Rating sights?

One star for the idea. Colossal waste.

I think this is an intriguing idea, but how would it differ markedly from Tripadvisor's "Things To Do" feature which pretty much lists most attractions in just about anywhere and they are ordered using number of reviews and a radial button system which is like a star-ranking? (in an odd way, I admit, because it's not alphabetic or by total # of reviews or star ranking, and includes some sponsored materials that filters to the top). Because Tripadvisor garners a much bigger universe of reviewers than this site, I would argue that trying to replicate its niche would not be a good use of RS resources.

I think the niche of this site has the features that make it both totally inefficient and totally useful simultaneously, at least to some folks. It relies on lots of open-ended text queries and trust of repeat posters who volunteer their time and efforts to answer the same questions ad nauseum. It's not trying to be systematic about anything and it avoids any designations of "destination expert" that you see in other forums. And this goes without saying, but anything to make this site spiffier or more useful would have to make a strong business case for Rick Steves and his company - he's not likely to invest in updating a free (or inexpensive) resource unless it can demonstrate more business for him in a very direct way (that's hard to do absent of tracking and good metrics). The reason that Tripadvisor has invested in such geographically-based attraction rankings on a web platform is because they're deriving revenue from advertising and sponsored attractions. It doesn't appear that this is the same business model for this forum. I actually don't know what the business model for this forum is, come to think of it, because it's not at all aggressive about driving new business and it's very permissive about discussions of competing businesses. On the other hand, it's very successful about creating good-will and positive reviews (of tours and books) because it's a friendly site that largely draws the best out of people. And goodwill does translate into interest and demand for products.

One caveat may be what happened when RS turned the long, detailed, open-ended (and yet unsystematic and potentially repetitive) tour comments into a ranking format using stars. We know how that turned out. A lot of folks, myself included, don't see it as a positive development. It took a rich set of information and almost took all the richness and life out of it. And now we have rankings that don't differentiate much between the product and are much less useful to consumers. Rankings done right could be useful but they seem like a poor substitute for open-ended text. The ideal may be a combo of the two but rankings in general tend to devalue information and cause people to hyper-focus on the number at the expense of anything else, IMHO. Numbers are also easier to manipulate relative to open-ended text (unless someone truncates parts of it, of course).

This is an interesting idea, and I haven't given it tons of thought. But here are my initial thoughts...

The thing I like about this forum is that it is a relatively small group of people, more or less like-minded, at least on the big stuff. I trust most of them for good advice. I am wondering if the ratings might encourage many more people to respond, people who might have an interest in jacking up ratings for a particular site. When I come here, I am looking for the reasons people like or do not like a site, not just anonymous ratings. Your idea of short comments would help. Maybe I would like this if I used it, but I'm not sitting around wishing for it.

What I would really like is a Like button. That way if someone makes a comment and I see it has 20 likes, I know that a lot of people feel the same way. I rarely will repeat a comment that someone else made, even though it mirrors exactly how I feel. But I would click Like.

I don't rate people, places or things. Life has lost enough dialogue and conversation as it is.

I think its positive that you are trying to suggests improvements. sounds like trip advisor to me.

While on the topic I would love to come across a system that gave you suggested places to visit within a 'set' distance from the area you choose. often while driving through a particular area it would be great to find out what is worth visiting along the way. most systems rely on you knowing the name, which you obviously don't have.

I use paper michellin maps which at least shows the tourist places with a star rating. but an internet system would be great.

anyone know of one?

While a good idea, it is already done on TripAdvisor, Yelp, Google Reviews - to name 3 off the top of my head. I use a combination of all of these & more when planning my travel. Ratings with a brief comment are OK but I prefer the more in-depth why or why not, here is what I liked/didn't like personal experiences.

@glenn - have you looked at Tripomatic?

though this is a reasonable idea there are other websites covering this.One of the things I do like about this website/forum is that it is not too cluttered and when you start to add other functions things get lost and are hard to find.Trip Advisor now is so cluttered with useless stuff that it is almost unusable and I would hate to see the RS site go that way.
I was of the impression when I first joined this website that the majority of people on it were of a more independent thinking nature and seemed quite happy to get basic info and then do a bit of their own research and make their own decisions of what to see and do and I am sure that is something that Mr Steves would encourage, he lays down a foundation or stepping stones and what you do with those is up to you.
I am still of that opinion but there does seem to me to be more and more folk coming to the forums and having to have their hand held throughout the whole trip planning experience.

thanks christi, I will have a look.

The idea reminds me of the good old Michelin guides: a three-star rating for - if I remember correctly - faut le voyage (freely translated: a must-see), mérite le détour (go there if you're around) and intéressant (visit if you've got nothing else to do). But then Michelin had strong opinions on what was worthwhile and what not. The eternal discussions on Neuschwanstein show that people are looking for very different things on their trips.
And, in the line of one previous poster, I'm amazed by the lack of an informed, personal choice of places to visit. At least half the questions about Italy has a reference to Cinque Terre (often abbreviated to »CT«). Poland is Kraków and not much else. Belgium is limited to Brussels and Brugge. The Netherlands is almost invariably Amsterdam and, in season, the Keukenhof.

"Like" button for Frank and Zoe. Thanks for saying it for me and saving me a few keystrokes.

I'm not sure that I would like to reduce the knowledge to a series of numbers.

Perhaps because the OP has a name of bobbing4data that may indicate that reducing things to numbers is what they do.

It really isn't my style.

I have no problem using Rick's pyramid ratings as a starting point -- I know his mind-set and I skip or add to his basic list based on my own interests. Not sure the suggested feature would add pertinent information.

Some people don't really want a definitive, even statistical (voted on) answer, they want opinions and a conversation. And there are a lot of people who come to the site that are completely unfamiliar with RS books, or TV show, so have no idea of his independent travel or his site rating guidance in the books.

Zoe's response is brilliant. And like Laura B, I use Rick's rating system knowing his mind-set as the merest of guidelines when planning my sight-seeing. By the time I decide to visit anywhere I've already got a pretty good idea of what I want to see--and why--and will go whether it gets 1 or 3 stars or none at all. I do like to get an idea of what to expect, though, and find reviews helpful in that regard.