Barcode scanner

Options
2456711

Answers

  • Fentyman
    Fentyman Posts: 58 Member
    edited October 2022
    Options
    literally the only reason i still use the app. oh well
  • hesn92
    hesn92 Posts: 5,967 Member
    edited October 2022
    Options
    I'll probably switch to cronometer, I think they have a barcode scanner
  • Lietchi
    Lietchi Posts: 6,161 Member
    edited October 2022
    Options
    KNoceros wrote: »
    As a UK based basic member, who DOES use the barcode scanner about 2-3 / week, this is a massive backward step.

    If I’m going to have to put all the data in for every new or updated food (I tend to eat mainly the same things and mainly fresh, but changes or pre-prepared stuff happen too) I’m probably going to just “quick add” a calorie number.

    Like I used to with a notepad and pencil.

    The barcode scanner is just a different way to search the database: instead of scanning, you'll have to enter keywords and then select the right entry. For foods that have changed or that don't exist yet, I don't see what the difference would be between scanning the barcode and typing the name of the food: you'd still need to correct/create the entry?
  • JBanx256
    JBanx256 Posts: 1,477 Member
    edited October 2022
    Options
    hesn92 wrote: »
    I'll probably switch to cronometer, I think they have a barcode scanner

    I HIGHLY recommend MacroFactor
  • ebonyroche
    ebonyroche Posts: 675 Member
    edited October 2022
    Options
    Me 🙋🏾‍♀️ I'm can't even believe that they think this is a good idea.
  • not_my_first_rodeo
    not_my_first_rodeo Posts: 311 Member
    edited October 2022
    Options
    It's a deal breaker. I'm currently looking at a few other apps. It's a shame because I've used MFP for years, but I'm outta here as soon as I find something that works.
  • hesn92
    hesn92 Posts: 5,967 Member
    edited October 2022
    Options
    JBanx256 wrote: »
    hesn92 wrote: »
    I'll probably switch to cronometer, I think they have a barcode scanner

    I HIGHLY recommend MacroFactor

    Yea I'm trying to use cronometer now and I don't like it lol. It doesn't split the diary out by meal, every food item goes into one big list. I don't like that. I will check out macrofactor.
  • yirara
    yirara Posts: 9,429 Member
    edited October 2022
    Options
    KNoceros wrote: »
    Lietchi wrote: »

    The barcode scanner is just a different way to search the database: instead of scanning, you'll have to enter keywords and then select the right entry.

    Yes but it pulls ONE hit. Which in my experience gets it right >95% of the time. I only need to correct if wrong. Which for me is rare ( I may be unusual in this respect).

    It takes 3 seconds and is discrete. Type-searching the database takes much longer and draws everyone’s attention to what I’m doing and usually gives me 100 dodgy hits because I don’t know what format the original contributor to the database saved the stuff as.

    If you use a food item more often it's always at the top of the list, thus the scanner is not necessarily faster. I usually find onions and garlic in the commonly used items list without having to search for them. For some reason a good entry for avocado refuses to end up in that list though. No idea why.
  • nonchalantxo
    nonchalantxo Posts: 483 Member
    edited October 2022
    Options
    That is scummy.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    edited October 2022
    Options
    Honestly? I'm most frustrated by the fact that so many people feel the need to create posts about the same damn thing that 100 other people are already complaining about. Pick one of the existing threads and complain there... no need to further muck up the forums.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,004 Member
    edited October 2022
    Options
    yirara wrote: »
    KNoceros wrote: »
    Lietchi wrote: »

    The barcode scanner is just a different way to search the database: instead of scanning, you'll have to enter keywords and then select the right entry.

    Yes but it pulls ONE hit. Which in my experience gets it right >95% of the time. I only need to correct if wrong. Which for me is rare ( I may be unusual in this respect).

    It takes 3 seconds and is discrete. Type-searching the database takes much longer and draws everyone’s attention to what I’m doing and usually gives me 100 dodgy hits because I don’t know what format the original contributor to the database saved the stuff as.

