Regulars here suggest slow travel to 1st time Europe visitors--bad advice?
 

I know most everyone here (I included) tends to tell people who are planning first time visits to not try to cram so many places in. That slowing down, less is more, mode of travel is what many people who frequent this forum have become accustomed to since, typically, they have been able to travel a lot in Europe. Many also reside in Europe where they can quite easily plan affordable return visits.

Several things got me thinking recently about whether this slow-it-down and eliminate places advice is always the best. I'm from the US, and I'd had the opportunity to spent two months in Mediterranean Europe in my early twenties. Then, there was a span of about 25 years when we were unable to afford anything like this because we were raising our children.

Our first return trip to Europe was when our youngest was doing a semester abroad in Vienna. We had 19 days on that trip and visited all of these places: 1 night stopover in Iceland on Iceland Air's take-a-break in Iceland program, 2 nights in Luxembourg, a night along the Mosel, a flight to Vienna and then 4 nights in Vienna, 3 nights in Krakow, 2 nights in Budapest, a couple nights along the Danube, 1 night outside of Vienna at Neusiedl am See, 1 night in Slovenia to see some caves whose name I've forgotten, 1 night in southern Italy on our way back up to Austria from Slovenia, and a final night's stay in Munich after dropping off our car before flying out.

So this was 11 places in 19 days and exactly the type of itinerary we'd laugh at posters if they suggested as a plan. We loved the trip, and it was our impetus to return for many more trips. Would I take this on now? No way! But, I think we all need to think back and remember what it was like to be excited by a first trip for people who are trying to fit in as many different places as possible and who do not know if they will be able to return.

On that trip the people whose itinerary we were incredulous about was the couple who had made a once-in-a-lifetime trip to visit their son who was in the military and stationed in Germany. They were riding the ring tram around Vienna to get a feel for the city, and that is where we chatted with them. They had taken the overnight train in to Vienna from somewhere else, had the day in Vienna and then were taking the night train to Venice for a day. They knew that for sure this would be the only time they would ever be able to visit Europe and were gong to make the most of it. I am sure that they appreciated their opportunity and do not regret their trip to this day. Would they have preferred more leisurely trip? Probably. But, people have to deal with the amount of time they have in which to travel whether it is optimal or not.

Shortly after our return from that 19 day trip I also remember reading a story in our local travel section about a couple who had rented a house in rural France for a week. Their goal was just to relax, do some low-key sightseeing, and fit into village life. That article stands out in my mind because I remember wondering to myself why in the world, when there ae so many different exciting place in 'Europe to visit, would anyone want to do that type of trip. Now we are those people who would do exactly that, but it always helps to remember that we were not always that type of traveler.

Just something to think about for many people here who constantly give the slow-down advice.

I think it depends on a lot of factors:

Age, number and budget of the travelers
How many days they have altogether
Specific interests of travelers


My first trip to europe I was 19 - with BF 23 - and we spent more than 5 weeks visiting 8 different places (including a couple of day trips). For me it was a good first taste - but I didn't feel I had enough time anywhere. For instance we only had 4 nights - 3 days - in Paris and that included a day at Versailles.

Now I was a history major and had a lot of interest in every palace, cathedral and museum there was. If people have different interests they may choose to move faster rather than slower.

I agree with your assessment, julies, that not everyone is inclined to slow-travel, for a variety of reasons. My feeling is, as in many things, there's a learning curve and the more we travel the closer we get to a personal ideal. For many, skimming the surface of many places is what they want, on a first trip or a 15th. Others of us prefer more intimate experiences and why I try to include at least a week spent walking from place to place. I came to that in my 50s, and having turned 70 this year, I'm still at it, finding walking the most exciting mode of travel of all.

I learned the value of staying put early on, with a job in Europe for 6 months and the experience changed my life irrevocably. I knew it when it was happening. But I suspect it's my nature and I won't condemn anyone else's style if it happens to be different from my own. Some even find out that home is best and never travel again. I can only hope that leaves the middle seat next to me empty.

