TripAdvisor

[jeffandnicole]

So...does anyone use or offer assistance on TripAdvisor?

I notice that the information can be quite suspect at best, depending on the location and who is offering the assistance.  One of the most cringe-worthy clichés on that site is "You do not need or want a car in this city", which is true...in some circumstances.  Some of the 'Destination Experts' (or as noted elsewhere, Destination Enthusiasts, as these people just want to appear they know a lot about a city) tend to have an over-reliance on mass transit options, suggesting people should be using Amtrak to get all over.  Sometimes it's feasible, but many times it's not.   Many people will have no trouble driving within the city, but the DE's act as if the traveler will have no clue to figuring out the roads...even though some of these visitors actually live in other cities, and are familiar with city driving.

There's also an over-reliance of these DE's suggesting people stay in the city.  Again, staying in the city is fine is the primary purpose of the trip is things within the city.  But too often I'll see people say they are visiting an area, will want to spend a day or two in the city, and then do another things in the region.   They are spending a limited amount of time within the city, but some of the DEs act as if they shouldn't consider doing anything else except to stay in the city and use mass transit, even though the outside-the-city destinations can be quite hard to reach by car.

Most hotels throughout the nation are located outside of cities.  They frequently have high occupancy rates.  If it was up to DEs though, almost none of those hotels would exist. 

Anyway, just a little rant about stuff I've seen over time on Trip Advisor.  Advising people they don't need a car is OK, but don't go overboard with it!

[formulanone]

I use it for deciding the which hotel to select, which restaurants are of interest, and the "Things to Do in [city name]". I'm an infrequent contributor, under a pseudonym...though I use a common avatar.

Like any comments section, it's always a good idea to actually read through the complaints and compliments and see what makes sense. I ignore comments and ratings by those posters with a single review (it would be nice if those could be filtered out), although it becomes obvious who is merely protecting a reputation or just has a personal axe to grind.

[noelbotevera]

I use it for the same reasons as formulaone. I've never used Destination Experts and I don't have an account (my father and brother do, however). I'm actually thinking to check out other sites for hotels such as Travelocity and the such. For restaurants and things to do I either:

a) Check the NPS website for nearby parks/former battlefields

b) Check the city's website

c) Wing it, and just check out the city

I have done all of the above (including TripAdvisor) before in past road trips, though for Richmond I've been checking their websites for interesting places.

Edit: Fixed up some things to clarify message

[hbelkins]

I use to help select lodging, and contribute heavily. You have to take really bad reviews with a truckload of salt, though. I've seen places really get ripped in a review, but it's been totally satisfactory to me.

[Jim]

I use it extensively to help me select hotels and always contribute a review when my stay is over.  I've found it really helpful.  I don't worry about a handful of bad reviews.  Many times if someone gives a really bad review for a hotel that generally has good ones I ignore it or at least read it to see what the specific problems were.  But if a place has consistently bad reviews, I won't go. I've started using it more and more for restaurants when traveling and have posted more of my own reviews in the last couple years.  I've also reviewed a few attractions but have never used reviews to help me decide whether or not to visit one.

I've never looked at "Destination Experts" and had no idea they existed before I saw this thread.

[Rothman]

Use it to find hotels, restaurants and highlights of scenic sites (e.g., what to do in a national park).  Some discernment is needed, of course, but I've found the mostly trustworthy.

There are reviews of hikes, for example, and you can tell when someone whose only walking was in the mall gives a negative review (e.g., "This 1/2 mile flat boardwalk wore me out.  NOT worth it!").  Similar "filters" go for everything.

[kphoger]

I use it especially for hotels, and also for restaurants.  And yes, I contribute as well on occasion.

It's pretty easy to trust the reviews if you just use your brain.  When thirty people have good reviews but three people say it's the worst place ever because of an interaction with the management or a refusal to refund money, then you can rest assured there's more to those three stories than meets the eye.

