Minor things that bother you

[formulanone]

When I go out with a group for work, we usually remind the server "separate checks" before ordering, and remind them again before bringing us our respective bills. Sometimes even the greeter will smartly ask us while we're being seated (usually it's obvious when it's lunch time).

Since most of us have corporate cards, we have to eyeball the cards' names very carefully when they're returned to us...you don't want to wind up checking into the hotel the following week with a reservation for BALLYHOO GERHARD FITZSIMMONS with a card that says RUFUS XAVIER SASPARILLA on it.

That's why usually I've avoided gatherings over 8-12 people, because the checks have more of a chance of getting messed up. It's easier if we can get someone high up with the company to cover the entire bill, report the attendees, and deduct it straight out of the per diem.

[jeffandnicole]

The diners are responsible to say they want separate checks, and this should be done prior to any ordering. While some servers may ask large parties if they'll want separate checks, if it's two people, that would be treated as an insult to many couples.

It can also be difficult, along with time consuming, for a server to separate out a check at the end of a service. If the people at the table don't remember what they ordered and don't want to take the time to figure it out themselves, it shouldn't be expected for the server to do it for you.

It is always in the interest of someone who is owed money to ensure that the accounting is done correctly. If they fail to, they're apt to not get paid properly. (Who's responsible for adding up the total at the grocery store?)

In my experience, around here, if I'm in a group of more than about three or so, after the entrees have been delivered but before bringing the check, the server will ask at some point (usually during drink refills) "Is this all on one check, or separate?" Based on some of the receipts I've gotten, my understanding is that the register systems used by modern restaurants require the server to enter the ticket, separated by guest, at the time the order is initially placed (this process is probably also what communicates the order to the kitchen). Then when it comes time to print the checks, it is trivial to put "Guest 1" and "Guest 2" on one ticket and "Guest 3" on another.

I'm usually pretty forgiving about service mistakes, but botching the billing process is a sure-fire way to be dropped from our restaurant rotation. It's such a basic function of a restaurant that there are enough of them that can get it right, so there's no need to tolerate the ones that can't.

When you go to the grocery store with friends, do you all put your stuff on the conveyer belt, have the cashier ring everything up, then decide to tell the cashier they need to separate the products by the person who wanted them?

Your definition of 'accounting' here doesn't match the situation because you believe they botched some secret-to-you billing process.   The server accounted for all the food and drinks ordered.  You, as a diner, decided to wait till the end to want to split the check.  There is no mistake here by the server.  The server can't assume you want the bill split, and how it would be split.  All 3 paying at separately?  Guest 1 & 2 on one bill?  Guest 1 & 3?  Guest 2 & 3?  All separate, but you're buying the drinks? 

And in these modern times, one person can pay for the bill, and the others can Venmo the money.

...my understanding is...

Hard stop.  Anytime someone thinks they have an understanding of the way something works, chances are they fully don't.  There are a multitude of restaurant ordering systems out there; each has different functions, and some easier to work with than others.  Some may instruct the server to separate items by guest; others may not.  Some restaurants may instruct their servers to enter items one way unless specified by a guest.  But ultimately, nearly any time the server is given instructions post-meal, chances are they have to make changes, which delays not only your table, but service to other tables as well.

There are some jobs I think everyone should experience in their lifetime.  Being a server is one of those jobs.  Many people have many different ideas of what is normal.  You may think a server should automatically split a bill and place the bill directly in the center of the table; others may assume the bill will just be paid for by a specific person and don't expect a bill to be split.  How you conduct yourself may inadvertently tell the server you're a boss, taking clients or employees out.  What you do may be totally out of the relm of the norm.  Servers have to deal with all types of diners; some easier to deal with than others.  It shouldn't be a server's duty to read a crystal ball. 

Taking 2 seconds to say "We'll need separate checks" at the beginning of the meal clears up so much for everyone involved.

[JayhawkCO]

As a person who worked in the restaurant industry for almost 20 years, the easiest way to find out if separating the bill is super easy in their POS system (point of sale) is if your food is dropped off without the food runner auctioning off the food (i.e. who had the BLT?) because that means that you ring everything in with a seat number and, in turn, separating checks based on that is very simple.  That said, good servers can pretty easily separate checks after the fact without the software making it easy.  Shitty ones can't. 

I would agree that if you really need something separated and can't Venmo your friends (i.e., you all have corporate cards, etc.) than it's just polite to let your server know early, no matter how hard or simple it may or may not be.

[1995hoo]

Another thing regarding people splitting the check is that not all people do that based on the actual amounts ordered. Some people just split it evenly unless one person ordered something particularly more expensive than everyone else (in which case it's reasonable for that person to pay his actual share).

