This was an interesting article. Check out the map to see what is the top site or thing to see in every country of the world. They often are not what you think they would be.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what-to-do-in-europe_us_58d2cecae4b02d33b74806e6
I can't even think of reducing sites to just one for each country. Can you?
I am chomping at the bit to see the Grand Valira Ski resort in Andorra or Vaduz Castle in Liechtenstein. I have probably been there already, but blinked and missed it.
This article is great for the next time someone posts one of those "I'm planning on going to Europe, what are the 'must sees'" type questions.
It just goes to show -- take everything from TripAdvisor with a grain of salt!
Strange list indeed. Miniatur Wunderland the top sight in Germany? Has Neuschwanstein fallen out of favour? The Musée d'Orsay more popular than the Eiffel Tower? What happened with Sound of Music Salzburg that Vienna is Austrias #1?
The 'top sights' are determined by the ratings of TA users who wrote reviews. In Canada and the US, the top sights are Niagara Falls and Central Park, which means more people visited New York and the relatively nearby falls. More people visit Barcelona and the most popular sight there is the Sagrada Familia. Meaningless data . . .
My review of this article was rater short, but I found its Wisdom lacking. Amazing that the Harry Potter studio would be the top attraction for Britain. That choice is juvenile.
For others, like Greece, it got it right, the Acropolis was the pick. I was unable to read the choice for Rome. My pick would have probably been the incomparable Sistine Chapel.
The choice for the USA was just silly. Niagra Falls is interesting, but the best falls are in Canada. I would have picked the Grand Canyon or perhaps Washington, DC.
Still, it is somebody's opinion and that is what this site is about to disseminate information about travel and that usually includes opinion.
I thought Spain would be the Alhambra-the number one tourist attraction in the country.
France-Eiffel Tower or Louvre. Museum de Orsay is not the first thing on people's bucket list.
RE: Niagara Falls. "Relatively near" meaning an 8-9 hour drive away from NYC. But only about 90 minutes from Toronto.
You get a much better view of the falls in Canada, and the difference between the two cities in the US and Canada named "Niagara Falls" is like the difference between North and South Korea (Canada being the South in this case). But despite being a crappy, rubbish-strewn, drug-ridden dump, I'll give the NY side one plus. You can practically stand right over the falls on the US side, but you can only get close to edge of the falls in Canada.
Interesting reading! Thanks for posting, Ms. Jo!
Germany's 12 times the size of Belgium. Why shouldn't they have 12 must-see sites? There are probably at least 12 town squares in Germany as interesting as the Grand Place.
Monaco isn't even a country; it's a principality. And Germany is 174,336 times it's size, but still the same number of must-see places. Monaco itself doesn't even rank in my list of must-see places, let alone have one.
Lee...a Principality is a type of government. A country is a general term used for sovereign nations not governed by another nation.
But according to your thinking, the United States is 27 times the size of Germany so it should have 27 times the number of sights. And France is almost twice the size of Germany so it should have twice as many sights. In fact, the Ukraine, Spain, Sweden and Norway are all larger than Germany so they should have more sights.
But none of that matters. If you read carefully, it says the ONE thing you must do in each country according to a tourist poll. Not the must sees.
I visited Monaco and enjoyed it.
Jo,
It's interesting to see what TA readers have determined are the "top must see sights". Of course this is subjective so not all will agree.
I've also visited Monaco and quite enjoyed it. It's an unique little corner of Europe (and a very posh one).
It's a pretty bizarre list. I've been to many of them so I guess I can cross the rest of the country off my list.
I'd say these are compiled based on the number of travelers who only see a tiny piece of a country. Barcelona probably accumulates more visits than Granada, St. Petersburg more than Moscow, Niagara Falls more than the Canadian Rockies, Central Park more than Yosemite.
The actual meaning of this is "highest rated sight", which is different from "must see for everyone". As in the Harry Potter case, this will end up being biased towards sights attracting enthusiastic niche audiences who are likely to give high ratings unless they were genuinely disappointed.
When it comes to tourist polls particularly on Germany, I don't follow them at all. On other European countries, say Belgium, Sweden, Finland , Croatia, Italy, Poland, maybe, just depends.
France-Eiffel Tower or Louvre. Museum de Orsay is not the first thing on people's bucket list.
The D'Orsay most certainly is the top item on my list for Paris. Certainly higher than the Eiffel Tower or Louvre.
I pick on this only to show that everybody has their own interests and how much I hate "must-see" lists. A "must-see" site is the one that most interests you. The Prado Museum is my must-see site in Madrid. But if you don't much care for art, it might be way down on the list. I have never been to the Tower of London and don't feel like I've missed much. People seem obsessed with visiting Montserrat while in Barcelona. I finally went after several trips, and found it enjoyable enough, but I wouldn't go out of my way for it.
TripAdvisor has a rating system. Their ratings are based entirely on that system and not on some higher cultural awareness. I've often found the highest rates hotels and restaurants to be bland, mega chains. That's not what I want so I skip over those to find the types of places I do want.
