What Makes a Sight "Worth Seeing"?

For me it is sometimes a memory also. We were just in London and I had to go to the Charles Dickens museum. I love his stories and his history. To visit London and not have a small connection to him would have been a big disappointment.

Does a sight have to be imposing and spectacular in order to be interesting or meaningful?

Not at all , many of the sites I seek out are not in any way physically imposing , and some are virtually imperceptible, unless one is aware of the tale it has to tell . There are two factors that will draw me to something , Something I've learned about , and even more importantly, something that I want to learn about . Having an insatiable curiosity is a fortunate trait for me .

The only sights worth seeing are the ones YOU want to see. All the discussion on RS Forums about best ___(fill in the blank) worth seeing__ (fill in the blank again) to me are sheep following the Shepard to the “correct” place.

Mt Fuji isn’t the “best” place or “worth seeing” but I’ve climbed it twice and it was inspiring to hear the Japanese National Anthem echo out as the sun rose over Tokyo Bay. The old masters hung in Musee D’Orsay were worth seeing for me. Go where you want…..that you’ve found, that interests you and you’ll either find it meets your desires or the journey simply continues.

RS gives one a place to start and a method to do it. Participate in the travel planning rather than being fed a menu of “best” and “worth it”.

Memorable sights are so subjective. We have visited off the beaten path both here and abroad and they many times have turned out to be ones that we remember the most. One example here at home are the kitschy stops along Route 66. Many roll their eyes at them, but we have found them to be fun and endearing.

Calvados said it best; RS gives one a place to start and a method to do it. Participate in the travel planning rather than being fed a menu of “best” and “worth it”.

All subject to an individual’s personal interests.

It’s more about nature for me. Glacier National Park, the Amalfi Coast, the hills of southern France, the diversity of Ireland and the like, make me happy. The Eiffel Tower, the Sistine Chapel and such just don’t do the same for me.
Whatever makes your heart sing!

I can't think of any place I have visited that wasn't worth seeing. Of course, there are some places that I am totally glad I visited but have no interest in seeing twice.

The places that I gravitate toward:

• Cities in general - I trying to figure out how and why they developed.

• Places that are a little quirky and off the beaten path

• Places that aren't overrun with crowds.

• Places where I don't have to have a car to get around

The only sights worth seeing are the ones YOU want to see.

Exactly.

Some will say you should go where the "experts" tell you to go because you might like it. Or I may not and it will be a great waste of time when I could have been seeing something I knew I would like.

That's one of the reasons I stopped taking multi day tours. Just too many things in which I had no interest. (I'm not knocking tours. I'm just saying they are no longer right for me. I still take one day tours.)

Thanks for the comments.

I definitely go my own way with choosing what to see, and we all have different priorities, of course, but I am surprised sometimes at what people dismiss as "not worthwhile."

BB, it has been touched on elsewhere, but I feel there are a number of worthwhile places that will be dubbed as 'mislabeled or 'disappointing, given all the visuals on the net. Photo shop, colour manipulation, wide angle photography, distortion...are all skewing expectations if you have never read about it or seen it in proper non adulterated photographs.

Answer

Historical- Pyramids of Egypt, Roman Colliseum, St. Peter's Basicila, Parthenon in Athens, Tower of London, The Great Wall of China and Machu Picchu are good examples

Art- Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo's David, The Louvre, The Prado, The Hermitage

Scenic- Glaciers in Alaska, Fjords of Norway, Cruise around the Horn of South America

Nature and wildlife- Safari in East Africa, Galapagos Islands, Yellowstone National Park

I think what makes it worth it is how much you know about it ahead of time and how much of interest that is. Little point to see the Little mermaid if you dont know who Hans Christian Andersen was, or how significant he was to many people, or care.

This reminds me of an "influencer" who made sure people knew she was a traveler and not a tourist. She wrote that everyone should skip Rome because it was full of tourists.

I saw the Little Mermaid. I didn't get goosebumps.

You would have drag me kicking and screaming to view any garden but might travel out of my way for a historical sight.

To each his own.

I loved seeing it. As a kid, I devoured fairy tales, reading all the
anthologies of fairy tales I could get my hands on. So, both the Hans
Christian Anderson statue and the Little Mermaid statue were
highlights for me in Copenhagen.

Not the Little Mermaid for me, but I get the analogy. I posted last Fall in a Trip Report that we stopped at Ashdown Forest south of London which may be more famous as the Hundred Acre Wood from Winnie the Pooh Fame. Take BB's quote and reference A.A. Milne and Pooh Bear and I'd write the same thing. That stop was deeply personal as a way to honor my Mom for the days we'd read together when I was small. There are some spectacular sites that were spectacular to me, and there are others like Ashdown Forest which are more memorable because of the deep, personal feelings they invoke.