[Roadrunner75]

I use it occasionally just to quickly check reviews of hotels that I search for on the hotel chain sites or Google (along with a Streetview scan of the location).  My favorite review was of a hotel just outside a city where a reviewer detailed complaints for each night of his stay.  On one of the nights, he described a police raid of a nearby room to bust a counterfeit money ring.  His review ended with something like "there were federal agents running all around the courtyard and then a helicopter hovering overhead..."  The management responded and went through each of the guy's complaints, finally ending with "..and as for the police operation, it was the first time anything like that has happened here.....".  After I was done laughing, I looked for another place.

[Bruce]

So...does anyone use or offer assistance on TripAdvisor?

I notice that the information can be quite suspect at best, depending on the location and who is offering the assistance.  One of the most cringe-worthy clichés on that site is "You do not need or want a car in this city", which is true...in some circumstances.  Some of the 'Destination Experts' (or as noted elsewhere, Destination Enthusiasts, as these people just want to appear they know a lot about a city) tend to have an over-reliance on mass transit options, suggesting people should be using Amtrak to get all over.  Sometimes it's feasible, but many times it's not.   Many people will have no trouble driving within the city, but the DE's act as if the traveler will have no clue to figuring out the roads...even though some of these visitors actually live in other cities, and are familiar with city driving.

There's also an over-reliance of these DE's suggesting people stay in the city.  Again, staying in the city is fine is the primary purpose of the trip is things within the city.  But too often I'll see people say they are visiting an area, will want to spend a day or two in the city, and then do another things in the region.   They are spending a limited amount of time within the city, but some of the DEs act as if they shouldn't consider doing anything else except to stay in the city and use mass transit, even though the outside-the-city destinations can be quite hard to reach by car.

Most hotels throughout the nation are located outside of cities.  They frequently have high occupancy rates.  If it was up to DEs though, almost none of those hotels would exist. 

Anyway, just a little rant about stuff I've seen over time on Trip Advisor.  Advising people they don't need a car is OK, but don't go overboard with it!

Most people will head to a city to see the city and do things in the city. It's not unreasonable to suggest that they don't go out and rent a car and add to bad highway congestion as they wander aimlessly around city streets. It's much easier to do that on foot without disrupting any traffic other than a few pedestrians (which is easier to resolve than a traffic jam). Do you want lost tourists making sudden lane changes in front of you on the freeway? Or taking the last few parking spaces left in the city? I sure as hell don't.

Amtrak is definitely not the way for fast travel, but it's a nice way for a tourist to experience America without the stress of driving. The Empire Builder is timed to pass through Glacier National Park in daylight and I hear it's quite fantastic. The same can be said for the Amtrak Cascades on the coast of Puget Sound, a view that is unable to be seen from driving on I-5, a few miles inland.

Making it easier for tourists to use transit is a high priority, as it is a great indicator how well/poor a system is overall on many metrics (frequency, speed, maps/signage/navigation, etc.).

[LM117]

Like others have said, you'll have to take some of the bad reviews with a grain of salt. A good example was the Royal Inn motel in Selma, NC right off of I-95. It got shit on pretty bad, but when I stayed there, it was fine. It wasn't the Ritz, but it wasn't a shithole either and the guy that ran it was a cool dude. I stayed there several times when I visited friends in Goldsboro after I moved to VA in 2009. The Royal Inn closed about a year or two ago and is now an Econo Lodge. I think it was also renovated recently, if I'm not mistaken. I haven't stayed there since Econo Lodge took over and I don't know if the same guy still runs it.

[jeffandnicole]

As many of you noted, the reviews for hotels and such are typically amusing.  In those, I tend to look at consistencies.  If numerous reviewers complain about 1 or 2 things, it becomes a significant red flag for me.  Many people discount 1 time reviews...I necessarily don't, but it depends on the reviewer.  A 1 time, 1 star review will be ignored by me.  A 4 star review that seems to mirror those with other complaints is OK.  After all, everyone had to write their first review at one point or another.

I was mostly referring to the state and city forums though, such as https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowForum-g60811-i165-Baltimore_Maryland.html (a random one I'm not familiar with).

