Why?

If you don't get it, perhaps move on from those posts.

Obviously, not everyone has unlimited time to travel in Europe and take their time doing it. People travel during school holidays. People have jobs and only a few weeks of vacation a year. Flying can be expensive especially if you're flying a whole family and you can only afford to go once a year or every other year. So you want to see as much as possible while you're there. I'm sure you know all this already, so I'm unsure if you are asking a legitimate question or just venting about a travel style that you don't approve of. If it's not your style of travel and it bothers you to see other people travel this way, then just skip those posts asking for advice.

Unfortunately, many of us do not have unlimited travel days. So, when trip planning, it does come down to how many days should I spend in X location.

Many come to the forum to seek out the wisdom of experienced travelers to help with this difficult decision.

Sure, the responses will be subjective, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t helpful.

Sorry, but I just don't get it.

I don't either. I'm trying to ignore these discussions.

We often stay a week in the world class cities. In other areas I identify the places we want to visit and add one day for “serendipity” or unplanned special events. We consider travel between cities to be counted as their own days. Depending on time, closeness or who knows what these rules might change. You hear of people spending a month in a location, but doubt we ever will. That said, the idea has been tossed around. Trip length for us is a minimum of 3 weeks when flying overseas. At 4-5 weeks we are ready to come home. Yes, we are retired. When we worked trips could be 10 days=booked marked with 2 weekends.

Last month you asked another inflammatory question but didn't respond to anyone's comments. I like to ask questions and engage in conversation on this Forum to find out what makes people tick, so I'll ask; are you asking to ask, or asking to judge?

Slightly modified from the Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock:

Oh, do not ask, "Why is it?" Let us go and make our visit.

In the room the women come and go Talking of Michelangelo.

Min/max problem! You have X days to see Y things with Z budget? What is the solution? Using a liquid helium cooled quantum computer, I have come up with an answer. 42.

My take: I read this guy named Rick Steves and he's an expert on travel. And his recommendations on what to see, how to budget your time (and your budget), and how to do it efficiently, well, pretty darn good!

Happy travels!

I think many people just lack skill planning and/or are intimidated by the idea of foreign travel, and would just prefer to have another person give them an answer. Others just approach foreign travel without an understanding of their own interests - they just want to go. Or they have unrealistic expectations, and need an experienced opinion. For me, this is what guidebooks are for. But people want shortcuts and asking "tell me what I want" questions is what they've learned to do.

I do think RS could beef up their guidance on basic planning skills. Too many people come here with itineraries that don't take into account time management, geography, travel time between cities or sights, or base their thinking on what works in the US. Communication on social media is something we're still learning too..

This kind of a question is a mystery to me, too. I do wonder how much of this type of question is driven by the RS-style tours that spend a day or max two in each city (except the week-long city-intensive tours, of course). No one ever seems to review tours by saying "I wish we had stayed in x city for x more days." For some, a day is enough; for others two weeks isn't. Asking someone else how long should I stay is like asking them would if I would like dark chocolate or milk chocolate more. How would they know? I decide how long to stay based on my research. Do I want to spend time, and how much, in x number of museums? Am I happy sitting with a coffee somewhere or wandering aimlessly for a day, two, or more? Do I want to try to do day trips from the city? If so, how many? How can I factor these priorities into the time I have in that city or on that trip? And don't forget to factor in the time you need for administrative stuff like checking in and out of the hotel, time eaten up getting to and using public transportation. In 10 days, lopping off arrival and departure days, that leaves you with 8 useful days. If you change locations every day or two it seems like you would be using a disproportionate amount of time doing that rather than seeing what you came to see. Sometimes less is more. In planning, I use books, magazines, websites, talking with family and friends, and yes, forums like these, but I would never rely on someone else to tell me how long I need to stay or what I need to see when I'm there.

Last month you asked another inflammatory question but didn't respond to anyone's comments. I like to ask questions and engage in conversation on this Forum to find out what makes people tick, so I'll ask; are you asking to ask, or asking to judge?

Allan, good catch. I just went back the other post and it was the same type of question. A question that is asking for judgment of people who post here. And then the OP never responded, like you said. This seems to be that same sort of question.

Mardee, can you please direct me to the thread where I failed to respond? Thank you in advance.

And to anyone else who was offended by my post, I apologize. Maybe I've been on too many football message boards. But it is a legitimate question, and people should be able to give it an answer.

Unfortunately, one can’t be as spontaneous traveling as in the past so there needs to be some way to plan things out for reserving lodging, attractions, etc. There are always more things to see than time to see them. Invariably there end up being places where additional time would have been nice and others where less time would have been appropriate. When planning for a trip you don’t know what you don’t know.

It really doesn’t matter whether you get it or not. Travel in the manner that works for you.

I like to advise posters with those sorts of open-ended questions that the more they can tell us about themselves and their traveling companions, if any, the more constructively the good folks here can help them. For instance, I would answer the "How long?" question differently for the visitor to, say, Florence who enjoys museums, art and/or history than for one whose interests lean heavily to beaches, shopping and/or clubbing.

