Categories, good and bad

I'm always interested in how people classify things, and more so since having read Sorting Things Out: Classifications and its Consequences by Geoffrey Bowker and Susan Leigh Star.

Since Ocado let me know that they were now delivering to my area, I haven't got around to signing up (the day their email arrived, last summer, there was a blackout across south London, and then, well...). So I only started using the Ocado site yesterday.

Mostly this went well, but one thing was curious: I tried hunting for peanuts in the dried fruit and nuts section (along with walnuts, macademia nuts, almonds, hazel nuts, cashews, pistachio nuts and every other kind of nut), but no go. They could only be found by doing a database search, when lo and behold, peanuts in their many varieties popped up in section 'confectionery and crisps', subsection 'cozy night in', sub-subsection 'peanuts', together with 'dips', 'indulgence chocolate', 'breadsticks' and 'bags of chocolate'.

Now what is this saying about who, I wonder. That the information architects think that people who eat a lot of junk food would not consider peanuts a nut? Or would not think their junk food clients would eat other kinds of nut? Or that typical nut eaters don't eat peanuts, but only the more exalted nut varieties? Or that they think this client of theirs is a saddo, 'cozy-night-in' person who is really eating junk food, if only she knew it?

Ocado successfully cross-classifies quite a number of items in parallel categories, which makes me wonder whether this particular case was overlooked (it's a large category and seemingly obvious, so seems unlikely) or whether there is some underlying nut agenda out there....

And can any food - and I'm talking nuts here, not some manufacturer's nightmare high-margin, strange-coloured invention - truly be classified only is a category labelled 'cozy night in'?