    If you use a food item more often it's always at the top of the list, thus the scanner is not necessarily faster. I usually find onions and garlic in the commonly used items list without having to search for them. For some reason a good entry for avocado refuses to end up in that list though. No idea why.

    I freakin' hate the avocado glitch! Bah! It's the same for "salt" and a couple other ones. Plus garlic I have to remember to use it per clove, not by grams or else drama ensues in the resulting line entry of 4,265 calories :lol:





    Computers make my life easier. Maybe.

  • glassyo
    glassyo Posts: 7,614 Member
    edited October 2022
    Options
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    Honestly? I'm most frustrated by the fact that so many people feel the need to create posts about the same damn thing that 100 other people are already complaining about. Pick one of the existing threads and complain there... no need to further muck up the forums.

    For some reason it's also bugging me that the complaint is most people's first post.

    I mean, it's obviously not a requirement to post in the forums if you're on here but I'm seeing a whole lot of tantrums being had.
  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,641 Member
    edited October 2022
    Options
    I laughed so hard this morning when I read the e-mail. It's interesting that so many of you are upset by this move because you've found the function to be so helpful but aren't willing to pay for it.

    I, on the other hand, won't be paying for it for the opposite reason. There is SO MUCH WORK that goes into using the barcode scanner on the user end, getting wrong entries, then fixing the wrong entries, searching for correct entries in the database to match them to the barcode, or creating new entries altogether. That's what makes the app so unique. It really takes all users working together to update the database so it's easier to use for the next person. But it's like digging in sand. You never really get ahead. You can only fix what you get your hands on, but the bad entries just keep coming. It was barely worth using the barcode scanner FOR FREE. I can't imagine any seasoned user paying for the inconvenience. You'll probably get a lot of new users who think "wow that's such a cool and helpful feature" and shell out the money, only to find out how frustrating it really is, and either move on to something else, or just not renew.

    Also, have fun with how even more bloated and redundant the database will become. If I search something manually with all the correct words and can't find the right one within a few swipes, I'm just creating a new one. Sorry not sorry.

    Personally, my whole weight journey is chronicled in the MFP app and I'm pretty attached to it at this point. I will do just fine without the barcode scanner. Peace.
  • blackmonc2018
    blackmonc2018 Posts: 1 Member
    edited October 2022
    Options
    I wholeheartedly agree with Jeremy up above! I’m sorry, but this really is not ideal for me any longer. I will be searching and researching other apps. That feature was the main reason for me personally. I am sure all of my friends will be searching elsewhere as well. We were all discussing how this just sucks. I feel this was one of the best features and now you’re taking it away for $. Imagine that. The world revolves around money. What a disaster this world has become.
  • Chef_Barbell
    Chef_Barbell Posts: 6,644 Member
    edited October 2022
    Options
    yirara wrote: »
    KNoceros wrote: »
    Lietchi wrote: »

    The barcode scanner is just a different way to search the database: instead of scanning, you'll have to enter keywords and then select the right entry.

    Yes but it pulls ONE hit. Which in my experience gets it right >95% of the time. I only need to correct if wrong. Which for me is rare ( I may be unusual in this respect).

    It takes 3 seconds and is discrete. Type-searching the database takes much longer and draws everyone’s attention to what I’m doing and usually gives me 100 dodgy hits because I don’t know what format the original contributor to the database saved the stuff as.

    If you use a food item more often it's always at the top of the list, thus the scanner is not necessarily faster. I usually find onions and garlic in the commonly used items list without having to search for them. For some reason a good entry for avocado refuses to end up in that list though. No idea why.

    I freakin' hate the avocado glitch! Bah! It's the same for "salt" and a couple other ones. Plus garlic I have to remember to use it per clove, not by grams or else drama ensues in the resulting line entry of 4,265 calories :lol:





    Computers make my life easier. Maybe.

    This is definitely something I want to pay $80/year for. :laugh: 🙃
This discussion has been closed.