Budget, time and/or mobility limitations, season of the trip and even size and ages of a group come into play as well so filling those blanks helps to customize advice to their specific situation. LOL, we've probably all seen a thread go all to heck because of the late-in-the-conversation addition of info that can change the game significantly, eh?

Just skip the question if you don’t get it. Move on.

Most people have a limited amount of vacation time. They are just asking for other people’s opinions on how to divide up their days.

Mardee, can you please direct me to the thread where I failed to respond? Thank you in advance.

Sure, Marty - here is a link to it. https://community.ricksteves.com/travel-forum/general-europe/i-have-to-ask

That's why I posted my reply. When someone drops a question like that, which can call for a certain amount of criticism towards fellow forum members, I do look at it a little askance, and would expect the original poster (in this case, you), to respond and interact with the responsive comments. When you don't, it makes me wonder if you're just looking to start an argument.

If I'm wrong (and I often am), I apologize, but I do think it would help if you would response to some of the comments made here. Perhaps that would give us more insight into why you asked this question. And why it's important to you.

Others just approach foreign travel without an understanding of their
own interests - they just want to go.

Stan comes up with simple but solid answers...a lot. One day I'll make it to KC(?) when the Jays are in town and I'm going to ask Stan if we wants to meet me at the game. His wisdom will make me brighter than I already pretend I am. Anyway, my first trip to Europe was 2014 and as I've said before in this Forum, I had no idea that I wanted to go to Europe until my wife told me that I did. We had no idea if Rome in a day or a week was the best idea. We went to the Vatican Museum with no understanding or interest in Renaissance Art, but just because it's a place you go when in Rome. What we came away with was an appreciation of what we saw, and experience of what we'd do differently the next time. We spent 5 days in Rome, and now we know we don't need 5 days in Rome anymore, we need less. Some people will say more, that's because we all have different opinions on how we want to do things.

Let's ask the OP again, what is your motivation for asking, why do you think it's a legitimate question?

Thanks, Mardee. In that thread, since I received, as I count it, 47 answers, I didn't see any need to say anything else. It seemed like the subject was covered. Asked and answered. No need to drag it out further.

Marty. So, how many days did you do in Seville?

Treemoss2, I was in Seville for 3 weeks.

Thanks, Mardee. In that thread, since I received, as I count it, 47 answers, I didn't see any need to say anything else. It seemed like the subject was covered. Asked and answered. No need to drag it out further.

Maybe, but generally it's considered courteous (and avoids red flags) if you don't just drop the question and leave.

That said, I'm glad you are responding here. So my response to you is one word: logistics. Certainly you can avoid the 2 days here, 3 days there issue you are talking about by just heading to Europe, getting off the plane and taking yourself to wherever you want. No booking ahead, no train reservations; just wandering through Europe.

But of course, that doesn't take into account the fact that you can find yourself in a place where you can't find lodging. Or the only lodging you can find is pretty pitiful. Or you wind up paying 3x the advance fare for a train trip because you didn't book it in advance. Or find yourself standing in a 2 hour line to get into a major attraction (and then being turned away), because you got there at the last minute and didn't book your ticket ahead of time.

Times have changed. Many of use have been traveling for decades, and we may have traveled that way 30+ years ago. My first trip was one where I did everything at the last minute and went where the wind took me. But that's difficult to do these days, and I'm not young anymore. I like to have the security of a booked hotel room, and knowing my train ticket is affordable because I booked 4 weeks ahead of time. Don't you?

Three weeks in Seville! How marvelous!

Sounds like a great time!

My wife and I did a month in Malaga (taking Spanish classes and escaping the Cleveland snow) and loved it. Seville might have been a better choice! We loved the few days we were in Seville. Absolutely stunning city.

Happy travels.

Thanks, David.

And again, to anyone who was offended by my original question, I will try not to put so much snark into my questions in the future.

After digesting the responses, and thinking about it, I would answer my original question this way: If one wants to know how many days they need in a particular place, the first thing they should do is ask themselves why they are going there. The answer to that question will lead directly to the answer about how many days to spend.

OP - it's not necessary that you get it. You either answer the question or move on along.

Travelers may not be the travel addicts that we are and this may be their once in a life time trip. They have limited time and travel within a certain budget. Someone asking about the amount of time in location X, is looking for some little guidance to effectively budget their resources. Hike your own hike.

Mardee, you asked, "I like to have the security of a booked hotel room, and knowing my train ticket is affordable because I booked 4 weeks ahead of time. Don't you?"

When I was a teenager, many decades ago, my parents would fly to Europe, usually France, without reservations. They would get off the plane, rent a car, and drive until they decided to stop, usually in some little village. Of course this was before Expedia and the internet, so they had to park the car, walk someplace, and ask if there was a hotel nearby. I don't think I could do that, even though it is so much easier today. But it is something I aspire to. Maybe some day we'll do it. We did it in California, and it was fantastic. We had a return flight scheduled in a week, and that was it. I don't know if I can talk my wife into doing that in Europe.

*As if there is some sort of formula or method to determine the answer."

The interesting aspect of this question for me, is getting to know other sources, including other travelers on the forum, and interpreting their answers as a "formula" for my own.