Most people will head to a city to see the city and do things in the city. It's not unreasonable to suggest that they don't go out and rent a car and add to bad highway congestion as they wander aimlessly around city streets. It's much easier to do that on foot without disrupting any traffic other than a few pedestrians (which is easier to resolve than a traffic jam). Do you want lost tourists making sudden lane changes in front of you on the freeway? Or taking the last few parking spaces left in the city? I sure as hell don't.

Amtrak is definitely not the way for fast travel, but it's a nice way for a tourist to experience America without the stress of driving. The Empire Builder is timed to pass through Glacier National Park in daylight and I hear it's quite fantastic. The same can be said for the Amtrak Cascades on the coast of Puget Sound, a view that is unable to be seen from driving on I-5, a few miles inland.

Making it easier for tourists to use transit is a high priority, as it is a great indicator how well/poor a system is overall on many metrics (frequency, speed, maps/signage/navigation, etc.).

Actually, this is what I'm talking about to a T.  When you mention "add to bad highway congestion as they wander aimlessly around city streets",  it exactly mirrors an anti-car stance many Destination Experts appear to have.  The terms aren't synonymous.  If they're on a highway, they're not on city streets.  If they're on a highway, they're generally just going straight, and if there's congestion, they're simply behind another vehicle on a highway.  I will see motorists make those last minute lane changes and lane changes into tight spaces all the time during rush hours, especially the morning rush when they're by themselves in suites.  Tourists aren't making those moves at 7 and 8am.  If they're on city streets, often they're riding around during the day outside of rush hour not adding to the normal commuter congestion. 

There aren't "a few parking spots left in the city" as if every parking garage is filled to the max.  Sure, some are, but the majority aren't. And often the ones that are filled to the max are around the largest business districts in a city, which isn't where tourists are likely to go.  If anything, people driving in the city for business are those filling up those spots, and they tend to live relatively close by (and aren't writing on TripAdvisor forums).

Amtrak is the oddball, because while out in the west it may not be used for high-speed travel, out east it certainly is from DC to Boston.  But for tourists driving from their home in the country, it may not be reasonable to take Amtrak if they already have their car.  And to start telling tourist that they should leave their car at home and take a flight isn't reasonable either, because their other destinations may not have convenient airline (or train) access. When they arrive in Philly (for example), they just can't ditch the car in some train parking lot that doesn't allow 24/7 parking and carry all their luggage, and if they take the train from Philly to another city, they can't simply just leave their car behind as they'll have to come back to get their car.

When it comes down to it, most tourists don't use the forums and like many pointed out, they don't even know they exist.  But for the ones that do, I often find the advice to be pretty bad without any concern as to economics or without thought to the rest of their trip.

[hbelkins]

I typically stay at the Days Inn in Frankfort when I'm there on business. It's cheap (I have to pay up-front and then wait four to six weeks to be reimbursed), it's usually convenient to where I need to be, and I get Wyndham Rewards points. One TripAdvisor review complained of bed bugs in a room where I've stayed very often. There have never been any bed bugs in that room, so I dismissed that review out-of-hand. Lots of people give that facility a bad review, but they must expect way too much from an inexpensive motel.

[jwolfer]

I typically stay at the Days Inn in Frankfort when I'm there on business. It's cheap (I have to pay up-front and then wait four to six weeks to be reimbursed), it's usually convenient to where I need to be, and I get Wyndham Rewards points. One TripAdvisor review complained of bed bugs in a room where I've stayed very often. There have never been any bed bugs in that room, so I dismissed that review out-of-hand. Lots of people give that facility a bad review, but they must expect way too much from an inexpensive motel.

