About us forum
Do you want to read about bad places?
Have questions? Jump to our menu of forum quicklinks
Add your reply
You need to be logged in to add a reply.
Not a member? you can join here.
Welcome to Travelfish, original Asia travel intelligence you can trust
Menu
somtam2000
admin
Joined Travelfish
21st January, 2004
Location Indonesia
Posts 6410
Member profile
Profile page
Private message
In the past we've listed both the good and the bad when it comes to accommodation and eating options, but now, with thousands of places listed, we're thinking of removing some of the places we didn't think were so hot and instead concentrating on the better and best places to stay and eat.
As the reader, do you find bad listings useful? Do you want to be warned off the flophouse with festy bathrooms and a thousand dogs that start barking at 4am or would you rather we just don't list places like that and concentrate on the better options?
Please let us know what you think.
#1 Posted: 17/7/2006 - 19:06
somtam2000's social networks[Twitter] [Facebook] [Flickr] [Google+] [Instagram] [Pinterest]
------------------------------
Travel films for Southeast Asia
DannyJ
Joined Travelfish
5th October, 2005
Posts 36
Member profile
Profile private
Messaging not enabled.
Hi somtam, if it came down to a choice between the 2 i'd rather have more good places listed. I think most of us have enough sense to know when a place is bad enough, that we shouldn't stay there, when we arrive. Saying that I do find the bad choices being listed as something helpful but if it's a question of one or the other i.e. space is an issue for you, more good places is better then having the bad listing's in the first place.
Peace and love, Danny J
#2 Posted: 17/7/2006 - 22:34
Advertisement
marianwarren
Joined Travelfish
12th March, 2006
Posts 270
Member profile
Profile private
Messaging not enabled.
Hi Somtam
I think bad places are a waste of space and/or paper, but where to go when all the recommended places are full. Memories of Jaipur with LP guide in hand 'we're full' 'we're full' I ended up staying somewhere that wasn't in the book anyway. In Chiang Rai too, I can't remember the name of the guesthouse I stayed at but it wasn't mentioned either, and I thought it was a fantastic place.
Maybe the best of the worst? Or possibly no lower than 5/10.
Regards
Marian
#3 Posted: 18/7/2006 - 04:28
exacto
Joined Travelfish
12th February, 2006
Location United States
Posts 2047
Member profile
Profile page
Private message
i agree to that i'd rather see a focus on good places. i think the idea of a guide is to give one a head start of good possibilites, and not necessarily list every single option available. besides, there is such a thing as information overload, where it is difficult to distinguish or remember all the info available.
i like how travelfish lists different places by budget, and i'd still like to see the better of each of those categories listed. if anything, i guess i'd emphasise the midrange and particularly the top end options much less, because based on the feedback i see on the site and the threads on the message board, i don't think too many travelfishers are staying at the $100 ++ per night spots.
#4 Posted: 18/7/2006 - 14:29
adelene
Joined Travelfish
8th May, 2006
Posts 19
Member profile
Profile private
Messaging not enabled.
Again, if it really is a question of space then I would rather see the good places, but I also think it is really good to know if somewhere is diabolically bad - if a certain restaurant specialises in food poisoning/if a particular nightclub or bar is best avoided for safety reasons (I notice that the 'Heart of Darkness' bar is off limits according to the Foreign Office website). I think information about places to avoid is most helpful if it is something we wouldn't necessarily be able to tell for ourselves. But overall, like the others, I'd say go for 'good' rather than 'bad'. I agree with exacto's idea about focussing on the best of the cheap deals - particularly on hotels, but also on tour companies (to Halong Bay/Mekong etc) as this seems particularly to be an issue on the message boards.
#5 Posted: 19/7/2006 - 01:10
pauljaymes
Joined Travelfish
10th July, 2006
Posts 75
Member profile
Profile private
Messaging not enabled.
Bad listings are useful when you're hunting around and your preferred options are full. If a place isn't listed at all you might think it's new or something.
Plus of course, places can get taken over and improve, or get worse, and the beauty of a live site with user submitted reviews is that this can come through quickly.
If space is limited, like in a guide book, then yes of course concentrate on the good - but this is the internet, space shouldn't be so limited - if you've decided somewhere is bad enough not to list then surely a one line listing at the bottom of the page stating this is better than nothing.
#6 Posted: 26/7/2006 - 00:12
Kennyd
Joined Travelfish
26th August, 2005
Posts 9
Member profile
Profile private
Messaging not enabled.
I think Pauljaymes has just made a very good point. As every single place isn't usually listed, it would be difficult to know if it was beacause it was bad, or just because it is new etc.
Maybe just a list of the ultra bad as a seperate section, or as Paul says a one liner at the bottom as opposed to giving them the valuable space of a full review.
That way we can know who they are by name, but it won't take away space for more detailed reviews of the good places. Anywhere not listed we will know of as being average and worth a look if everywhere else is full.
#7 Posted: 26/7/2006 - 19:47