Yes, people have very limited time or money or have come a great distance (the Australians, etc.) and so must cram as many places as possible into a visit. But, let's not forget those who don't know their geography. They think that Europe is tiny, about the size of NJ, and that they can see all in a short time. The travelers who annoy me the most here are the ones who think more time should be spent everywhere ! For example, if one were to say, I'm going to spend 2 wks in Toledo. The poster would say, Oh, I was there for 3 wks and thought it deserved even more time. The other people who bother me are the ones who don't bother to read what the OP has written (only going for a week) and then give him an itinerary good for a month's travel. Sometimes this is the same person !

Depends! I agree that each of us needs to find what works for us in general, and at any particular point in time.

I travel much faster and harder than many Fodorites, and I find that I have to explain my point of view every time I post an itinerary. But for me, that means moving around a lot in a smallish geographic area, not flitting from city to city just to take the HOHO bus. Some people enjoy very brief “get-a-taste” visits; I don't. Rather than skimming the surface and spending time getting from place to place, I choose to skip some places entirely, even if I am sure I would enjoy them, at least in part because I’ve realized that if I can return to a region, the LAST thing that I am likely to want to do is spend my time on previously traveled paths just so that I can go back and see the things I skipped the first time. In fact, I might end up not returning specifically because it would mean wasting so much time going from place to place.

To each his/her own!

Bedar wrote: "The travelers who annoy me the most here are the ones who think more time should be spent everywhere !" -- Don't you think there is value to letting people know that they might want to do some advance planning to be sure they'll have time for their priorities? I sure do! And I would think so even if I didn't specifically try to match my time allocations to my interests. It seems to me that just as we all get to travel in different ways, we all get to provide the input we think most useful. Vive la difference!

Nicely put Julies. My first trips abroad from the US to the Middle East and Europe when I was in my 20s involved multi-month stays, up to a year, and it was a lot of fun. Now, decades later, I live in Europe, and some people around here would faint to get on and off planes and move around like I do, seeing multiple cities in different countries in a couple of days.

So I am really puzzled by assertions that there is some inevitable "slowing down" that comes with ageing. I'm more focused now I what I want to do when I travel. I live in a beautiful part of Europe, so I don't need to go plotz somewhere pretty and drink wine. I can do that at home. I really would rather not go through all the hassle of being away from home with a big impact payoff.

When I read what many regular posters write about their "slow trips", most of them strike me as no more "clue-ful" about getting around every day than the supposedly "clue-less" trips newbies take, and it is surprising to me what a huge amount of time these "slow travelers" -- supposedly looking to have a "deeper" or what have you experience of a foreign place -- spend surrounded by English-speaking experiences, or simply isolated entirely from the central culture they are visiting.

If they aren't spending time on English language food tours, seeking out English language bookstores, looking for other English language activities or settings, they are renting apartments and cars and spending so much time in them they scarcely encounter the workaday world and local culture of the places they to go to.

Apart from not doing much, I don't see (from their own reports) what the "slow travellers" are necessarily getting that people plunging into the thick of things for an intense experience are missing.

After what now feels like a zillion trips, I still screw up opening times sometimes, pick the wrong restaurants, let myself feel pressured into seeing a "must-see" (that I end up hating), drive by some fabulous sight without realising it is there. And many more mistakes. I'm sure if I set out with no ambitions whatsoever to do anything but just exist for weeks in some other location I'd have the "perfect trip", but I'd rather stay home with the cats if that's all travel holds out.

We travel slower now that we are older most days but hit it hard still on some trips. Our last trip we saw very little of our hotel rooms the first week but the second week we had an apartment in Paris. We were out the door by 10 and back by 6 most days. We didn't cram a ton of things in but picked one or two things we wanted to see that day. The rest of the day we did whatever, shop, walk through a cemetery, see a museum, market, cathedral or just sit and drink at a cafe. I loved our apartment and neighborhood so we got in a groove and relaxed.
My next girlfriend trip we are going to rent a house in Westport, Ireland. So much to see and do in that one little spot of heaven. Hiking, island hopping, history and great pubs at night. We have all been several times and this trip we want to enjoy one area. I might still have to go to Dublin for several nights but at least we are based for a week in one spot.

We definitely all travel differently, and I try to be reflective of my own perspective and travel biases when answering questions or helping with itineraries. I spent 10 days in Iceland in the winter, not a standard thing for most tourists, and I'd probably advise most that an express winter stopover is good mileage for seeing the best of the country in winter, even though I had a very different (and enjoyable) experience done more slowly. I wouldn't tell someone to slow down just for the sake of slowing down.

