Photo: A walk in the fields near Tetebatu, Lombok.

About us forum

Do you want to read about bad places?

Posted by somtam2000 on 17/7/2006 at 19:06 admin

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 somtam2000 has been a member since 21/1/2004. Location: Indonesia. Posts: 7,943
 Send somtam2000 a private message   Where has somtam2000 been?   Website   Twitter   Facebook    Flickr    Instagram   Pinterest 

Posted by DannyJ on 17/7/2006 at 22:34

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 DannyJ has been a member since 5/10/2005. Posts: 36

Agoda coupon: Get an extra 7% off selected properties with the coupon code

Posted by marianwarren on 18/7/2006 at 04:28

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.



#3 marianwarren has been a member since 12/3/2006. Posts: 270

Posted by exacto on 18/7/2006 at 14:29

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 exacto has been a member since 12/2/2006. Location: United States. Posts: 2,764
 Send exacto a private message   Where has exacto been? 

Posted by adelene on 19/7/2006 at 01:10

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 adelene has been a member since 8/5/2006. Posts: 19

Posted by pauljaymes on 26/7/2006 at 00:12

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 pauljaymes has been a member since 10/7/2006. Posts: 75

Posted by Kennyd on 26/7/2006 at 19:47

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 Kennyd has been a member since 26/8/2005. Posts: 9

Please login to add a reply

You need to be a Travelfish member to be able to add a reply to this post. Please use the button below to log in. After logging in you'll be returned to this page automatically to add your post. Not a member? Join up here.