Ted

Just Friday rambling...<BR>There seems to be a real distinction in styles of travel for those who post on Fodor's. On one hand, there's the stay in one place crowd. This group feels like you don't get a real feel for a city unless you spend at least 4 or 5 days there, and preferably more. This group is more into appreciating the "experience" and the subtler aspects of travel - a pretty sunset, local kids playing, the shopkeeper closing his market, and so on. One or two nights in one place is hardly worth the bother to this group, and the idea of a sightseeing list is unthinkable.<BR><BR>On the other hand, you've got the ADD-type traveler who, for lack of interest, vacation time or disposable income, prefers to keep on the go. These types don't like staying only one night in a place either, but after three nights and they're more than ready to move on. This group doesn't need a half day to absorb the Pantheon, thinks David is really neat, but doesn't understand why you need more than 15 or 20 minutes to "get it," and believes you really can get the feel of a city in just an afternoon of walking and observing.<BR><BR>Do you all think people travel as they are in their everyday lives, or do people use travel as an means to break out of their usual personality and routines? My inclination is that people who are on the go are always on the go, at home or on vacation, and those who are laidback, take-it-easy travelers are like that year-round? Anyone?<BR><BR><BR><BR>

Nellie

Ok I am one of these people that like to stay in one locale and get to know and absorb it. However..when I go to museums and other famous landmarks I do not have to stay a long time because you take about a couple of minutes to view what is before you, take a picture if you want and go on to the next thing. I love art but I am not going to waste an entire day at the Louvre. I concentrate on areas in the Louvre that interest me and focus on that. I guess I am perhaps maybe a bipolar traveler...want the slow pace but then the manic pace so I don't lose precious time on something that is not high on my list...anyway to each his own...

geta

Ted: Wish I had more time to "get" your post, but I am an ADD Fodor. Troll West, young man.

Sheila

Surely it's not as simple as that. I work really hard, feet rarely touch the ground, and I don't like holidays where you lie on the beach- I want to see and learn things.<BR><BR>But I also like a slow pace, and will happily sit on a terrace and watch the world go by for hours at a time. I couldn't STAND a tour, or an "if it's Tuesday it must be Belgium" sort of holiday, but equally I couldn't stand sitting still

gee

Ted: I find you post to be biased and offensive. Perhaps you are a troll. If so, you have snagged me. According to you, people who linger for days/weeks are "more into appreciating the "experience" and the subtler aspects of travel." While those that move quickly just think they are "neat." Clearly you suggest that those that move quickly are less sophisticated. This debate (and snobbery) appears elsewhere on the forum. Please do a search.

elaine

Nope, there may be occasional overlap between travel styles and "real life" styles, but there are too many factors we know nothing about for anyone to draw reliable conclusions about people based on the postings here. Actually, I think we get into trouble here with "flaming" whenever someone makes some sort of leap into making assumptions about other people that he/she knows really nothing about except what shows up in this little box.<BR><BR>The "do it all" vs "quality over quantity" dichotomy is a false one. Those decisions could be driven by zillions of factors, in addition to basic personality differences. Just some of those are<BR>a first visit to a place vs a repeat visit, older vs younger, more travel experience vs less, more time or money vs less time or money, traveling with grandma and/or the kids vs traveling with just one companion vs traveling alone, <BR>having disabilities vs not, having physical stamina vs not, feeling there will be a future return visit vs feeling this one might be the last for a long time, having to fit a visit around a business trip or around some family event or a cruise, vs having<BR>three full weeks for a trip, enjoying art and museums vs not, disliking cities vs liking the countryside, feeling afraid in cities vs feeling more safe in the countryside, simply being interested in one place but not so much in another. And those are just some of the possible factors that came to me, there are so many other unknowns.<BR><BR>

Ted

Hey Gee, you sure are offended easily. <BR> <BR>For the record, I count myself in the latter category (presumably your category?). I happen to like the subtle things but I get bored pretty easily with repetitive sights and spending too much time in one place. So to answer your post, I wasn't suggesting that either is better than the other, just different. I didn't see anything snobby about my post, nor was that my intent - sorry if you were offended.

doug

Have done several long weekends in Europe. My friends always tell me they wouldn't want to go for just a long weekend they are waiting for a time when they can spend two weeks. Most have never been. 10-14 days is about the most we can squeeze out for annual vacations. No offense to anyone but some of us have to work for a living. Fortunately work sometimes means travel to Europe and I steal a day or weekend where I can. I have only envy for the "It takes 6 weeks to really see Italy crowd".

Jen

Yikes, "gee," I think you're wound a little tight this afternoon! Nothing Ted said implied that one version was better than the other, he called them "styles".<BR><BR>And nothing he said is contrary to those poor Americans who only get a week or two of vacation; the distinction is still the same: If you have only 8 or 10 days to spend on vacation, do you prefer spend it in just one or two places, or in four or five or even more?<BR><BR>I think that I myself am a combination. Given 3 weeks to spend in Britain, I spent two weeks in London and the middle week traveling around the countryside, spending 2 nights each in 3 places. That seemed like a good balance to me. <BR><BR>Unfortunately, my children are the stay-in-one-place type, even though one actually has regular ADD. So I end up dragging them around. Too bad! When they're older thay can control their own vacations and spend a week just sitting on the beach.

gee

I am probably a little thin skinned, but Ted's post was clearly pointed. I quoted the language: you either stay around for days and, therefore, are sophisticated, or you keep moving and just think things are "neat". There is a faction, of which Ted may not be a member, that repeatedly suggests that if you don't stay in a particular city forever, you nothing more than a sequined sweatshirted, souvenir hounding, tourist. I get sick of those pompous posters. I am sorry, Ted, if I unfairly lumped you in that group.