Consider NOT SEEING the site/sight, but taking the time to absorb the environment around the site/sight.
Time is precious, especially while on vacation, but adding moments to absorb peoples interactions, sounds, odors and lighting serve to embellish the experience.
Be there in lieu of see there.

Does a sight have to be imposing and spectacular in order to be interesting or meaningful? What makes a sight "worth seeing" to you?

Any site that is interesting to you is worth seeing. So many people get hung up on what "experts" say to avoid or what they say is a "not to miss".

The best advice is to research. If it sounds interesting to you, give it a go. Just think about all the statements made on this forum. "Not interested in museums, not interested in churches, not a foodie, don't care for hiking, not a shopper, never rent a car, etc."

Everyone is so different. There is no right or wrong,

I really like questions like this because I think about them a lot myself. "To each his own" only leaves me curious... I like to know what is that person's "own" criteria.

For me, historical sites are usually the biggest draw. I'm most attracted to manmade beauty with a backdrop of natural beauty.

I guess sights are like songs to me. A song I've never heard from a band I don't know has to be really catchy or special for me to get it or love it on the first listen. That feeling of hearing a song you already know tickles a different part of the brain. When you learn the story about how the song was written and what it means, you never hear it the same. Sometimes, when I am traveling, something totally new really captures me; but a lot of the time, that feeling of seeing something you anticipate or have some connection to, combined with experiencing it and learning about it, is what makes something feel truly "worth it". The familiarity/anticipation seems to create a shortcut to connection with a sight for me.

Totally unfamiliar sights and foods can be like having to sit through a lame opener at a concert you've been dying to go to... or like finding your new favorite band. But, seeing the things you have already had on your list can feel like hearing a favorite song sung by the artist in person- and the unmatched feeling of singing it out loud along with everyone in the crowd. Maybe you already knew the song, but it was still so worth it to buy the ticket and go to the show. For some people, it's an amazing experience, but doing it again would diminish the magic. Others become super fans and go to see the same artist sing the same songs over and over and it never gets old.

Allan, that's just it. "Sometimes the smallest things take the most room in your heart."

I love stunning scenery and amazing architecture, of course, but I think what we're talking about is context.

Based on the responses here, what occurs to me is that, the more context one has for a sight, the more one appreciates it. So, for me, while seeing the Little Mermaid wasn't a "wow," awe-inspiring moment like, say, Montserrat or St. Peter's Basilica were, it was still "worthwhile," because I had the context to appreciate it (beyond the Disney movie).

So, I'm thinking that some things are "worth seeing" because they are inherently grand and awe-inspiring, and context isn't necessary to appreciate them, although it certainly enhances the experiences. Whereas other sights are not necessarily going to appeal to those who either don't have the context or have no interest in that particular bit of history/literature/etc. Makes sense.

There's also the delight in discovering hidden treasures, off-the-beaten path sights, as some have mentioned. I think about walking the moat below Prague Castle, for instance, and discovering the troll statue there.

But back to context, this is why guidebooks and tours and doing research can help enrich travel, I guess, because these all help to provide context.

Sometimes, when I am traveling, something totally new really captures me; but a lot of the time, that feeling of seeing something you anticipate or have some connection to, combined with experiencing it and learning about it, is what makes something feel truly "worth it". The familiarity/anticipation seems to create a shortcut to connection with a sight for me.

Exactly, Sleight! Again: context.

Sometimes, when I am traveling, something totally new really captures
me; but a lot of the time, that feeling of seeing something you
anticipate or have some connection to, combined with experiencing it
and learning about it, is what makes something feel truly "worth it".
The familiarity/anticipation seems to create a shortcut to connection
with a sight for me.

This almost sounds like it was cribbed from Esther Perel ;)

@Ongonos

These types of associations end up being my favorite most of the time. I know a lot of people get absolutely giddy over seeing something they know absolutely everything about, but it's usually something I would really like to see or have some point of reference for... enough for my brain to light up with any kind of recognition. It's almost like a base or a link for the coming info... most of which is fresh, along with the fresh experience.

Everyone has a must see. And these can be fantastic, and life altering.

I wanted to see an actual Jacquard loom work in Lyon France . Just because I'm a computer nerd, nerds know what this means. My wife is in the field of textiles. Fascinating to me, and fascinating to her, but for very different reasons. Win, Win.:)

Everyone has different reasons for seeing some place important for them. When those things match, it is a beautiful thing.