That said, I stand by telling someone to slow down for their first 7 night trip and planning something like 1 night in London, 1 night Paris, 1 night Rome, 1 night Ibiza, 1 night Athens, and oh Morocco if I can get there. That's not slowing down just because, that's an itinerary so nuts it's unfeasible. Not everything has to be 5 night stays in a base, but oftentimes the advice to slow down is helpful and warranted.

Our first trip to Europe, eleven years ago, was an unplanned visit to Rome to connect with our then 19-yr-old daughter who had unexpectedly found a position as an au pair there.

We were thrilled to be crossing the ocean all the way to Italy (from California), and also a little pressed financially. We found an inexpensive apartment way at the end of the metro line, and stayed three weeks. Every day we took the train in to the center of the city and we explored everywhere. We did take a three-day trip to Florence by train, but that was the extent of our extra travels. We got to know our neighbors, and the little elderly lady in the market on our humble street who tried to teach me the Italian words for the vegetables I was buying. I learned about filling my water bottle with cold water from public fountains and not sitting down when I ordered coffee in a small kiosk on the street.

I am so glad we didn't try to see a zillion places for a half-day each. I'm so glad we didn't squander precious days in transit on trains, buses, etc. That trip set the tone for others to come.

And, yes, of course that trip made us want more. Since then, we have returned to Europe numerous times: Spain, France, England, Italy, Greece, Czech Republic, Austria. Every time we have rented apartments and tried to get to know the cities we were staying in.

I suppose one can visit many places briefly within the scope of a single trip, but that's never held any appeal for me.

On our first trip to Europe we spent six months, most of it in Spain. At that time if had spent another week in Paris, we would have spent one month less in Spain.

We travel with the idea that is better to see a few places well, than many poorly.

When people are young, to see many places is a function of age and exuberance. When they are older, I often think it is more like collecting sexual conquests and bragging about it.

Now we often violate our own rules. Although, we are trying to go places we have never visited, we will probably go to Spain next year and see friends and relatives and then see more places we have not seen than we have.

In giving any sort of advice, one needs to size up the advisee.

Those who say they want to see 6 places 1,000 miles apart in 5 days with no account taken of the time necessary to travel between them - well, they probably do need a reality check!

Some people want to linger over every painting in every art gallery - others just want to see the iconic sights.

And at what pace?

I once went on a trip with friends - love 'em to bits - but it was a struggle to get them out of the hotel by 10:00, by 11:00 they asking about lunch, after a long lunch we'd barely got going again when they'd be tired and want to return to the hotel for an afternoon nap. Then it was dinner time... Aargh! No wonder people need 5 days to see one city! ;0)

But yes, when people say 'cut out Venice, just do Rome 4 days and Florence 4 days' I think: "On day 4, walking out of the same hotel onto the same street, with all the iconic sights already seen on multiple occasions over the last 3 days - wouldn't I really give up that 4th day in Florence for one day wandering in Venice, from St Mark's to the Rialto bridge? yes I would!"

Interesting post julies- I was just asking myself do I really have anything useful to say to someone on their first trip? Frankly I'm not sure if I do. People here love to rag on Rick Steves but I think he's a great resource for first time North American travelers in Europe. I think his advice would be much more relevant than mine, I'm often happy to miss the main sights and we move quite slowly, not because I venerate the idea of "slow travel" but because I often have the luxury of more time and it's not my preference to keep on the go. However, I get that lots of people feel differently and have different constraints - just as you outline so wellFrankly I think of myself as a lazy tourist more than a slow traveller!

Man in Seat 61 - I'm like your "slow" friends! You're entirely right we can know people well and not make great travel companions.

Kja makes lots of great points.I think a mistake that's often presumed and repeated on the board is that those who like to cram things in are "per se" inexperienced traveller. From what I can see some people prefer to move at a pace, others don't. It isn't a matter of authenticity or experience it's about maximizing enjoyment and doing what works for you. After all, the travel we are discussing here is an elective - we all choose to do it.

