Rick Steves - Ugly American Again!
Sep 26th, 2014, 08:38 AM
#164
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 11,770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"And McDonald's is the best selling hamburger and wrestling is still gets high ratings on cable."
Is coming from the same poster who says RS is uneducated? Did RS steal your girlfriend or something? You seem to have some issues.
Is coming from the same poster who says RS is uneducated? Did RS steal your girlfriend or something? You seem to have some issues.
Sep 26th, 2014, 06:58 PM
#167
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 23,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I apologize, in advance, for prolonging this discussion, but andrew has questioned me, <i>personally</i>, in a way that I find I cannot ignore.
Contrary to his suggestion, I have <b>not</b>, to my knowledge, commented on the level of sophistication or depth of understanding of users of RS guidebooks (including andrew) on this thread or any other, and I have no intention of doing so. I find the suggestion that I have done so – despite my prior attempt to resolve a similar misunderstanding with andrew on a different thread – extremely distressing.
My comments about RS guidebooks have been focused on their comprehensiveness, specifically, the <b>range</b> of sightseeing options covered. <u>Period</u>. I have stated my observation that RS guidebooks skip a LOT. Since I use guidebooks in large part to identify the options to see and do things, a guidebook that provides very limited coverage of those things does not meet my needs. I can imagine that someone who relies solely, or perhaps even primarily, on a RS guidebook might not realize what it does not cover. It seems to me logical to think that people who are aware of only a limited range of sightseeing opportunities <u>might</u> spend less time in any given location than those who use more comprehensive guidebooks. That is something I wonder about; it is not a criticism, just a question -- a question linked to the <b>range</b> of sightseeing options covered and <b>nothing</b> else. It is a question about the impact of the book, <u>not</u> about the person using it!
It also seems to me that people who rely solely on RS guidebooks <u>might</u> miss a great deal that they <u>might</u> enjoy, since they <u>might</u> not know about those options. Again, in raising that issue, I am NOT criticizing the users of RS guidebooks; I am raising a criticism of the RS guidebooks I have seen <i>per se</i>. In light of this possibility, I consider it well within the bounds of <u>responsible</u> participation in this forum to make note of my observation of this <u>specific</u> limitation of RS guidebooks when the issue arises. In doing so, I am not trying to criticize <b>any</b> current, past, or future forum poster; I am trying to provide information that others might find useful.
Again, my apologies for prolonging this thread.
Contrary to his suggestion, I have <b>not</b>, to my knowledge, commented on the level of sophistication or depth of understanding of users of RS guidebooks (including andrew) on this thread or any other, and I have no intention of doing so. I find the suggestion that I have done so – despite my prior attempt to resolve a similar misunderstanding with andrew on a different thread – extremely distressing.
My comments about RS guidebooks have been focused on their comprehensiveness, specifically, the <b>range</b> of sightseeing options covered. <u>Period</u>. I have stated my observation that RS guidebooks skip a LOT. Since I use guidebooks in large part to identify the options to see and do things, a guidebook that provides very limited coverage of those things does not meet my needs. I can imagine that someone who relies solely, or perhaps even primarily, on a RS guidebook might not realize what it does not cover. It seems to me logical to think that people who are aware of only a limited range of sightseeing opportunities <u>might</u> spend less time in any given location than those who use more comprehensive guidebooks. That is something I wonder about; it is not a criticism, just a question -- a question linked to the <b>range</b> of sightseeing options covered and <b>nothing</b> else. It is a question about the impact of the book, <u>not</u> about the person using it!
It also seems to me that people who rely solely on RS guidebooks <u>might</u> miss a great deal that they <u>might</u> enjoy, since they <u>might</u> not know about those options. Again, in raising that issue, I am NOT criticizing the users of RS guidebooks; I am raising a criticism of the RS guidebooks I have seen <i>per se</i>. In light of this possibility, I consider it well within the bounds of <u>responsible</u> participation in this forum to make note of my observation of this <u>specific</u> limitation of RS guidebooks when the issue arises. In doing so, I am not trying to criticize <b>any</b> current, past, or future forum poster; I am trying to provide information that others might find useful.
Again, my apologies for prolonging this thread.
