nytraveler

So many people come to these travel boards asking about "great" hotels. And, legally, "great" is considered puffery; that is - it is so broad that it has no meaning.

Some people think only modern is great. And some people want superquaint, on an adorable little street, with a clanking elevator that barely holds 2 people.

Yesterday I spent about 15 minutes - on another board - telling someone about a couple of what I thought were great hotels - only to learn that there definition of "great" included an incredibly low budget. A waste of my time - and VERY frustrating.

So, when asking for information about a hotel, please don't ask abuot "great' or "nice". Please be specific and ask for:

A budget range
A location (if central or near a specific sight matters to you)
Modern - or typical/quaint - if either matters to you
Specific amenities that matter to you

Also - if you're trying to put 5 or 6 people in a room - do mention that up front - otherwise many people assume you're asking about a room for a couple.

Answering questions is a lot easier if the OP provides a little info up front.

vjpblovesitaly

What about best? Everybody wants to know the "best" way from [airport] to town. That really sticks in my craw. Especially when they say best and cheapest! HA!

yk

The same goes for restaurant recommendations.

We need:
Location?
Budget?
Cuisine preference?
Romantic or hip?
Family-friendly?

sf7307

And let me add to the list of hotel "criteria" that it's often helpful to list your own personal comparisons - for ex., I loved/hated the ________ hotel on __________ street in ________ city, and why.

Perfect example - just the other day, another poster and I were "discussing" the W New York on Lexington Avenue. She hated it, I liked it a lot. She stated her reasons, I stated mine. Neither is right, of course, but at least people reading the posts know whether they are more likely to think as she does or more likely to think as I do.

If you're used to, and demand, the Four Seasons, you're not going to be too happy at the Econo-Lodge. On the other hand, if you're used to, and demand, a hotel that doesn't cost more than $100 a night, you're not going to be too happy when the Four Seasons is the first hotel people recommend. (There is a thread going on the Europe forum about a bargain hotel in Paris. Great great price. The poster started by saying that for the price, she could overlook worn carpets and bedspread. Well, I know myself, and I would be extraordinarily unhappy in that hotel!)

marsha_mello

I agree with all!

Although I don't usually spend a ton of $ on my accomodations b/c I'd rather be out doing things then sitting in my hotel - cleanliness is important, and proximity to what I want to do.

The rest is somewhere in the 'nice but not necessary'

Centralparkgirl

nytraveler - Not just hotels - many posters ask all types of non-specific questions like, 'I'm coming to NY in three hours. Tell me where we should go and what we should see.' Some of the fodorites who respond to these types of posts have the patience of a saint, imo. People should do searches first and then ask specific questions. I don't want to sound harsh, but I think if we engage these non-specific inquiries, then we just encourage more of them. I've read many of your very helpful responses on this board and I don't blame you one bit for being frustrated. One solution is responding to specific questions only.

abranz

nytraveler,
you are so right on about these questions. everything is so subjective from person to person.
as centralparkgirl suggests, it is easier to be helpful with specific questions about hotel, food etc.
as they say.....one man's poison is another man's potion.

happytrailstoyou

nytraveler, Along a similar line posts ask, for instance "Why are there no rooms for less than $250 in Seattle?" and, when told where such rooms are available the OP moves the goalpost complaining that the suggested rooms lack the necessary view of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains form a jetted tub for two. HTTY

cheryllj

Asking for a "great" hotel is about as useful as asking for a "reasonable" or an "affordable" one.

How the heck am I supposed to know what you think is "affordable"? To some people, $1500 a night is "affordable." It's very annoying and a waste of everyone's time not to give your max budget up front.

Dutch

Great is considered puffery?

How about Super Duper then? Is that OK?

suze

People need to state their budget, and any absolute "must haves"... then we can say if that is possible or not.

FainaAgain

I won't ask for a great hotel! I will ask which one is the best bang for my buck

spirobulldog

I'm sorry. I totally disagree. There are a lot of places that I can say without reservation which Hotel is the Greatest or Best. This applies to many towns and many area. I'll site three examples on three different types of trips. If said you were going to Disneyworld and wanted to stay at the best. Then no doubt it would be Grand Floridian. If you were going to Yellowstone and wanted to stay at the best Hotel, then it would be Lake Hotel. If you were going to Dallas and wanted to stay at the best. Then there is 2 or 3 that come to mind. Hotel Za Za, Mansion on Turtle Creek, Crescent Court. The best doesn't mean the best budget or most bang for your buck or even best location. It means what is the most luxorious. I fu

spirobulldog

I fully understand your frustration and yes people are very general on here, but most people start there question out general and then work on specifics.

Kailani

Here is my list of some great hotels.

Hotel Danieli in Venice.

Chateau Marmont in Los Angeles.

The Willard in Washington D.C.

The Mauna Lani on the Big Island, Hawaii.

The Empress Hotel in Victoria.

The Ahwahnee in Yosemite.

Hotel Haussler in Rome.

Hotel Del Coronado in Coronado.

My criteria: charm, location, personalized service, interesting cliental, unusual history.

Kailani

While I'm correcting "clientele", let me add Chateau Frontenac in Quebec City to my list.

abranz

all these hotels are wonderful but also super expensive.
although i am all for being indulged, some people's idea of 'great' is not necessarily ultra luxurious.

great hotels can be found in every category of price and location. really depends on what qualifies as 'great'.
specifics in this case really do help.

same goes for food. i have read about some 'great' restaurants on the forum and honestly, i find them to be boring and predictable.
i am not into traditional cuisine and prefer something eclectic. that would be my version of 'great'

nytraveler

Super duper is at least as much puffery as great. And that's not my definition. That's a legal definition. There are works that are so general that the have no legal meaning - and great or wonderful or fantastic - all fall within that category. (Why do you think they use them for all those awful movies?)

If you say modern or clean or upscale- there may be certain legitimate expectations.'

But "great" has no meaning, except in the mind of the speaker.

nytraveler

Yes - but in this case the person wanted a "great" hotel in Rome in high season for under $150 per night. To me - that simply isn't doable - unless you definition of "great" is not the same as mine.

Some people think tht getting a 2* hotel at a 1* hotel is "great".

You've just made my point.

I would agree on a lot of those bests. But if your reqiurements are in a certain price range - those bests aren't an option and the OP means - but doesn't say "best in a budget range".

spirobulldog

legal definition of super duper. hmmm