Some restaurants won't split the check if the group is bigger than a certain size. That worked well for me once on a trip to England. I was with a group of about 20 people and the tab got passed around the table with everyone putting in the actual amount owed. I was last, and it occurred to me that while their charge cards got them one mile per pound, mine would get me one mile per dollar, so with £1 roughly equal to $2 at the time, I astonished all of them by picking up all the cash and putting the whole bill on my American Express.

[JayhawkCO]

Another thing regarding people splitting the check is that not all people do that based on the actual amounts ordered. Some people just split it evenly unless one person ordered something particularly more expensive than everyone else (in which case it's reasonable for that person to pay his actual share).

Some restaurants won't split the check if the group is bigger than a certain size. That worked well for me once on a trip to England. I was with a group of about 20 people and the tab got passed around the table with everyone putting in the actual amount owed. I was last, and it occurred to me that while their charge cards got them one mile per pound, mine would get me one mile per dollar, so with £1 roughly equal to $2 at the time, I astonished all of them by picking up all the cash and putting the whole bill on my American Express.

I always do this.  I get 3x points on restaurants.

[jakeroot]

Speaking of checks:

That in the US, the staff still have to run off with my card to pay. Just bring the machine to me so I can tap my phone and be done with it.

[vdeane]

Speaking of checks:

That in the US, the staff still have to run off with my card to pay. Just bring the machine to me so I can tap my phone and be done with it.

I've heard that the restaurant industry refusing to change this practice to match the rest of the world is a major reason why our credit cards are chip and sign instead of chip and PIN.

[1995hoo]

Regarding financial issues and minor things that annoy you:

Does anyone know why an interbank ACH transfer of money sometimes shows up as "on hold" for a long time, up to a week, even though it's clear you have enough money in your account that is not subject to a hold such that the amount would be covered if the transaction bounced? I can understand it if the transfer is a large amount (five figures), or if your balance is low and you're trying to transfer a decent bit more than that, but sometimes even piddly amounts like $300 will be "on hold" for a week. The money shows as having been received, but you don't have access to it. If I were going to try to defraud a bank, it would not be for the paltry sum of $300. I should, as they say, go for the bundle. Next paycheck when I want to transfer money like that, I think I'll write a check and do a mobile deposit to see whether it's any faster to post.

Basically, it seems to me that if you have a five-figure balance in the account and you do an ACH transaction to add another $300, the bank is not at risk of losing the $300 if they give you immediate access to it and then the transaction bounces–they can recover the amount from the remaining balance in the account.

[jeffandnicole]

Another thing regarding people splitting the check is that not all people do that based on the actual amounts ordered. Some people just split it evenly unless one person ordered something particularly more expensive than everyone else (in which case it's reasonable for that person to pay his actual share).

Some restaurants won't split the check if the group is bigger than a certain size. That worked well for me once on a trip to England. I was with a group of about 20 people and the tab got passed around the table with everyone putting in the actual amount owed. I was last, and it occurred to me that while their charge cards got them one mile per pound, mine would get me one mile per dollar, so with £1 roughly equal to $2 at the time, I astonished all of them by picking up all the cash and putting the whole bill on my American Express.

Anytime I've done this, I will let the table know I'll keep their cash and put the bill on my card.  Years ago, this was almost normal.  Now, just about everyone is paying with cards anyway.

Speaking of cash...if I were to plan on paying with cash (which admittedly is extremely rare), I try to plan that in advance to make sure I bring 4 ones, a five & a ten, along with 20's, 50's or 100's, to eliminate the need for the serve to bring back change.  Even if I plan on paying with a card, I generally try to bring smaller bills for tip money.

Speaking of checks:

That in the US, the staff still have to run off with my card to pay. Just bring the machine to me so I can tap my phone and be done with it.

I've heard that the restaurant industry refusing to change this practice to match the rest of the world is a major reason why our credit cards are chip and sign instead of chip and PIN.

I tend to see this more at smaller places that will use the Square, like local restaurants or small breweries. 

Frankly, people just holding their card themselves waiting to put it in a machine or hand it to someone is long enough for someone to walk by with their cell phone camera to take a pic or video record that name/number.  If you hold your card, hold it so at least a few of the digits are covered.

[jakeroot]

Frankly, people just holding their card themselves waiting to put it in a machine or hand it to someone is long enough for someone to walk by with their cell phone camera to take a pic or video record that name/number.  If you hold your card, hold it so at least a few of the digits are covered.

Yet another great reason to use tap-to-pay with an electronic device: card numbers are not shown on screen, and the card number shown to retailers is not the same as your actual card number.

[hbelkins]

Microsoft's tendency to name software updates after the year in which they're released. When you get updated from Software 2010 to Software 2013 in the year 2015, it just seems a little odd.

[1995hoo]

....