A key issue in all this is negative judgements and there's some of that here. I don't get it? Why would you judge English language speakers for going on English language tours, it just doesn't seem like egregious behavior? Many people are on holiday to escape their workaday worlds not to recreate them in Europe. There's no hierarchy of authenitcity and it isn't a competition for experience, whether you live in Europe, come from Europe, make long trips or short trips, are first timers, old timers or a frequent posters it's all about good will, helping out strangers who ask for advice on the internet. We're all here talking about something we love to do, we all do it in different ways. People often get contradictory advice and that's great, they have to shift through it, after all suggestions are not proscriptions.

I think the difficulty is when first time traveller get too much of the same advice or any of us suggest that our way is the right way. As julies' post suggests it's always helpful to have some self awareness <it always helps to remember that we were not always that type of traveler>. To be honest the difficulty I sometime have is summoning up the enthusiasm to reply to a question one has seen so many times before and being able to answer with the enthusiasm and interest a newer poster deserves, that's my failing.

As kja says "Vive la difference!"

I have one comment..unless someone is elderly, or has a terminal illness.. how do they "know" that they will never get back again?

I guess I am especially referring to the 20-40 yr old age bracket...I think its a big jump to assume that even with a possible lifespan of another 40-60 years you could "never" save enough again for a trip.
Now if they say they would not choose to return that would be different.

I usually write that when I was young, I'd cram a lot into trips.

My first big trip alone was in the Us and I 'did' 15 cities in one month. No time for the parks which I 'did' 15 years later.

Now we were hesitating between 2 weeks in Myanmar and 2 weeks in St Martin. Not really the same.
We chose St Martin. Because this year, well yes, I'd like to get into slippers and be very lazy. A little bit of visit and a lot of farniente (we already spent one week there 2 years ago).

I fully agree that it is best to read OP wishes (when OP does that...) some will answer what they would do, with an utter disregard to what OP wrote.

Each to his own... in ways of traveling, as in ways of answering..

We all have to travel the way that works the best for us...I live in New Zealand and I just want to get back to Europe one day! I visited the UK and Ireland when I was 23 and now 30 years on I feel I am running out of time. Airfare from here is about $2000 return to Paris/London/Rome and I can get 5 weeks holiday from work but the dilemma is how to narrow down the choices to an enjoyable holiday.
I'd love to slow travel and go to Europe every year taking my time in each country but in reality my itinerary will probably be 'busy' because I won't be back.
Sometimes seeing what you really want to see in a city is enough. I had a weekend in Washington DC and my top choice was to visit the Library of Congress (slightly mad of me but I love books and libraries). It was truly beautiful and I am glad I made that choice.

I think dysfunctionality comes in when actions do not produce desired results. This can come about by putting together actions not based on reality, using rules of thumb or catchy sayings without thinking its validity or applicability, or even relying on experts who are knowledgeable about their style of travel only.

I often hear about "you will always come back." Other posters may live in a environment where this might be the case. However, in my experience, probably only about 10% of first timers go back to Europe. And for those that do, most end up visiting Europe perhaps maximum of twice in their life time. I estimate less than 1% of my colleagues visit Europe every year. For this reason, I have much sympathy for those who don't think they would go back to Europe. They are probably correct.

I regularly do "every day a move" holidays across europe. I do them on a bicycle and expect to visit many small towns, villages and cities. I need to plan carefully to ensure there are museums to see etc along the way and we have to limit our visits to keep the journey going.

Do I love this sort of holiday? Yes because everywhere we meet interesting people and see interesting things. Do we pack light? Yes, after a restful breakfast we will be out of the hotel by 9:30 and into our next by 5:00.

But I don't find this works in cars or on trains. I think it comes down to how much gear you take. Whatever the plan, if we have a car the bags just get heavier and heavier.

So I still think, if you are doing your first visit, there is too much "new stuff" language/traffic/timings/rules/smells/food in the way that you have to take time to absorb it.

The last time I travelled more slowly (Libya BTW) it took time to absorb the basics and that is why newbies should chill.

This is a really good question with really good answers, most of which resolve to "It depends," but well worth reflection anyway.

"There's no hierarchy of authenticity and it isn't a competition for experience"

This is just how I feel. Quite a few of these responses reveal a bias for or against a particular style of travel and the people who prefer that style. It is possible that people who propose speedy itineraries do need a reality check, but it is also possible that they are expressing ideas about a trip they would find exciting and enjoyable.