I sometimes wonder about you solos. I did that. And you know what,... all those experiences are just mine. Not shared. They only live in MY head. Not shared. And when I tell an odd story, it is suspect, even if it is true. Cause I had no one else there to say the story is correct.

Don't travel alone, if you have other options. Any other options are better. Call up an old friend. Do it together. Its is then, twice the trip. Cause you will see it all, differently. And this is a wonderful other perspective from that other travel partner.

The Mona Lisa is not exactly big but millions (billions?) have gone to see it. So size is not the issue.
The issue is that one persons must see is another persons must avoid.
We all have our interests. This is what causes the “bucket lists” and discussions of them.

In general I can’t stand “art museums” and avoid looking at paintings if possible, with a very few notable exceptions. It is not that I hate them but after a few they all blend together and I get board with them. Others can spend days looking at them. To each their own.

That being said things i was not particularly interested in seeing have on occasion turn out to be fabulous and I loved them. The big waterfall in Switzerland on the Rhine (I forget it’s name right now) was much more enjoyable then I expected, and I had no interest in Stonehenge (despite its historical value) but I went as my dad wanted to see it, and it was amazing to see in person.
On the other hand a certain rock that my great to the something Grandfather stood around (probably complaining that they were out of beer ) was disappointing when I was in Plymouth. Fortunately I was just driving past so did not go out of my way. And if it wasn’t for the personal family bit that my ancestors stood there centuries before it would have been (to me) a complete waste of time.

But I have spent hours looking at the roof structure in Westminster.
So in conclusion I don’t think anything is “not worth see”. I just think that some things are worth more to some individuals than other things are to them. So to each their own.

I am the guilty party when it comes to the Little Mermaid.

But I not declare it “not worth seeing”. In response to a question about “must sees” in Copenhagen, I said my own “must see” there is the Museum of Danish Resistance, and I described my favorite walking route to that museum (I do this every time I am in Copenhagen). I suggested that after the museum, they could easily continue the walk through the fortress to the Little Mermaid, “if you have an interest” in seeing it. Then I cautioned that some people say it is “overrated”—-which is something I have learned from reading trip reports and reviews of Copenhagen tourist attractions. In other words, if they don’t have a personal interest in the statue—such as fond memories from reading the fairy tale—-I would not put it on the “must see” list for them.

This is a perfect illustration of how difficult it can be to answer the “is it worth it” question. Everyone has their own criteria, personal to them, so it actually is impossible to answer the question. I know of one well-respected member of the TripAdvisor forums, posting in the California national park forums, who declines to answer the “must see” or “is it worth it” question altogether. She simply says “there are no ‘must sees’. It is YOUR trip and you get to choose what to see”.

Maybe that is the best answer.

I can only decide whether a sight is worth seeing after I have seen it.

Lola, you weren't the only one, and that was just an example. I have read/heard of many sights dismissed as not worth seeing or overrated. Yet, if/when I see them, I usually am glad I did. The Leaning Tower of Pisa is another example. I wasn't going to go, because so many people say it isn't worth seeing, but I was tired of the crowds in Florence and decided to go anyway. I thought it was gorgeous and would have been worth seeing even if it didn't lean.

Stonehenge is another, as mentioned upthread. It is frequently dismissed as not "worth seeing," in part, because it is small, and sometimes because of the reconstructions. Again, I'm very glad I got to visit it (although I'm also very glad I did the "inner circle" early entry option.)

Of course everyone has different interests. That's why I usually try to suggest a variety of options. In the case of the Copenhagen thread, the poster has only one day in Copenhagen, if I recall correctly, so would have to pick and choose from all the suggestions anyhow. When I listed my Copenhagen suggestions, I grouped nearby sights together, although I guess I neglected to point that out. I completely agree that it makes sense to see the statue while visiting other, nearby sights.

I reacted to the word, "small" in one of the responses, because that seems to be a frequent reason for dismissing a sight as overrated or not worth seeing: (the Little Mermaid, Stonehenge, the Mona Lisa). My point is that, for me, a sight does not have to be awe-inspiring or imposing to be worth seeing. It can be small and humble and still be meaningful. A few years ago, I had the opportunity to see van Gogh's "Starry Night" at the MOMA. It was smaller than I'd expected. But still, I was so overwhelmed by the experience, that I stood there and wept.

Shrug. Maybe I'm too easily amused. I don't know.