Hi team

Heh given the time of year, I'm not expecting an immediate reply to this one, but I have a question for you that I've been thinking on for a little while.

Before I start, I promise I'm not taking a dig at anyone; it is a general question ;o)

I am very interested in your opinions which should (hopefully) help us decide how we progress with these in future. I'm just hoping you don't fall 50:50 on either side lol

Di and I have both recently had SAP requests from folk wanting us to create topics for what I can best describe as "part attractions" i.e say there's a museum and a surrounding park with one or two additional attractions within it. We are occasionally getting 2 or 3 SAP requests for each separate component.

The entrance fee could possibly be simply "all in" (so all attractions are on one ticket), or sometimes you can choose the "all in" ticket or you can pick and choose which attractions you want to pay for, and buy a couple of cheaper tickets.

We did have a rough rule of thumb that said "if the attraction had one all in ticket fee it should be one topic" but of course we have all things Disney which is counter to this... And over the past two years or so, more reviewers have got into the habit of writing shorter reviews.

One problem is that some folk are rating these reviews lower, because they expect to see information about the whole attraction (apart from with all things Disney, where we have got used to rating individual rides).

Phew, sorry this has to be my longest message board post... any thoughts??

Chris

Hi Chris!

I do so love to participate in discussions of all things travel-related, but I really don't have a strong opinion on this subject. On one hand, I feel that whatever gets folks motivated to write is a good thing, and on the other, I can see where at a certain point it can lead to confusion and SAP craziness.

I'm sure you guys have a better idea than I do about exactly what type of things you are talking about potentially adding, and thus in a more knowledgeable position to weigh the pros and cons than I am.

And...this post was of no help whatsoever. Sorry for my lack of passion one way or the other.

Michelle

No worries Michelle - if folk aren't too concerned either way, that's useful information too!

I can take your point that we should look at things by a case by case basis. We could do this (and I guess we actually have been doing), but I know it can cause confusion amongst reviewers who see us setting up topics sometimes and on other times not.

Happy to see if anyone else has any comments, or can offer any strong argument in either direction...

Chris

In general, I do not like the "part attractions" and prefer the broader categories.

If I were a person researching a trip to Disneyland, I would not be interested in reading about each ride separately - especially with the way the Epinions database is. An overview that briefly goes over a bunch of rides is something I'd find more interesting, more helpful, and less time-consuming.

If the database made it easier to find all sub-attractions and related items, then perhaps I'd feel differently. Since that's never going to happen, I prefer to see one listing per attraction, with room for the occasional exception.

A little bit of what everyone has said . . .

Like Michelle I don't feel too passionate one way or the other, but there are instances where I feel it benefits to be separate and others when they should be in one listing.

Case in point--Washington Park in Portland OR (where I grew up and know a little too well)

It has many separate attractions with their own websites and each actually charge separate admissions and are run by different organizations. In this case, I can see the point for separating them.

In another case Museum X has a brand new location across town with totally different focus. Definitely can see the need for a different listing here.

But if another attraction (other than our beloved Disney) has separate attractions that can be bought as package or separately, and they're all in the same physical location, and share the same web site, well, maybe not.

However, how do you as a lead sit here and make that decision? It can easily go either way. As Advisors and TRs we can probably make that distinction on what would be the better choice if we've been some place. But for the person who doesn't write on a regular basis in travel, it can be a bit more difficult.

Okay, as you can tell I don't have a definitive answer on this.

Peggy