Jen

Gee, you are not just thin-skinned, you're putting words in Ted's mouth. He never described the stay-puts as "sophisticated;" he described them as people who are content to watch shopkeepers closing their markets. One could just as well accuse him of implying that this group is stodgy, slow and unimaginative; that would be inaccurate, too.<BR><BR>It may well be basically a depth-vs-breadth thing, but he never said one was better than the other.<BR><BR>When posters on this board encourage other travelers to simplify their itineraries, the most common reason given is the time and energy lost in the transfers; it's exhausting for many people to keep on the move and see a new city every day or two. Inexperienced travelers often underestimate this factor and bite off more than they can chew, and I don't think it's condescending at all to clarify this for them, they come here seeking the advice of travelers with more experience.<BR><BR>Are you related to Bob of the infamous sunscreen thread?

elvira

Who says I, or anyone else, does the same thing all the time? Some places require hunkering down and a more measured pace; sometimes *I* require hunkering down and a more measured pace (10 days on a Greek island after six months of job insanity comes to mind). In the midst of a 2 week leisurely vacation can come a few days of extreme vacationing (4 days in Rome, 4 days in Florence - and one day Venice, one day Bologne, one day Pisa, two days Lake Como). <BR><BR>The advice people give concerning staying in one place or moving around usually comes from the inquirer's post. "We have a week to absorb the culture in Italy so we thought we'd visit 7 different cities" gives conflicting information, and begs for a "slow down!" response. Sometimes it's evident the inquirer is missing some information, like travel times or distances between places, and needs to be enlightened.<BR><BR>I love whirlwind "if it's Tuesday..." sort of trips; I also love spending a long time in one place...just depends on the place and me...

Sue

Elaine, I like your answer a lot, because while it's convenient to for us to think 'either/or' this doesn't really reflect the diversity of real life. <BR><BR>We tend to quickly categorize; leap to conclusions after hearing a few key words; "tour" "view" or whatever. But Elaine is so right, we need context, not just categories, to understand. <BR><BR> Over a century ago, only the wealthy could afford to travel, and it was always on tour, i.e. they invariably visited several countries over the span of their trip. Yet noone would suggest that these people were ADD types, simply because they were doing the Grand Tour....Indeed, compared to how they traveled, ALL of us are ADD types.<BR>

Bob

Elvira, love that term "extreme vacationing!"

Pris

I've been wondering about a similar dichotomy -- that between going back to places you've been and wanted to see more of vs. going to a place you've never been. I tend to shy away from going back to places I've been and it always felt like a form of ADD -- need newness all the time? On the other hand, the effect of only spending 2 days somewhere that merits more than a week is to make you hanker to return and "do it right."<BR><BR>For me the ideal is to have enough time to savor a place the first time around and then to move on.

Bob C

I have read that when they asked travelers what place they enjoyed the most on their last trip. The answer normally is the place that they stayed the longest at. That is why so many people stay in one spot for 4 or 5 nights and do day trips from there.

Mary

Hi Ted, I think I'm the one who posted that I might have ADD. I didn't think your question put one group in a better light then another. I simply asked an itinerary question, and got so many people putting me down for wanting to see as much as I could in the time we have in Spain, I began to wonder if something could be wrong with me! I do get antsy in one place for too long, and yes I know too long is an subjective phrase. Sure, I wish I could spend more time in Paris or Venice or wherever, but lifes short, I only have X amount of time on vacation, and there is literally a wghole world out there I want to see. I've lived in Kansas City my whole life, except for college, and I bet I haven't seen all the interesting stuff here. No jokes please. I think it must be the heat, it puts people on edge.

Dallas

Sounds like Gee is just spoiling for a fight. You need to chill; Ted said he was just Friday rambling. His question is certainly more interesting than another "What to wear" or "What is ttt".<BR><BR>I think I started out as an ADD-type, but as I've gotten older I've evolved into the stay in one place crowd. Like Elaine said, this happened for many reasons -- not the least of which is arthritis. The spirit is willing, but the body is having problems.

Judy

I agree with Elvira (as usual). My husband and I do both types of travelling. We are taking a tour of Scandinavia this summer but we try to do major cities in depth, spent 9 days in Paris, for instance!!! However as I have said before,despite doing extensive pre-trip research of all kinds of reading about where we are going to visit, we always LEARN so much more with the help of good tour guides, not to mention inquisitive and knowledgeable fellow travellers. It's all in picking the right tour where there is some free time to go out on your own. So, different strokes for different folks and at different times in one's life. C'est la vie! Don't correct my spelling!!!!! Judy