Frankly, people just holding their card themselves waiting to put it in a machine or hand it to someone is long enough for someone to walk by with their cell phone camera to take a pic or video record that name/number.  If you hold your card, hold it so at least a few of the digits are covered.

I've noticed more cards now have the numbers printed on the back side, probably for just that reason. On my Discover card, for example, if I hold it right side up (magnetic strip down), all you'll see is the chip, the Stanley Cup, and the Discover logo.

[jeffandnicole]

....

Frankly, people just holding their card themselves waiting to put it in a machine or hand it to someone is long enough for someone to walk by with their cell phone camera to take a pic or video record that name/number.  If you hold your card, hold it so at least a few of the digits are covered.

I've noticed more cards now have the numbers printed on the back side, probably for just that reason. On my Discover card, for example, if I hold it right side up (magnetic strip down), all you'll see is the chip, the Stanley Cup, and the Discover logo.

My Visa card has this; AmEx seems a little slow to the concept.

Frankly, people just holding their card themselves waiting to put it in a machine or hand it to someone is long enough for someone to walk by with their cell phone camera to take a pic or video record that name/number.  If you hold your card, hold it so at least a few of the digits are covered.

Yet another great reason to use tap-to-pay with an electronic device: card numbers are not shown on screen, and the card number shown to retailers is not the same as your actual card number.

I've used my Fitbit on occasion like this.  Actually, in the NY City MTA Subways, this is now a preferred way of paying the fare.  And it was much easier than paying for a new card and downloading money, especially for a tourist who won't need the card after a few days (and will probably lose some balance money).

[1995hoo]

....

Frankly, people just holding their card themselves waiting to put it in a machine or hand it to someone is long enough for someone to walk by with their cell phone camera to take a pic or video record that name/number.  If you hold your card, hold it so at least a few of the digits are covered.

I've noticed more cards now have the numbers printed on the back side, probably for just that reason. On my Discover card, for example, if I hold it right side up (magnetic strip down), all you'll see is the chip, the Stanley Cup, and the Discover logo.

My Visa card has this; AmEx seems a little slow to the concept.

I'd have to go find the card and look at it to confirm, but I believe my American Express card has the information printed on the back. My card renewed in February 2020, so if yours is older than that, it could account for the difference.

One of our banks sent us renewal ATM cards last week and I was surprised to find that they don't have the information on the back (although they do have printed numbers, rather than the raised numbers that used to be customary).

[jakeroot]

Frankly, people just holding their card themselves waiting to put it in a machine or hand it to someone is long enough for someone to walk by with their cell phone camera to take a pic or video record that name/number.  If you hold your card, hold it so at least a few of the digits are covered.

Yet another great reason to use tap-to-pay with an electronic device: card numbers are not shown on screen, and the card number shown to retailers is not the same as your actual card number.

I've used my Fitbit on occasion like this.  Actually, in the NY City MTA Subways, this is now a preferred way of paying the fare.  And it was much easier than paying for a new card and downloading money, especially for a tourist who won't need the card after a few days (and will probably lose some balance money).

I've used my phone and watch similarly riding Translink services in Vancouver, BC. Tap on/tap off for the SkyTrain (metro system), single tap for other services. Still, it ends up being more expensive than using the fare card ("Compass"), which is slightly irritating, even if explicable.

[ZLoth]

I figured whoever picked the name for the Camp Fire was probably thinking they were really funny at the time. (Notice it wasn't the Camp Creek fire.) Then it became a major disaster and it wasn't funny anymore.

From SF Gate:

Why is it called the Camp Fire? How California's most destructive wildfire got its name

How did California's most destructive fire come to be called the Camp Fire?

Butte County's deadly Camp Fire was named after Camp Creek Road, the location where the fire started.

Wildfires are often named after their places of origin. For example, last year's deadly Tubbs Fire was named after Tubbs Lane in Calistoga.

According to Cal Fire, naming wildfires based on location "allows fire officials to track and prioritize incidents by name."

FULL ARTICLE HERE

Who names California's wildfires?

Though exceptions to the rule, most wildfires are named not by an aspiring Dr. Seuss, but the initial responders on the scene. What the team names the blaze is up to their discretion, says Slate, but they typically stick to locations and landmarks.

The monikers aren't simply for our amusement, either. Dashing off a quick name provides responders with an additional locator, and "allows fire officials to track and prioritize incidents by name,"  according to Cal Fire.

FULL ARTICLE HERE

[Scott5114]

Yes, but "Camp Creek fire" is one more syllable and more accurate to the location, but doesn't have the added bonus of "haha campfire".

[vdeane]

Frankly, people just holding their card themselves waiting to put it in a machine or hand it to someone is long enough for someone to walk by with their cell phone camera to take a pic or video record that name/number.  If you hold your card, hold it so at least a few of the digits are covered.

