[BrenBarn]

What I found better about it was the algorithm-free browsing experience. You would just look at the shelves and decide what to watch. The movies were broken down into basic genres, and sometimes there would be "staff picks" or something, but beyond that it was just you and the movies. This meant sometimes you watched really bad stuff, or good stuff, or stuff you wouldn't normally watch, or whatever.

No doubt there's a certain amount of nostalgia baked into these impressions. But definitely the thing I remember most fondly about that era was how decisions about things (movies, music, cereals, blenders, etc.) were made by looking at what was available and (maybe) doing a bit of research with external sources (like a "movie guide" book or whatever), rather than constantly wading through a morass of "recommendations", fake reviews, broken search functionality, and so on.

[mbreese]

> What I found better about it was the algorithm-free browsing experience.

Not algorithm free, just a different kind of algorithm. Probably a mix of marketing and manual curation. Video stores (at least good ones) would be organized for you to find exactly what you were looking for… even if you didn’t know what you were looking for. If you saw a wall full of the most recent summer blockbuster movie, you might be drawn to rent that one. Why? Because you’re perceiving that movie to be “popular selection”. Or if there was a special section of “date night comedy”, you could browse there if that was what you were looking for.

But “staff picks” might have been a shelf with movies that weren’t performing well, with maybe one or two interesting movies to make the rest look better. Studios may have even paid for that placement (at larger chains). I have no idea if this really happened, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

As I see it, the algorithms are trying to bring order to a maddeningly long list of options[*]. The main goal being to help you find something you’d like to watch. If you like it, you’re happier and you’ll go back to that source (and keep paying for it). Regardless of told the source is YouTube, Disney+, Netflix, or Blockbuster Video.

In this way, we’ve always had curation… so effectively the algorithm wasn’t a “we think you’d like this”, maybe it was a “Randall” at the counter who you could ask for recommendations, or just a well organized store that led you to something you might like.

* - except the dark pattern algorithms that want you to just keep consuming media or increase “engagement”. I’m trying to look at it from a positive side.

[schwartzworld]

I worked at blockbuster. Sure, we had the wall of new releases and occasional promotions, but the rest of the store was organized quite simply. First by genre, then alphabetically. You could opt into curation, but it wasn’t the majority of the store.

[swasheck]

yeah. the primary algorithm used by bbv was which titles, and how many, were sent to the store. i worked for bbv and picked up shifts at different stores around my metro area and it was always interesting to see which stores had the “indie” titles and which had the high volume, popcorn title new releases. one of the biggest titles i can recall was independence day. my home store got a decent amount, but then i covered for someone at another store the next weekend at a high volume store and the number of id4 new releases was insane.

another store i transferred to had a healthy supply of laser disc titles and members of the local professional basketball team essentially supported that store’s laser disc business.

[Fnoord]

When I found out suggestions have low signal to noise ratio I simply don't look at suggestions anymore. Not in the grocery store, nor in streaming apps, nor on news websites. I go for the content I specifically went for. I do miss out on stuff though. For example, if I go to HBO Max I specifically look at HBO Originals.