We believe there is a major flaw in the way Neto is summing dimensions for items with Combined Shipping set to Yes, where neto only adds to "1 dimension" when it should add to "3 dimensions"
example:
SKU1 = 5cm x 10cm x 20cm
If someone orders 10x of this item, Neto will auto add dimensions for the package as: 5cm x 10cm x 200cm
That is not the way we could package 10x units of this item.
Neto have advised me, they think this is the proper way to calculate it based on feedback from warehouses.
We think the logical way people make multiple items, is adding items so the carton becomes more "cube" in shape. i.e. you would stack so the "thinnest" edge gets thicker as you add more items. But once the "thinnest" dimension becomes the "thickest" dimension, then the logic to just keeping adding to that dimension so not match what a human would actually do in the warehouse, and does not match what is cheapest, and does not match the usual shape of warehouse cartons (cube-ish rectangle shapes)
Therefore, we believe Neto should use a different rule, for when the "thinnest" dimension 'will become' the "thickest" dimension if the current rule was used.
Issues with current rule:
- at 200cm Aus Post, and Couriers Please services cannot be calculated
- if Aus Post is the cheaper method, and items can be packed so less than <100cm / <1130cm - staff need to manually look out for these , check if Aus Post is cheaper, and then select correct option.
Solution:
I gave this some thought and have done spreadsheet example, and found that adding to all 3 dimensions is best, and adding more to the "smallest dimension" at a ratio against QTY also gives the best results, to match how we pack and our we presume others also actually pack.
example:
SKU1 = 5cm x 10cm x 20cm
for an order of 10x units, it should add dims: 12.5cm x 20cm x 40cm
Formulas:
DIM A - 12.5cm = original dim (5cm) * QTY / 4 (12.5*10/4)
DIM B - 20cm = original dim (10cm) * 2 (10*2)
DIM C - 40cm = original dim (20cm) * 2 (20*2)
I personally feel that using our Rule above, would be far better than using the correct Neto Rule.
If this cannot be resolved, we will have to built a browser script that searches for anything "Multiple QTY" where any of the 3 Dims is >100cm. Then recalculate the dims based on reverse version of our rule and update the dimensions.
We can do it if we have to.... its now been 2 years since I last brought this up and we are dying for a solution now as this problem is growing as have more higher QTY sales on small items now.
Just wish Neto would take this on board and fix the problem, or explain in detail why you think you Rule is better for customers. I would love to know why that could be the case.
