requires waiters to be paid $2.13/hr while the minimum wage is $7.25 for untipped labor. Where I worked in NJ the $2.13 minumum still applies, Michigan state law sets a $3.10/hr minimum. After taxes, a weekly paycheck of under $10 is not unusual. I have eaten in Germany, and service is perfunctory, as the wait staff is paid independently of the customer's satisfaction. In the US, the waitress, to do well, has to work hard to please the customer, not just carry the food to the table. Being assigned six prime, busy tables, rather than the four in the back new or bad waitresses get is easily a difference of $100 or more in tips a night. StuRat is looking for actual table service, and his scenario implies whole reworking of the normal system. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the service is Germany (and the rest of Europe) normal, rather than oppressively fake friendly and pushy. This is how the normal world operates, we pay people a living wage. American service is truly awful by and large. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand, a good waitress in a busy inexpensive diner-style restaurant can easily bring home $600 in cash from tips working three shifts a week. The $2.13 minimum wage is a technical pittance given our income tax system--if you didn't get a "paycheck" the government couldn't tax you. No waitress in America works for the wages.

If you get "pushy" (by which I mean they try to convince you to order more) or "fake-friendly" then you're eating at a gimmicky chain like Bennigan's or T.G.I.F. where orders come from on high to push specials do song and dance routines.

If you eat at a good privately-run middle of the range place like Mastoris Diner you will normally get excellent service. μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to be reserving a table, not just a meal, of course.

I've seen restaurants do this for special occasions. Where you could RSVP your orders for a holiday meal by email or Facebook, but that's because they were preparing a greater volume of food at greater complexity than they're normally prepared for. (If you showed up without a reservation, they might find you a table, but there's a chance they'd be out of the holiday special.)

For non-special occasion meals, I've phoned in eat-in orders to restaurants before when I was in a hurry, so at least some are up for the basic concept. You might see if anything strikes your fancy on Grub-Hub and try putting "I'd like to eat in if a table is available" on the "special instructions" field. I dunno if that'd work, though. APL (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

APL (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, now that you mention it, I have seen that for holidays (US definition), with a prix fixe menu. That's where they have very limited choices you order in advance [6]. Presumably this allows them to more easily resell the items if you don't show up, since in the cases I saw, payment was not made in advance. They might even overbook, figuring a certain percentage of no-shows.StuRat (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: I overlooked the link to BJ's Restaurant and Brewhouse, above, until now. It seems they allow an online order for a dine-in meal without requiring pre-payment: [7]. It doesn't actually say if they cook it until you show up, but the review for them seemed to say that do cook it in advance. They even allow a guest login, as opposed to registered users only. So, I'm not crazy (at least not for this reason). Personally I think they might be taking a bit too much risk by not requiring payment in advance, but apparently they think they can cover the loss with increased sales, due to this new service. I hope they will succeed and this will become standard practice. StuRat (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't eat out much, certainly not in the US in the last decade, but I found this interesting and perhaps relevant: Disney’s $1 Billion Bet on a Magical Wristband, which is part of a system which enables the following: "The server—as in waitperson, not computer array—knew what they ordered before they even approached the restaurant and knew where they were sitting.". So one answer is "the restaurants at Disneyland", but my takeaway on reading that is that the same technology or something similar might one day be used in the wider world, if they can overcome the privacy concerns of tracking people.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE 2: I couldn't find a place with full table service in Detroit yet that allows me to order in advance, so I settled for Panera Bread, and took my pre-ordered to-go order to a table. StuRat (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you try the ones listed here? Abecedare (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw those, but wasn't sure if they had full table service if you order in advance. StuRat (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

gdp growth and labor productivity increase

Is the ideal ratio 1:1 for an economy to be balanced? (e.g. not growing because of a credit bubble)

Muzzleflash (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the source of that number? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a universal ideal. The parameters that work best for business owners tend to be quite different from the parameters that work best for laborers. Looie496 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly, because labor supply can change too due to population growth, immigration, increase in labor participaton (eg, women entering formal workforce), increase in hours worked etc. See this OECD document and cited references for some additional nuances. Abecedare (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Approval related voting system question.

Imagine, people vote on candidates by saying the ones they want to win.

On voting system 1: When you say yes to one candidate he get +1 points and if you dont he gets +0

On voting system 2: When you say yes to one candidate he get +1 points and if you dont he gets -1
PS: on both types of voting system, you just say yes, to the ones you didnt said yes, they get +0 or -1 based on the voting system used.

Is there any difference between both types of voting systems or in the end they would the exact the same thing?201.78.185.124 (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In system 2, what happens when someone doesn't vote at all? Do all the candidates get -1 or not? --65.95.176.148 (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If he say yes to 0 candidates all the candidates get -1 points added to their specific total amount of points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.185.124 (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the results will be exactly the same in the two systems, though the scores will be different, of course. You might be interested in the article Cardinal voting systems. Dbfirs 17:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The specific difference will be in the spread. If two candidates have a point difference of 5 in the first system, they will have a point difference of 10 in the second system. Other than point spread, there is no difference. 209.149.113.207 (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

But and the guys that doenst go to the place to vote, on the first case, the candidates score will not change so its like they got get 0 points, but on voting system 2 if they get 0 points its not like the guy gone there and didnt voted for them.201.78.185.124 (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If each candidate gets a -1 due to a registered voter not showing up, it's a wash. It will change their scores, but not their ranking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

They get +0 if the guy doenst show on method 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.185.124 (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Either way, the ranking does not change. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

As BBugs stated before: If everyone has a score change of X, the relative ranking between them does not change. So, if everyone goes down 2 points, the spread between any two candidates remains the same. 209.149.113.207 (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

If voters have a "like" and a "don't like" checkbox for each candidate - and not checking either box scores zero...then there is a definite difference. Suppose there are two candidates A and B and just three voters. If candidate A gets one 'like' and the other two voters don't check a box, then A scores 1 point in both systems. If candidate B gets two 'likes' and one 'don't like' then in the first system, B scores '2' and wins cleanly...but in the second system, B also scores only 1 point and it's a tie.

But if the rules require that a voter who turns up to vote is somehow required to ALWAYS check exactly one box for each candidate, then there is no difference between the two systems. In either case, a voter who doesn't show up has no effect on the result - and otherwise, the score in the first system is always equal to the score in the second system plus the number of voters, divided by two.

The devil is in the details here!

SteveBaker (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)