Exactly.. people expect 4 seasons treatment at an econolodge

[jeffandnicole]

Bedbugs seem to be the catchall when someone doesn't like their experience.  Doesn't matter what the problem is, just mention Bedbugs.  But...it does get noticed.  Occasionally on the forums someone will say they were going to stay at a certain hotel, but there's reviews about bedbugs.  Go thru the reviews, and there's nothing but glowing 5 star reviews...until you get to the bottom of page 4 from 2 months ago, when someone writes a 1 star review saying the front desk staff was horrible, the breakfast buffet was horrible, the maid were horrible, and there were bed bugs in the room.  Clearly, the person didn't like their stay for whatever reason, and probably had nothing to do with the hotel (or they didn't get a free upgrade or something like that).

Other unfair reviews may not have anything to do with the hotel, such as those that give the hotel 1 star because their flight was delayed 3 hours and the review tells people never fly such-and-such airline again.  The hotel had nothing to do with that.

I've also seen 1 star reviews because of traffic congestion.  Again, nothing to do with the hotel.

TripAdvisor is supposed to review and weed out obvious review failures, but unless someone strings together a bunch of f-bombs, chances are the review will get posted.

[kphoger]

A hotel my mother-in-law used to work at in housekeeping once got a terrible review on TripAdvisor. They took it very seriously, because it was a fairly new hotel in a town with a LOT of lodging options (Branson). There was some drama going on between the staff at the time (it seems like there always is in housekeeping), the manager accused my mother-in-law of writing the review just to be nasty. My mother-in-law wouldn't even KNOW how to post a review on TripAdvisor!

She called my wife to see if we could look up any information on the poster. All I could do is tell her how long they'd been a user and that sort of thing. So, instead, the manager decided to "report" the review to TripAdvisor as needing to be removed. I stopped caring at that point, so I don't know if it was ever removed. It shouldn't have been, because it seemed to be a legitimately bad review.

But this all brings up a part of TripAdvisor that is hugely important to me: feedback. When I see a property manager replying to posts, whether positive or negative, that shows me that he or she actually cares about customer satisfaction. That plays a huge part in my choice of accommodations. A hotel that gets some bad reviews but whose manager actively works to resolve the issues is a better choice, IMO, than one that gets fewer bad reviews but whose complaints go unanswered.

[US71]

But this all brings up a part of TripAdvisor that is hugely important to me: feedback. When I see a property manager replying to posts, whether positive or negative, that shows me that he or she actually cares about customer satisfaction. That plays a huge part in my choice of accommodations. A hotel that gets some bad reviews but whose manager actively works to resolve the issues is a better choice, IMO, than one that gets fewer bad reviews but whose complaints go unanswered.

"We are sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you for staying with us" Seems to be a regular response.

[kphoger]

But this all brings up a part of TripAdvisor that is hugely important to me: feedback. When I see a property manager replying to posts, whether positive or negative, that shows me that he or she actually cares about customer satisfaction. That plays a huge part in my choice of accommodations. A hotel that gets some bad reviews but whose manager actively works to resolve the issues is a better choice, IMO, than one that gets fewer bad reviews but whose complaints go unanswered.

"We are sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you for staying with us" Seems to be a regular response.

Yeah.  Those, not so much.  But there are other managers who are very intent on answering complaints.  That counts for a lot in my book.

[jeffandnicole]

But this all brings up a part of TripAdvisor that is hugely important to me: feedback. When I see a property manager replying to posts, whether positive or negative, that shows me that he or she actually cares about customer satisfaction. That plays a huge part in my choice of accommodations. A hotel that gets some bad reviews but whose manager actively works to resolve the issues is a better choice, IMO, than one that gets fewer bad reviews but whose complaints go unanswered.

"We are sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you for staying with us" Seems to be a regular response.

Yeah.  Those, not so much.  But there are other managers who are very intent on answering complaints.  That counts for a lot in my book.

But do they actually fix the issue; an issue which is something like an employee who made a simple error 2 weeks prior and who probably forgot about it 1 week, 6 days, 23 hours and 58 minutes prior because they've dealt with a few hundred people a night since....people that they successfully communicated with?

I mean, I'm glad there was some sort of response, but it's usually a pr-type response that as long as it sounds good, it did it's job.