whitey

I would like to write my recent trip report for Germany and Austria; it's fun to recall the things you have experienced and it also helps some other travellers out there by giving them some insight and extra info for their own itineraries. With this is mind, does it make more sense to rank the cities and experiences against a scale to better help people choose if a destination is worthwhile for their current plans? Let's say I have a "Whitey Ranking" scale of 1 to 10 with more weight being given for those places that have beauty, history, sights to see and intangible but consensual "WOW" factor. I would rank the new cities I had visited along with other cities I had previously visited for comparison.
This all sounds good until someone(let's say Mrs. Whitey, complains that I only gave Florence an 8). Here's a quick listing, and I can gauge by any follow-up comments if this would be worthwhile or not.
Paris- 10
Rome- 9.8
Venice- 9.3
Brugge - 8.7
Florence- 8.0
Rothenburg - 7.3
Vernazza - 7.3
Munich - 6.7
Orvietto -6.5
Sorrento -6.5
Brussels -6.3

**newly visited cities**
Hallstatt - 7.3
Vienna - 7.1
Salzburg - 6.4
Bacharach - 6.2
Nurnburg - 6.1
Wurzburg- 6.1
Garmisch - 6.0

Intrepid1

Appreciate your hard work and soulsearching that probably went into assigning final numbers and also recognize that this is just as subjective as any other "rating" system since it is all based on your own feelings and perceptions (and from the look of the numerical ratings you are either just like a lot of other people or afraid to make waves)...but THAT'S OK because you took the time to go there and took the time to report back.

Who can argue with that part of it?

whitey

Thanks Intrepid1. It's funny that you mentioned that I was afraid to make waves; I have visited some other cities in Europe but I chose not to list them due to a low ranking(did it seem obvious?). I'd be interested to see your own personal rankings of the cities I have listed there and maybe on some that I chose to leave out.

rex

<<Is it too subjective to give a town/city a numerical rating?>>

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being purely subjective, and 10 being entirely objective, I would put your system at 5.37



Best wishes,

Rex

Mary_Fran

Whitey,

Thanks for the thought, but I don't think this type of list would be helpful to me unless you provided a legend and a scoring system, so I could decide whether the things that are important to you are also important to me.

I'm thinking of a ranking system such as the one Morningstar's mutual fund website (my second vavorite website, after Fodor's) uses in its tool that lets you compare various funds to see which is best for your investment goals.

First, you would come up with a listing of the most important attributes of a city, in no particular order, and then you would assign a numerical ating to the importance of a particular attribute to you, and finally, a rating of that category for that city.

born2wonder

I like posts where people are very clear and to the point about their opinions and perspectives. Numerical rankings of your opinions works for me.

I find long, wordy naratives hard to read. I appreciate folks taking the time to share, but you know, get to the point. Thats just me though.

I would love to see your numerical opinions on the sights you saw in Germany and Austria as well.

WillTravel

I find the numerical data interesting.

Are there any places you would put in the negative category?

Also, please reconsider adding numbers for some cities you omitted. I know you might get some disagreement from fans, but I'd still like to know your opinion!

Mary_Fran

Oops! Too quick on the trigger.

Following is a list of the attributes of cities I travel to that are most important to me, in descending order:

Overall Ambience 10
Architecture 9
Art 8
History 7
Natural beauty 6
People 5
Culture 4
Food, wine, etc. 3
Safety 2
Shopping 1

Yeah, I know. You probably would assign a different order of importance. This is just my list.

If I then assign a rating from 1 - 5 for a given city, for each of these attributes and multiply it times the ranking number for that attribute, I come up with a score for each attribute for that city, which I can then add up for a total score. (Sounds complicated, but it takes only a minute or two in a spreadsheet.)

For me, that meant, for example, that meant that out of a possible perfect score of 275, Rome came out on top, with a score of 269 (darned pickpockets!), compared to 259 for Paris, 246 for Barcelona (oooh! beware of purse snatchers!), and dear, lovely Meersburg trails with 227.

Dear Lord, I am such a geeky spreadsheet pervert!

RufusTFirefly

My rating
Paris- 10 9
Rome- 9.8 9.5
Venice- 9.3 10
Brugge - 8.7
Florence- 8.0 4
Rothenburg - 7.3 6
Vernazza - 7.3
Munich - 6.7 8
Orvietto -6.5 7
Sorrento -6.5 6.5
Brussels -6.3 6.5

**newly visited cities**
Hallstatt - 7.3
Vienna - 7.1 7
Salzburg - 6.4
Bacharach - 6.2 6
Nurnburg - 6.1 7
Wurzburg- 6.1 7.5
Garmisch - 6.0 7

Bamberg 9.4
Beilstein 8.752
Colmberg 6
Dinkelsbuhl 8
London 9
Seoul 10
Tokyo 8
San Francisco 9.8
Essen 2
Coburg 6.4
Anchorage 9
El Paso -2
Waco -4
Austin 8
Dallas 3.01
Driftwood 9.6
Bastrop 7
Burwell 9

Nikki

Sure it's subjective, but so what? The whole report is subjective; it's your impressions of the places you visited. As long as you explain how you came up with the rankings, I would find it interesting.

Mary_Fran

I'd be interested in seeing other Fodorites' list of city attributes they value most in their travels, in order of importance.

ira

Hi W,

>Is it too subjective to give a town/city a numerical rating? <

In a world in which teachers give students A, B, C... and the computer converts this totally subjective grading to a 2.773, I see no problem with your assigning your own scale.

I probably won't agree with your assessment anyway.

whitey

Thanks for all of the input. I will start a new link for my trip report and I'll give each place a rating and the details why. I was disappointed in that we ran out of time on our trip and didn't make it to Bamberg(especially now that Rufus gave it a 9.4)- if I had known this during my trip, I would have stopped there first. I guess this is why I bring up the rating scale; I want people to tell me more than a city was very nice, a rating would give each stop an importance or priority over another competing area.
Thanks again..Whitey

RufusTFirefly

whitey, do keep in mind that any rating, numerical or not, is subjective. But it does provide a relative scale of enjoyment/liking for the individual doing the rating. It could be helpful if you know that individual's likes and dislikes.

althom1122

I found this post amusing because I'm a bit geeky myself - and yes, this rating system is geeky! A numerical scale of 10 is already a bit too fine grain for most people to take in. When you go to TWO decimal places it seems a bit over the top on th geekiness scale. But hey, in other ways I'm so geeky that I probably have no right to comment! Still... my one recommendation - go with the KISS principle. A five-point scale provides enough granularity for most of us to assess how well you liked a city - and that's really all we (ok, I'll speak for myself) - all *I* would want. I mean, really, what's the difference between 7.83 and 7.79???
(But I applaud your effort and thoroughness. Would give it a score of 9.98.)
Karen

RufusTFirefly

al--hey, I got three decimal places in there.

clevelandbrown

I think I would rather know just what a gondola ride cost and where it went, rather than that it was a 6.5346.