Examples...

I like to spend about 2x as many nights as the Rick Steves tours, 3x if it's a bigger town.

Another forum traveler enjoys museums, but I usually spend about 2/3 as long in them.

One of my early sources for destination research gives me a list of 15 things to see. From experience, I count the number of their "big ticket attractions" that interest me, and use that in my "formula."

And I like to have extra time to wander and discover, so my "formula" only includes one big ticket attraction per day.

So I do have a sort of "formula" to estimate my allocation to a place. That formula relies on trusted sources, such as the forum, and learning how other travel styles compare to my own.

Knowing those other styles, and knowing myself, I calculated that I wanted to stay longer than 3 days in Seville. I stayed a week, and loved it. Not everyone would.

I would ask, why are you traveling?

It takes time to learn the answer to this question. And over time, the answer may change.

In the beginning, if everyone says "you should spend at least 3 days" in Seville, or a week in Paris. Then you might go there for 3 days. And if you like it, you might go back for 5 days. And then 2 weeks. Eventually, you might go back to Paris every year for a month - as one of our lovely forum members does.

A love for a place might start with those first 3 days. A love for travel might start with those 3 day stays. The 3 days that got you hooked on going back. Perhaps got you hooked on staying longer.

Or maybe, you will learn that 3 days is just right. For you.

In one job that I held, I used to quip that "I don't answer Why questions. "Why does it work this way? Sorry, I don't answer Why questions.

I actually like this Why question.

When I read the "help me with my itinerary" posts, it seems to me that maybe 90 percent of them are too busy - too many changes of location, too many things scheduled per day, and involve a series of one and two night stays, for instance - I and others often point out that some of these itineraries involve more travel time - more checking into a hotel, checking out, and catching a plane or train to do it again in another location - than actual sightseeing time. So "too many" is my subjective response to most of those threads. I give my opinion, and move on.

There is no right or wrong, just different approaches and styles. I would tell someone to look at the pacing of an RS tour and use that as a guide for a reasonably paced itinerary that will provide the "overview" kind of trip that many people seek, particularly first timers. But even the RS tours are intended as an "introduction" to a region or to multiple countries, not as a comprehensive "do everything" trip, and will help you learn what you enjoyed, what you could do without, and where you might want to return for a deeper dive.

"There is no right or wrong, just different approaches and styles."

There are for those afflicted with FOMO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_missing_out

[snip]
Fear of missing out (FOMO) is the feeling of apprehension that one is either not in the know about or missing out on information, events, experiences, or life decisions that could make one's life better.[2] FOMO is also associated with a fear of regret,[3] which may lead to concerns that one might miss an opportunity for social interaction, a novel experience, a memorable event, profitable investment, or the comfort of loved ones.

You could ask "Why" or similar on many of the questions posted.

How do you answer "What's the best xxx" when no parameters are give? Are you looking for cheapest, most luxurious, most convenient, ???

My husband has observed that I frequently say "I don't get X" when what I mean is partly "I don't like X." "I don't understand what's fun about getting drunk, I don't know why people go to Italy for a week just to laze around on the beach, I don't get why people like to shop" are three of such comments, and I genuinely have trouble imagining being those people.

But I also, on this forum and in one of my volunteer jobs, try to answer questions. I figure I have to translate a question like "Is Paris worth going to?" or "I've been to Rome, Venice, and Florence, where else should I go?" or "How touristy is Orvieto?" into a question I CAN answer, perhaps by asking for more information, perhaps by trying to determine what they actually mean by the question. I do just skip a bunch, though!

The answer to your question is that everyone has different travel styles, different budgets, different interests, different schedules, and different reasons for travel.

If you don't get that, it reflects much more on you than on anyone else.

Lane, I understand all that. What I would say is that if you need to ask how many days to spend at a particular location, you need to take a step back and ask yourself why you are going there in the first place. Because the answer to "how many days" should come directly from the answer to "why are you going there."

"How many days do I need in Madrid?"
"Why are you going to Madrid?"
"I want to see the Prado Museum."
"Then you need one day."
"How many days do I need in Paris?"
"Why are you going to Paris?"
"I want to see all the sights and eat all the food."
"Then you need at least a couple of weeks."
The question, "how many days do I need," is impossible to answer unless you know why you are going there in the first place. That's why I asked the original question- why do people do that as if there is some correct answer? It makes no sense.

I see this question a lot: “How many days do I need in [place]?” As if
there is some sort of formula or method to determine the answer.
Invariably, people will answer, something like, “You need 3 days
there.”

What is the basis for such an answer?

I do give an answer, and often I qualify the answer with “this is how many days it will take to do what the average tourist wants to do”. Now the premise of an average tourist could be argued, so maybe I should be more specific and say the that this is how many days it would take most people to take in the major tourist sites in the city.

Even then, for Budapest, I say you can do it in 3 full days, but four is better and five is ideal .... again to see that which I believe most tourists come to the city for. Given the limited information posters provide, its the best I can do.

If my rationale is off-putting, well know you know it and you can skip past my posts … or if it works for you, nice to meet you.