Yet another great reason to use tap-to-pay with an electronic device: card numbers are not shown on screen, and the card number shown to retailers is not the same as your actual card number.

Now if only tap to pay actually worked consistently on my cards that have it.  I think it's only worked once - at the Thousand Islands Winery.  All other attempts to use it with my credit cards have led to the attempt being rejected for whatever reason.

[hotdogPi]

Frankly, people just holding their card themselves waiting to put it in a machine or hand it to someone is long enough for someone to walk by with their cell phone camera to take a pic or video record that name/number.  If you hold your card, hold it so at least a few of the digits are covered.

Yet another great reason to use tap-to-pay with an electronic device: card numbers are not shown on screen, and the card number shown to retailers is not the same as your actual card number.

Now if only tap to pay actually worked consistently on my cards that have it.  I think it's only worked once - at the Thousand Islands Winery.  All other attempts to use it with my credit cards have led to the attempt being rejected for whatever reason.

Maybe that one did work because it's to Canadian standards that work just fine?

[jakeroot]

Frankly, people just holding their card themselves waiting to put it in a machine or hand it to someone is long enough for someone to walk by with their cell phone camera to take a pic or video record that name/number.  If you hold your card, hold it so at least a few of the digits are covered.

Yet another great reason to use tap-to-pay with an electronic device: card numbers are not shown on screen, and the card number shown to retailers is not the same as your actual card number.

Now if only tap to pay actually worked consistently on my cards that have it.  I think it's only worked once - at the Thousand Islands Winery.  All other attempts to use it with my credit cards have led to the attempt being rejected for whatever reason.

I've not used it with cards, only my phone and watch. It's been a long time since I've had it fail to work at all (sometimes I have to tap again, but it's pretty rare). The success rate is so high that I don't usually bring my cards with me, just ID.

Maybe that one did work because it's to Canadian standards that work just fine?

From what I've seen, it's the same standard in the US and Canada. Canada was just quicker to adopt it.

[Bruce]

My tap card has worked everywhere I've tried it (on machines or devices with the tap symbol) in the U.S. and Canada. Just a normal Visa credit card from my credit union, nothing special about it.

Only hiccup is trying to find where on the device the reader actually is: sometimes it's in the center, or just above the number pad, or somewhere else entirely.

[snowc]

Another thing regarding people splitting the check is that not all people do that based on the actual amounts ordered. Some people just split it evenly unless one person ordered something particularly more expensive than everyone else (in which case it's reasonable for that person to pay his actual share).

Some restaurants won't split the check if the group is bigger than a certain size. That worked well for me once on a trip to England. I was with a group of about 20 people and the tab got passed around the table with everyone putting in the actual amount owed. I was last, and it occurred to me that while their charge cards got them one mile per pound, mine would get me one mile per dollar, so with £1 roughly equal to $2 at the time, I astonished all of them by picking up all the cash and putting the whole bill on my American Express.

Buffalo Wild Wings allows you to split checks with their rewards program. 

[abefroman329]

if your food is dropped off without the food runner auctioning off the food (i.e. who had the BLT?)

Maybe I'm wildly off base here, but there's a price point (probably $50 for an entrée) at which I would think the staff bringing the food wouldn't go "and who had the lobster thermidor?" upon arrival at the table.  Honestly, the whole thing is overly casual in a keep-your-fork-Duke-there's-pie kind of way, but understandable at TGI Friday's.

I'd say what annoys me most is people who used to work in the industry and proceed to treat waitstaff like dirt because they think they were God's own contribution to the industry.  One story that I was reminded of while reading the recent contributions was the time I went to a group dinner, and the group wanted to split the check, and the waiter said "we can't do that," and another diner said "yes you can, that's a blah-blah-blah POS and you can split checks up to 8 ways."  Maybe "it's not our policy" would have been better than "we physically can't," but honestly.

And honestly, anyone who treats waitstaff like indentured servants annoys me, majorly.

[InterstateFan621]

I get mildly bothered by large groups of people all in one room, loud noises, and strong smells.

[jeffandnicole]

Frankly, people just holding their card themselves waiting to put it in a machine or hand it to someone is long enough for someone to walk by with their cell phone camera to take a pic or video record that name/number.  If you hold your card, hold it so at least a few of the digits are covered.

Yet another great reason to use tap-to-pay with an electronic device: card numbers are not shown on screen, and the card number shown to retailers is not the same as your actual card number.

Now if only tap to pay actually worked consistently on my cards that have it.  I think it's only worked once - at the Thousand Islands Winery.  All other attempts to use it with my credit cards have led to the attempt being rejected for whatever reason.

I have a few cards that allow tap to pay, and often find that it's the store's credit card terminal that's not working properly, not the cards, since I'll experience issues with both cards at the same terminal, yet no issue inserting the card into the terminal.  Other places, the tap function works on those same cards.