If visiting many places equates to collecting sexual conquests for some people, so what? It is a perfectly legitimate way to get a thrill, and it is a thrill that is neither immoral nor hurtful as collecting sexual conquests can be.

If planning one event a day and enjoying long meals on either end is one's idea of relaxation, then great! Although it is probably best to travel with someone who understands that is your plan and is OK with it.

If people want to travel in a manner that presupposes they will not be back, why fault them for it? They are living for today, tomorrow is uncertain for us all.

If renting apartments and cars gives some people a sense of freedom and independence, why criticize them for spending too much time in them? In fact, why criticize people at all for their vacation choices?

welltraveledbrit,

I've nothing against people taking English language tours or making it a priority to poke around bookstores or to arrange multiple "GTG"s with fellow tourists in foreign tourists. I disagree with you that many people here are not being competitive. They are being highly competitive and looking for ways to assert their superiority. So my negative feelings arise when these people are aggressively sarcastic and insulting about other people's draft itineraries, and use the posts of newbies to paint flattering portraits of themselves to others as slow travel sages who "prefer" are more "in-depth" or "intimate' experience of a foreign culture as opposed to "skimming" multiple European cities and seeing unique, world famous monuments, architecture and art. It's annoying b**lsh*t.

I only occasionally read a self-congratulatory smug post from a super-blitz traveler about how they whizzed through countries checking off a bucket list of standard "must-sees". By contrast, the avalanche of postings and trip reports from people preening about how they've "learned" how to travel to foreign cities and simply do nothing but indulge themselves and their egos 24/7 -- well, glad to see a thread where somebody questions that is the best advice.

<i><font color=#555555>"11 places in 19 days and exactly the type of itinerary we'd laugh at"</font></i>

I wouldn't laugh at someone who wanted to accomplish this itinerary. I would simply shrug my shoulders and move on to another thread. I don't really care how other people choose to travel. I care about how I travel.

When offering travel advice, too many people here project their own desires and biases, while trying to control the behavior of others. Advice boards are a feasting nest for control freaks, and I find them a real turn off.

Others spend a lot of time lecturing because some people like to listen to themselves talk, as evidenced on this thread.

Everyone who wants to do a cram-everything trip should do it. No one can predict the future. It may very well be your one and only trip.

My first cram-everything trip taught me what never to do again. This slow traveler is a firm believer in experiencing mistakes. Mistakes can be your best learning tool.

This is one of the best topics I've seen in a long time.

I live in rural Italy, and often have friends and relatives visit me from the US. Some of them want to take a day trip to somewhere every day, others mainly want to shop, some want to spend most of their time on the beach. One of my friends mainly wanted to get her nails done and get her dog groomed; for some reason she likes to experience nail salons in different cultures. One of my sisters (around age 65) recently backpacked across Europe by train (from England to Italy), spending no more than two or three nights in every place. There was only one place she said she wished she had spent more time: she stopped in Strasbourg for one night and said she should have stayed one more night.

None of these ways of traveling is right or wrong.

In response to Justine, some young people suspect they'll never be back to Europe because they don't have a lot of money and are about to embark on childrearing. Of course, they could be wrong, but they make decisions based on what they know at the time.

Likewise, some people assume they'll be back, but it never happens. Another sister of mine came to visit me about ten years ago. She was a rather busy traveler, spending a few nights in Rome and making a day trip to Venice from my house that involved about seven hours of train travel. She assumed she'd be back, but since then a chronic illness has limited her travel (and her money) and it's unlikely she'll ever return. She certainly doesn't regret the day trip to Venice.

The one consistent advice I give to first-time travelers is not to let yourself be convinced that you "have" to see certain places or things. If you find art museums a bore at home, you'll probably find them a bore in Europe. I know some people act as though it's unthinkable that a tourist not visit the Sistine Chapel or the Uffizi Gallery. There are plenty of people who would enjoy their trip much more if they skipped them.

The whole concept that "regulars here" are somehow more knowledgeable about where and <B>how best</B> to travel somewhere is obviously a flawed concept. Look at this thread: a regular here is having "second thoughts" and as yet I don't necessarily see a whole lot of concrete agreement on the "best" way or even the factors which might influence the best way.

Folks generally base their travel recommendations on <B>what happened to them whey THEY traveled</B> and what they "think" is the best way. And then there are these particular enthusiasts, some of whom actually have websites, and they tell you that there is always a best way, usually tied to a particular means of conveyance (you know who you are).