As for the question itself. To call it inflammatory is to be inflammatory. Its unnecessary. There is no forum requirement for the OP to ever answer and quite a few don’t on a whole host of questions. But, if the style of question is bothersome and if you know from past experience that the OP will to respond and you find that objectionable then there is a very certain recourse; skip it and move on.

Marty, I have another question that you might want to ask the group. "Why would anyone take advice from a complete stranger on a travel forum. Especially one who shrouds who they are, where they are from, when and where they have traveled and any and all personal information that would provide some clue to providing a judgment as to the quality of the advice."

How many roads must a man walk down before you call him a man? How
many seas must the white dove sail before she sleeps in the sand? Yes,
and how many times must the cannonballs fly before they're forever
banned?

[Refrain] The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind The answer is
blowin' in the wind

You know when it comes to travel, sometimes for me it's about capturing as many experiences as possible! Go go go! Grab the brass ring! Put in the steps! Charge! See as much as possible!

Other times, it's lingering over a sunset.

Asking why is always a good idea! Also, asking why not is not bad either. So if someone asks me how many days for Seville, I'd vary my answer based on what I gathered was their goal and share my perspective. (Three days is plenty to see the key things and a month isn't hardly enough to see quarter of what matters!)

And this thread has generated much food for thought!

Happy travels.

The answer is that if you are able to take a 3 week trip and you spend it all in Sevilla, then you will have seen Sevilla in some detail but nowhere else. For you, that’s obviously enjoyable and worthwhile. For others, they want to see more cities than just Sevilla because maybe they won’t be able to return to Spain. That’s worthwhile to them.

There’s no right or wrong answer. I would enjoy both types of trip and both have positives and negatives.

"If one wants to know how many days they need in a particular place, the first thing they should do is ask themselves why they are going there." - Well said, Marty, though I found nothing wrong with your original comments or the comments in your related thread.

Respond with suggestions based on your own experience, that's all we can do. And don't 'must see' me, matey, or else......

Some here may be missing the point. Here are some Fundamental Truths, and an opinion/observation.

Fundamental Truth #1: As Rick Steves has pointed out repeatedly, incessantly.... (Paraphrasing): "Americans have some the shortest vacations in the world. We simply don't take much time off." This is generally VERY true, though it might be hard to imagine from someone who just spent a month in Seville on his recent trip (lucky you). The hard, cold fact is the vast majority of Americans have very, very short time that they can spend in Europe. We regularly see people here post about their week-long proposed trip to Europe, or "two whole weeks." It's great if you can be away for many weeks or months, but for the vast majority of Americans, they have to (or just want to) squeeze in their trip to Europe and do it with as many days as they can count on their fingers (or fingers and a few toes). Can't imagine that? Take a look at the most popular tours that RSE sells (Top Sellers): the most popular tours are just 9 or 10 days long. There are some 12-17 tours, but there are also a couple of 7-day tours. All of them cover a LOT of ground. That's what people want (or need). Bottom line: Rick Steves has been very successful, in part because he knows his target customers. They tend to have very short vacations. That is the norm.

Fundamental Truth #2: Travel planning is all about making choices, about trade-offs. Unless you have infinite time (and plenty of money) you can't do everything. This is true if your trip is just a long weekend, or even if it's a year-long sabbatical. The choices and trade-offs are a lot easier if you have a whole year to play with. Trying to squeeze in a trip to Spain in 10 days (or even 30 days), the choices and trade-offs are a lot harder for most people. Those get easier (at least a little) if you tell yourself "I will return" and you convince yourself you will go to Europe often. Unfortunately, for some folks (many, in fact) a trip to Europe is (or feels like it's going to be) a once-in-a-lifetime event. For those who are elderly or have serious health issues, that may be true. It's often an economic reality for the non-affluent. So when someone asks "how many days is enough for...." they're working on making those hard choices.

Opinions/Observations: Many people are not very skilled at articulating a good question. And online, many often will simply use common phrases like "Is it worth it?" or "How many days is enough?" to solicit opinions that they can use to help make their travel planning decisions and tradeoffs. Of course, nobody can really answer those questions adequately because they are subjective, and they depend on both personal preferences/whims (which are impossible for others to know), and because they require context and comparisons - is a day or a week or a month in Paris "worth it"? Compared to what? How else might you spend that day/week/month? Have you been to Paris/other places before? And a hundred other questions whose answers won't be provided. The "Is it worth it" and "how many days" phrases are a form of short-hand, to solicit opinions from others who have had to make those same trade-offs before (and lived with the consequences). Sure, answers to those questions are going to be of limited value, but it's the best many people can do, and it can, at least, be a useful starting/data point. Especially so for first-time travelers and others struggling to figure out what are in fact complex challenges and hard choices involving too-few days and too-many places they really want to see.

Cut them some slack, it's not easy, and we all were confused noobs once (well, most of us). Someday maybe they will have the luxury of taking longer trips (and making other trade-offs).

Great post, David. You made a lot of very good points.

There are for those afflicted with FOMO

I agree, FOMO has a lot to do with it. With the internet, and social media, and "influencers" who taunt us with them "living my best life", is it any wonder that FOMO is so real when it comes to travel?

