This is probably an odd little question, but here goes.
You know how guidebooks usually recommend how much time to spend at a given destination? Do those times accord with your own expereinces? Are they realistic?
Because they don't accord with mine. I see books telling readers to "linger" over a place for, say, 3 days. Yet, when I was there, I was ready to leave after a day and a half. I'd seen the sites and walked the walk and that was it. Time to go.
For example, I see books recommending that we spend half a day in some cute little English villages. Now, I know some cute little English villages rather well. You can walk through them in 10 minutes. Unless you are there to complete some specific and specialized task, I can't imagine what you would do in such a place to consume half a day, other than hanging out in the local pub. And, if you do that, you'd better plan on spending the night.
Now, maybe that's just me. Maybe I just rush around too much. (I don't think so. I go walkabout, see the sites, talk with people, stop when something interests me, and eat three meals.)
But, I've got guidebooks telling me to spend several days exploring place that I've already visited, and I can't imagine what I'm supposed to do for all that time.
This is a factor when planning a tour of an unfamiliar destination, of course. Have you ever found a guidebook's recommended length-of-stay to be way too long?
(Have to say the Steves books seem more in line with my tastes. E.g., while he lays out a 21-day tour of Britain, I've got other books that recommend a week for the western half of Cornwall alone. Not that they ever say what's supposed to take so much time)