And then there are the "depth" people who have arbitrarily decided that if you don't spend a particular amount of time in one place you are somehow some sort of moron.

Slow down isn't necessarily bad advice. The sanctimonious tone with which it is offered and the weak arguments used to support it (you lose a half day every time you move) are frustrating to read.

If a poster wants to say it once and then let it go - fine. But some posters have to win arguments and own their territory. A real disservice to pleasant people asking for advice.

Cold

I think that telling people that will lose a half a day is a help as novice travelers might not realize that. This is particularly useful on a short trip.


I also believe you do not know a place until you are ready to leave.

In my opinion what can be helpful for less experienced travelers is to pose questions which help them sort out what experience they are looking for.

IMD - It seems to take people an awfully long time to pack their suitcases around here. Packing suitcases and checking out of hotels should not take longer than 20 minutes.

Walking to a train station through an older part of town, sitting in a train station, taking a train from the city center through the suburbs, riding the train through the countryside, seeing a new city as you ride the train into it and landing in the middle of a new city is definitely not a loss of half a day. It is often one of the highlights of the trip.

Young people often sleep on trains after being out late, enjoying a city while most of us are snoring. That is not a net loss of half a day.

If you are driving in a taxi in a city you have already been to ten times and then standing in a security line at the airport - yes that is a loss of half a day.

Finally, while it may be someone's first time to Europe do we assume they have never been anywhere? Do they really need to be told that changing locations takes a bit of time. Sorry - to me it is just another form of unneeded lecturing from the wise ol' travelers to the poor lost souls asking the questions.

I am always reminded of a very nice woman I met in Singapore. Her visit plan to the US for two weeks?

1 Go to Disneyland
2 Rent Car, drive to Walt Disney World
3 Go to Disneyworld

(Now this might not be your dream vacation, but her's was to see both Disneyland and Disney World...)

It took us a LONG time to get her to understand that driving meant that in her two weeks she would be spending a LOT of it on the drive. She had no understanding of the size of the US (After all her country was the size of Manhattan)

So I do think at least pointing out the logistical challenges or even fatal flaws (i.e., "I want to take the night train from Barcelona to Paris" which no longer exists) is not a bad idea. If someone says "OK I understand that but still want to do X then assist them don't judge!

<i><font color=#555555>"Packing suitcases and checking out of hotels should not take longer than 20 minutes."</font></i>

I realize speaking in broad generalizations on this board is popular, and I also realize most tourists do not travel like me, mixing "vacation" days with a work-related trip. However, any photo-loving tourist traveling with expensive electronics for their 2-week adventure can enjoy the chuckle the quote above provides.

On the other hand, I'm sure many "carry-on only" travelers, especially those who are bald, with bad hair, and ugly fashion, can pack in 10 minutes.

I need at least 3 hours to pack strategically without stress. I've tried to do it in less time, but then I make expensive mistakes.

By driving from California to Florida and using two theme parks as bookends, that woman could see quite a bit of the US in two weeks.

I have not traveled as extensively or as often as most of the regulars here. I also travel with kids so that makes my perspective a bit different than a single person or couple. My first trip to Europe was 9 nights in England (4 Cotswolds, 5 London). I had no idea if I would ever return when planning that trip. Our trip was dictated by the time we could get off work and our limited budget. Could we have seen more of England during that time? Sure, but to us the thought of having to pack up and move was not something we relished. Did I wish we had more time and money to spend? Sure, but we didn't and we still had a wonderful vacation and to this day do not regret what we did and what we did not do.

We all only have our own experiences to guide our advice. If we are each happy with the way we travel then no one is going to change how we do it. I think when giving advice to a first-timer that getting as much information from them first should be crucial. Instead of just jumping in with do this, don't do that the more experienced should really try to help them pin down time, budget, who is traveling and what they want to get out of this trip. Teaching someone HOW to plan their own trip should be the main goal.

I would add that if you are traveling with your children, it is helpful to remember that they are the same kids on a trip as at home (same point for adults). So if they are not great with change or have trouble getting used to sleeping in a new place, a trip with frequent accommodation changes is a bad idea. If your family takes a while to get going in the morning, the excitement of a trip may speed things up but you are not suddenly going to get out the door at 8am. I have learned this the hard way. I have now accepted that there is nothing wrong with traveling in a way that suits our family as if we are all comfortable and well rested we will enjoy any destination better.