Forty or so years ago I made my first trip to Europe. I had 2 weeks, and a free roundtrip ticket to Frankfurt. I likely would have never picked Frankfurt as a destination, but it was the start and end point...I bought a Eurailpass...and I studied whatever Rick Steves guidebook was published at that time, and I put together an itinerary via bus and train that took me to Koblenz after arrival at the Frankfurt airport, a return boat ride to Frankfurt, then on to Munich, Venice, Florence, Milan, Wengen, Lausanne, Paris, and back to Frankfurt for the return flight home.

I learned from that trip where once was enough, and also where I knew I could never spend enough of my life visiting. Most of you know where that special place is for me, Paris. Once was enough for Frankfurt, Venice, Florence...I have returned to Munich, Wengen, and Lausanne twice. I wish to return to Milan for a deeper dive, will do that soon. But I have returned to Paris 15 times, and will go again this year. (Also during that 40 years I expanded my horizons and found my other favorites, repeaters like London, Budapest, Berlin, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, and a few others).

Would I have listened to the advice I give out here at that young age? No, I would not, and I am glad I didn't. I should remember that when I tell someone here "too much, slow down" because I was once in their shoes.

This question has generated a lot of good discussion! I agree with a lot of the comments.

When someone, whether it's on Rick Steves, another site, or with actual humans in person, asks me this question, I then respond by asking a lot of the questions that have already been mentioned about why they picked that location, what they like to do on vacation or when they're at home. Then I can suggest specific things to do in that location, and they can decide if they want to include X or Y in their days at that location.

For example, a friend just asked me for ideas for her three days in London, where she is visiting her son before meeting a friend in France, so her days are already set. But she and I talked about what interests her, what places in London she had on her tentative list, to see which things in her limited time she would want to do. That's the fun of trip-planning, I think, or of providing travel planning suggestions or advice; that back and forth to help them figure how what they want to do (and for how many days).

And like others, I've gotten much better over time at deciding what places me and my travel partner would want to spend more or less time in. We love museums, which some do and some don't. We like a bigger variety of restaurant choices, which means that a small village with one restaurant may not appeal to us. We don't like hanging out on beaches. Ideally, we like trips with some big city time, some time in small cities, and time in the countryside. And almost always, we would spend more time in a place than an organized tour would.

"I don't understand what's fun about getting drunk" - you been reading my bio, Nancy?

If one wants to know how many days they need in a particular place,
the first thing they should do is ask themselves why they are going
there. The answer to that question will lead directly to the answer
about how many days to spend.

I think that assumes that inexperienced travelers are familiar with the logistics of seeing a city on a sightseeing tour but that isn't necessarily the case.

Although this isn't my personal travel style, suppose someone is going to Rome (never having been to Europe before) and wants to see the Coliseum, the Forum, the Spanish Steps, the Trevi Fountain, Piazza Navona, the Vatican Museum, etc. etc. They aren't about taking a deep dive they are about checking all the boxes. Never having been to Rome, they might be genuinely unsure of how long it would take to do all those things. I think a pretty standard answer is "3 days" if the question includes "we have 10 days in Europe, how long will it take to 'see' Rome?"

And like other people here already mentioned, everyone doesn't have the luxury of a month at a time in Europe so they want to schedule their trip down to the hour so as not to miss a thing.

I can "see" Paris, London, Rome, Dublin, or even NYC in three days if all I want to do is hit the high points. So it is probably considered a Rule of Thumb in traveling which is why you see that same answer every time.

That's why I asked the original question- why do people do that as if
there is some correct answer?

I'll add that IMO there are an any number of answers as each of has what an ideal trip to any specific location would entail. I often travel for F1 races and beer festivals. These events add significantly to the number of days I will spend in a city regardless of the other attractions that I may find there.

Every travel book provides a proposed itinerary for cities and whole countries. So, I would like every one of these "How many" post to begins with "I have read Steve's (or anyone's) book and have a question about 2 days in Seville".

Respectfully, Rick's suggested itineraries are too rushed for many of us so yes, there's no singular answer to the question. As well, they can be thrown off if, for example, a day of a suggested one or two-day itinerary is one that a chunk of the main attractions are closed.

Would I have listened to the advice I give out here at that young age? No, I would not, and I am glad I didn't. I should remember that when I tell someone here "too much, slow down" because I was once in their shoes.

Jojo Rabbit, I agree with this so much. I still remember my first trip to Europe (the UK) 30+ years ago. I spent the first 5 days in London, but then rented a car and for 7 days/8 nights I drove from place to place, sleeping in a different town every night. I started in the Cotswolds, heading to the Peak District, Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, Northumberland, Cumbria, Porthmadog in north Wales, Bath and then back to London—all in 7 days.

If someone listed this as their itinerary today, I would try to talk them out of it, but maybe I shouldn't. I do try to point out the pitfalls of traveling like that, but honestly, I had a blast back then.I spent each night in a different place, but wouldn't have done it any other way. I still think about that trip and how glorious it was. Perhaps we all need a trip like that to compare to our staid progress today.