Sally30 - I totally agree! None of us knew how we would do with jetlag. My youngest was 4 and he didn't sleep a wink on our overnight flight! Our biggest mistake of that first trip was scheduling trains directly from the airport to the Cotswolds. It involved 2 changes and a taxi, then settling in and going out for dinner. Once he went to sleep he didn't wake up until almost Noon the next day! Talk about losing half a day of your vacation. We have been lucky to return to Europe and have learned and adjusted as the kids got older and our time (not necessarily our budget) has grown! We still don't sleep well on the plane and are totally bogged down with exhaustion our first day.

A friend of mine visited us in the UK, and wanted to see London.
He zoomed around on the tube collecting photographs - he has one in front of a red phone box, a red bus, Buckingham Palace, Trafalgar square and the Houses of Parliament. We only spent a few hours there and he wanted to go home. He showed no interest in actually going inside any of the buildings or finding out about the history.

He has similar photo albums from Paris, Berlin, New York and San Francisco - him standing next to famous sites. As far as he is concenred, he is well travelled, and "Done" London, Paris etc.

Is he wrong - probably not, but to me he hasn't experienced any of the cities that he's been to. For him, there is no reason to return.

I like advising people to slow down, because that is the type of travel I like and understand. People can take or leave that advice as they wish - it doesn't make it more or less valid because they disagree - I can only comment on my own experiences, and for me 11 cities in 12 days would be awful.

I think there are times when it is apparent the the poster is missing some vital information - or has misconceptions - that make it not just helpful but necessary to give them information for which they have not asked.

I won't go into tedious detail but just mention that I have seem a number of posters who for some reason seem to think that Italy is a tropical country. (Not sure if that's all they're used to or that the shape vaguely resembles FL or what).

One couple insisted that there was no reason they couldn't visit cathedrals in Italy in tank tops, shorts and flip flops - no matter how many posters told them it would be a problem. The kicker: they didn't reveal until well into the thread that they were traveling in December. And again, they wouldn't believe that it could be chilly and even cold - with a good possibility of fog, cold rain, sleet, ice or even snow - esp in northern Italy.

In that kind of situation IMHO trying to inform them of actual conditions is important - even if they don't want to know.

The quality of this thread is indeed excellent.
Thanks Julies for starting it.

Speedy itineraries often get blasted here, sometimes unfairly. Some people simply have a low threshold for boredom. While many of us could spend a month in London and see, do, or eat something new every day, others would be done with the place after 3 days and be itching to move on.

Some people want to check boxes. There's nothing wrong with this. Don't need to rent an apartment in Paris for two weeks to check a box.

Others love train travel and pack very light so picking up and training to a new town is fun, whereas the slow-travel folks see this as a negative. However, many times a person proposing a speedy itinerary has greatly underestimated the travel time between cities.

Most Americans who are lucky enough to travel have at most two weeks for their trip and they want to squeeze the most activities possible into that time.

I think some of us blast the speedy itinerary here because many people who draft one also say they want to absorb and experience the places they visit. These are conflicting objectives. You can check all of Paris' major boxes in 3 days but you can't marinate yourself in Paris' juices in such little time.

"By driving from California to Florida and using two theme parks as bookends, that woman could see quite a bit of the US in two weeks."

And if that had been her goal that would have been good. Her goal was to spend LOTS of time in Disney. She really thought it was one or two day drive. For a single woman who didn't drive a lot I think it would take considerably longer

So if she had said "yes, but this way I can see the US" we would have been all for it. But what she said was "I want five days in one park and a week in the other" OPPS!

Yes to all julies says - many Fodorgarchs who chastise rookie tgravelers for being too ambitious I think forget about their first trips, especially if they were young and how much they saw in such a little time.

I once long ago spend most of a whole month riding night trains - when they had regular seats that with my Youth Eurailpass meant a free night's sleep - it was exhilarating to wake up in a new city each day - I did stay a few days in some places and would boomerang back and forth between others - I absolutely loved the experience - would I suggest it to others - not really but the fact is we often forget what we did and loved as first-time or novice travelers ourselves.