Ironically, when I made my almost 6-week trip to the UK last year, I chose almost the same route, substituting Cornwall/Devon for the Cotswolds and Liverpool for Wales. But seeing the areas at such a fast pace 30+ years ago left a longing in me to spend more time there. And I did, many years later. Maybe it can be a good thing to see something at a fast clip in order to sort out the places we would like to revisit in the future.

It occurs to me that the idea of "doing" a place doesn't resonate with me. I visit places, and I see and do the things there that most appeal to me at the time I plan my visit. Whether I see and do everything that Rick Steves (regardless of the massive respect I have for him) or anyone else recommends is immaterial to me.

I think my distaste for the whole "X place requires Y days" trope stems from this attitude. One day in the Cinque Terre villages was ample for me; avid hikers might need a week or more. Each to one's own. I personally could easily spend two weeks every year in Inverness. Few other people are so enamored of the place.

Whether doing, visiting, touring, or experiencing a place, isn't that just semantics?

Whether doing, visiting, touring, or experiencing a place, isn't that
just semantics?

That depends on if you are a tourist or a traveler.

That depends on if you are a tourist or a traveler.

Bingo!

People travel for a variety of purposes, to which we are all entitled. I grew up rurally without t.v. or access to really...anything. Because of that, I don't know what I don't know. Now, as a world traveler, I'm trying to see as much of the world as I can. If I only have two days, then that's all I have. My guess is you haven't seen 100% of the place where you currently live. To that end, then, why travel at all? See where you're at first. You may not get it, but it's not really for you to 'get', is it?

That depends on if you are a tourist or a traveler.

touché
(snicker snicker)

Whether doing, visiting, touring, or experiencing a place, isn't that just semantics?

Not to me, I guess. It seems to me that when most people talk about "doing Paris," they have a list of minimum acceptable experiences in mind that they believe everyone should complete, which leads to the whole "Paris requires 5 days minimum" business. And that just doesn't make sense to me.

Doing is still just touring or visiting - it's just casual and informal - and has no connection to this question of how much time should be spent in a particular location.

I think that most users here are travel addicts who eat, sleep, breath travel and forget what it's like for the novice or occasional traveler planning a trip. As David from Seattle pointed out in his fundamental truths "Many people are not very skilled at articulating a good question." Many people are not skilled at simply answering a question, and this question of time in a place is not hard. It's not deep. It is all too often a simple request for some manner of guidance.

I see this question a lot: “How many days do I need in [place]?” As if there is some sort of formula or method to determine the answer. Invariably, people will answer, something like, “You need 3 days there.”

I actually think that in many cities, one can (1) have a rough list of key attractions and (2) tell how long is typically spent in each of those. With (1) and (2) plus time for moving around, eating, and resting a little, you can easily define a timeframe for a typical first visit without clear priorities.

For example, if you ask me the question for my hometown of Paris, I will say "four full days" as a minimum: one for the Louvre, the Marais & things in between; one for Musée d'Orsay, Luxembourg gardens, Latin Quarter, Notre Dame, Ile St Louis; one for the Tour Eiffel - Arc de Triomphe - Madeleine/Opera or Invalides triangle; half a day for Montmartre; half a day for whatever else you want to visit.

"Maybe it can be a good thing to see something at a fast clip in order to sort out the places we would like to revisit in the future. "

That kind of trip has its own charms.

edit: One that I enjoyed more when I was younger. I think it was Heinlein who said something like "Too much of Wisdom is just getting tired". Or something like that.

Found it: "It's amazing how much 'mature wisdom' resembles being too tired"

I started in the Cotswolds, heading to the Peak District, Yorkshire,
North Yorkshire, Northumberland, Cumbria, Porthmadog in north Wales,
Bath and then back to London—all in 7 days.

If someone listed this as their itinerary today, I would try to talk
them out of it, but maybe I shouldn't.

I don't think it hurts to remind them that travel will eat into those days, but it is ultimately up to them and to learn what they like. I remember a couple of years ago I posted a rough itinerary to this Forum for two weeks in England. I did it out of curiosity more than anything to see the reaction. The very first comment was that I had too many one night stops and I was backtracking. There were two-one night stops over 14 days and any backtracking was only a 45 minute drive which was the same as my commute to work- so nothing. It made me wonder if sometimes we have an automatic bias and write it out before fully reading or comprehending the desires and vision of the planner. In fairness, some of the comments were helpful as well. We did make some adjustments over the next few weeks of planning but I don't believe we spent more than 3 nights-and mainly one or two at each location, and if I ranked all of my European adventures 1 through 10, it was definitely in the top 2.

"It made me wonder if sometimes we have an automatic bias and write it out before fully reading or comprehending the desires and vision of the planner."

A lot of people function by trigger words and rote habit. Different people, different amounts, different times. I do worry that the new AIs will do a better job with their trigger words and rote habits.

I think that most users here are travel addicts who eat, sleep, breath travel

What gave it away?! ;-D

RobertH, I hadn't thought about it, but you are correct. But in my defense, it's different because I am usually correct.

What gave it away?! ;-D

:-D they said, I'm not an addict I can quit any time while checking flight prices, with the shakes and facial twitching.

I see this question a lot: “How many days do I need in [place]?” As if there is some sort of formula or method to determine the answer. Invariably, people will answer, something like, “You need 3 days there.” What is the basis for such an answer?

Probably been stated. My response would be what do you want to see in (place) and what do you want to do? Answer that and people can give you a pretty decent answer on how many days you need.

Some people like the OP like to immerse themselves in a city for weeks. Others hit the highlights and move on after 2-3 days. All good. No right, no wrong.

How does one “finish” a city like Paris, or Vienna, or Madrid?

Be born there, live there, die there. Even then, I guarantee, no one has seen it all.

Usually the question is asked by someone who has no or very limited travel experience.
The response of you need x number of days typically comes from someone's personal experience.
So someone has asked for opinions and people have posted their opinions based on their experiences. Everyone has different experiences so the OP will often get quite a variety of opinions.

At least the OP now might be able to work out that their 10 day trip to London, Bath, The Cotswolds, York, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Conwy, Dublin, Dingle etc might be a bit too rushed.

Why am I travelling?
My fundamental reason for travelling is to enjoy myself. I enjoy seeing and experiencing new places.
Do I need to spend 3 weeks in one place to enjoy it? Not at all.
My last 2 overseas trips have been 3 week long roadtrips. Last May we stayed in 1 place for 3 nights, 2 others for 2 nights, the rest of our stops were one nighters.
This May it was one 3 nighter and 2 x 2 nighters.
We roll along from one place to another and explore many different places across the 3 weeks.
Of course we don't truly get to know places but even 3 weeks in one place won't give you that.
We see and experience a very wide range of things and meet lots of people as we go. It's great fun. Hopefully your time in Sevilla was great fun for you too!

I've been to Sevilla and 3 days there would be one day too many for me. On the other hand, every time I go to Florence, I spend more time there than I did on my previous trip. The value of spending a few days in a place is to find out if you want to go back there. I have been to Europe 16 times and can name quite a few places where one day was adequate.

I was not going to respond. Vacation time, money, and family and job responsibilities limit for most how much time they can spend on a trip. And with limited time--whether two weeks or four--decisions on how to best spend your time have to be made. But I was struck by the second-to-last sentence in the original post: How does one "finish" a city like Paris or Vienna? The answer may be that one doesn't.

The hope for any first-time visit is not to "finish" a city or region off. It is to sample and to appreciate. And invariably a judgment is made as to whether I need to return and, if so, how badly. On later visits, the aim may be to explore more, appreciate further, and understand better. The analogy might be questionable, but visiting a new place is like dining at a new restaurant. A quick visit may be sampling some appetizers. Later visits allow for a further exploration of the menu and appreciation of the chef's talent. And if I really like the restaurant, if it becomes a favorite, I do not want to "finish" it but return again and again.

I spent three full days in Seville and three nights in Madrid. I was ready to leave Seville and thought I could have used another day in Madrid. But neither city touched me the way Granada and Barcelona did. Berlin excites me much more than Vienna; I could spend easily a week in Berlin but not in Vienna. Over the decades, I have visited Paris four times; on my last visit, I was ready to leave and feel no need to quickly return (though I would like to see Notre Dame since its reconstruction). But London is a different matter--yes, I could spend weeks there.

Travel is not one trip, however long. It is a lifetime journey. Why not extended time in new places? If I can go back to my restaurant analogy, the reason is I don't want to order three entrees in one evening.

My take-away for myself from all this is to be careful how I answer such questions, rather than wondering why that sort of question is asked. That part I have no problem understanding.

It’s really hard for us to know enough about a fairly new or inexperienced poster to make clear recommendations based on “what they like”. Most of us give somewhat standard answers based on our own experience of what WE did. And we all like to be right.

I should consider taking more time with an answer, making sure I include a bit about my own bias and available time.

And we all like to be right

Some more than others lol

The succinctness of interchanges that existed a decade or more ago here are long gone.

I don't know what it was like 10 years ago, but I'd wager that the volume of posts and number of regular posters has increased exponentially. With that, I'd guess the amount of information and viewpoints presented has too. What would be your suggestion to make it like "the good old days"?

Interesting original post. Fascinating discussion. The question that prompts my response is how does one "finish" a city like Madrid, Paris or Vienna?

Travel is a process. On a first visit to any great city city or region, we sample--we try to get an appreciation, a feel, some understanding of the place we are visiting. For instance, since these cities have been mentioned above, on a trip to Spain, I spent four nights in Seville and three nights in Madrid. I was ready to leave Seville and would have welcomed another day or two in Madrid. But I spent enough time in both Seville and Madrid to see many of the their top attractions and more important to get a feel for the city. And neither city moved me the way that Granada and Barcelona did.

When I have asked on this forum how many nights do I need in places I have never visited before (and I have done this many times), I am looking for how much time do I need to see the top attractions, to give me some appreciation of the city or region, and to decide whether I want to return.

Visiting any place for the first time is like dining in a new restaurant. On the first visit, I can sample only so many dishes, but I know when I paid the check whether I want to return. On subsequent visits, I explore more of the menu and the chef's talent--and revisit favorites. But if the restaurant becomes a favorite, I am never "finished" with it. And for the record, London is my favorite restaurant.

Although any advice proffered will often be corrected, modified, discounted, elucidated over or provided with alternatives.

That's what a forum is for, in my opinion. And anyone who asks for advice will receive answers from a variety of perspectives.

The succinctness of interchanges that existed a decade or more ago here are long gone.

Succinctness from whose perspective?

I should consider taking more time with an answer, making sure I
include a bit about my own bias and available time.

TTM, that’s why I continue to harp on the Profile page. I have seen more than a few AI source responses to questions. I am about to the point to say that if the answer is coming from someone with a blank profile page and no indication at all as to who or what they are; take the answer with a grain of salt .... or spend time reading a few dozen of their other posts to see who this person is.

Of course, we have people asking questions who are just as mysterious by refusing to give up the smallest detail about them or the trip.

"I will be staying in Budapest and want a good local restaurant"

What does “good” even mean? All restaurants in every city that you are currently in are local. If you want to eat like a local, go to KFC, if you want to eat like a tourist, go to Vaci utca. How about I send you to one 16 miles from your hotel (if it is a hotel) instead of the one next door to the hotel because I have no idea where you are staying. Or the one with the great outdoor patio .... but I didn’t know you were coming in February. Or the Michelin star place which will be a nice change from your hostel that I didn’t know you were staying in. Oh, its an anniversary. Well, that changes everything. Not an anniversary, but you have the 5 kids along? Did I mention KFC?

And we all like to be right

Some more than others lol

GerryM, you made me laugh.

Well, everyone has their opinion and “correct” answer….I contributed mine here. Ultimately it seems this thread reflects a forum that is sometimes about itself. It’s replete with “stars”, “experts” and the like. I like a lot of what appears as one can see trends and burgeoning interests on the part of the group at large.

Ultimately it seems this thread reflects a forum that is sometimes
about itself. It’s replete with “stars”, “experts” and the like.

And villains. Don't forget "those people". There are no experts on the forum. Those that post the most just need to get a better life (working on it) but rarely know what they are talking about beyond Spam and Velveeta.

I have seen more than a few AI source responses to questions. I am about to the point to say that if the answer is coming from someone with a blank profile page and no indication at all as to who or what they are; take the answer with a grain of salt .... or spend time reading a few dozen of their other posts to see who this person is.

Mr. E, I am suspicious of the first time / one hit wonder posts that seem to be almost always of the "help me with my itinerary" questions. My theory is that these are coming from AI sources that are seeking to build a database to "train" an AI model with responses from a pretty knowledgeable bunch of seasoned travelers.

Sounds farfetched, I know, but that is what my gut is telling me, and it is the reason why I have pulled back from giving thoughtful replies to those kinds of posts believing, as I do, that there likely is not a human on the other end who posed the question.

Jojo, I could see it if the question poses almost no detail, but most posts you're referring to give a lot of detail which indicates a certain amount of trust that it's assembled by a human. And there is more information that I have behind the scenes that would lend to such posts being legit. I would approach these assuming they are legit (unless I take them down), but of course you are not required to spend any amount of time answering questions you are not interested in!

It doesn't mean that it's impossible for the occasional AI-oriented posting (we do take some down), but I still find it doubtful in the specific scenario you are posing. The reason is that those entities scraping for AI don't need to bother with starting new questions. There is plenty of other public content here to scrape without spending time on initiating specific questions. It would be a waste of their time.

Well, everyone has their opinion and “correct” answer….I contributed mine here.

Yes, indeed. My "some more than others" quip wasn't directed at you, if that's what you're referring to. I don't recall seeing you post enough to make a determination on your personal posting style, other than what you've posted in this thread.

Ultimately it seems this thread reflects a forum that is sometimes about itself.

As long as it stays civil, the occasional navel gazing thread like this one is useful and entertaining. I'm not completely on board with the initial premise of the OP, but there's some interesting reading that has transpired because of it, in my opinion.

It’s replete with “stars”, “experts”

They're only stars and experts in your mind. Feel free to contradict them if you need to.

Jojo, I could see it if the question poses almost no detail, but most posts you're referring to give a lot of detail which indicates a certain amount of trust that it's assembled by a human. And there is more information that I have behind the scenes that would lend to such posts being legit. I would approach these assuming they are legit (unless I take them down), but of course you are not required to spend any amount of time answering questions you are not interested in!
It doesn't mean that it's impossible for the occasional AI-oriented posting (we do take some down), but I still find it doubtful in the specific scenario you are posing. The reason is that those entities scraping for AI don't need to bother with starting new questions. There is plenty of other public content here to scrape without spending time on initiating specific questions. It would be a waste of their time.

Your answer makes sense, thanks for spelling it out.

But it also indicates the somewhat farfetched possibility I suggested was at least considered, and looked at, but evidence only you would have on the legitimacy of the posters indicates they are actual queries by actual humans.