Sep 27th, 2014, 06:13 PM
#168
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 7,960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have yet to read a guide book that I thought covered all the bases that would make it ideal( to me)
100 percent accurate information.. nope
thorough coverage on history without being long drawn out and boring.. nope
I don't think RS books are better or worse then other books according to their audience.
I read one about 20 yrs ago.. I thought it ok. Liked some of the travel tips.
I never use any books.. internet makes books obsolete. Last book I actually bought was at a garage sale.. Europe on 5 dollars a day.. it was old. but a fun read..
I absolutely see some real snobbish stuff on this thread and I find it hilarious that those posters are trying to turn it around..
Too cool for school..
100 percent accurate information.. nope
thorough coverage on history without being long drawn out and boring.. nope
I don't think RS books are better or worse then other books according to their audience.
I read one about 20 yrs ago.. I thought it ok. Liked some of the travel tips.
I never use any books.. internet makes books obsolete. Last book I actually bought was at a garage sale.. Europe on 5 dollars a day.. it was old. but a fun read..
I absolutely see some real snobbish stuff on this thread and I find it hilarious that those posters are trying to turn it around..
Too cool for school..
Sep 27th, 2014, 06:24 PM
#169
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 6,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the Internet is renown for its reliability. No reviews that are lies, no prejudices or misinterpretations about customs, history, cuisine, or culture. No one making odd assumptions about the place they are too visit.
Never play poker with a man named Doc, never sleep with someone who is crazier than you, and never believe anything on the Internet without at least two independent confirmations.
Never play poker with a man named Doc, never sleep with someone who is crazier than you, and never believe anything on the Internet without at least two independent confirmations.
Sep 27th, 2014, 07:13 PM
#170
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 7,960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gosh you really are a stuffed shirt, you cannot bear to stop ranting on a subject.. poor little man. I guess sitting at your computer late at night composing what you assume to be witty retorts amuses you .. guess that's almost as good as having friends.
I book all my travel myself. I look up a place.. I do my homework.. and in having booked my own travel for minimally last 15 -20 years I have never arrived at a hotel that surprised me.. or at a site that was closed or moved.. no guide book can be as up to date as most sites own websites.
No matter IMD.. you obviously feel that however you do things is the right way.. good for you.. hope that "confidence" keeps you company .. Its the silly need to comment on other peoples ways of doing things that amuses me.. are you really that insecure or are you really that ego centric?
I could care less what others read or do not read.. whether they use a guide book or the internet.. but you sure think you have all the answers.. I don't think my way is the best way for everyone.. but man are you ever coming off as a known it all.
I book all my travel myself. I look up a place.. I do my homework.. and in having booked my own travel for minimally last 15 -20 years I have never arrived at a hotel that surprised me.. or at a site that was closed or moved.. no guide book can be as up to date as most sites own websites.
No matter IMD.. you obviously feel that however you do things is the right way.. good for you.. hope that "confidence" keeps you company .. Its the silly need to comment on other peoples ways of doing things that amuses me.. are you really that insecure or are you really that ego centric?
I could care less what others read or do not read.. whether they use a guide book or the internet.. but you sure think you have all the answers.. I don't think my way is the best way for everyone.. but man are you ever coming off as a known it all.
Sep 27th, 2014, 07:30 PM
#171
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 6,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Justine-
Once again it is acceptable for someone to write something but it is not for another to respond. Got it.
While you are googling for your next perfect trip look up passive agressive, one of the dominant traits of these boards.
Once again it is acceptable for someone to write something but it is not for another to respond. Got it.
While you are googling for your next perfect trip look up passive agressive, one of the dominant traits of these boards.
Sep 28th, 2014, 08:37 AM
#173
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While you are googling for your next perfect trip look up passive aggressive, one of the dominant traits of these boards.>
as opposed to your overt aggression in which you seem to thrive?
as opposed to your overt aggression in which you seem to thrive?
Sep 28th, 2014, 10:58 AM
#174
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lovely weather we've been having.
P.S. If Rick Steves can create a corporate empire and prosper writing about Europe while all the time being an Ugly American, I am looking to sign up for an Ugly American correspondence course.
P.S. If Rick Steves can create a corporate empire and prosper writing about Europe while all the time being an Ugly American, I am looking to sign up for an Ugly American correspondence course.
Sep 28th, 2014, 08:23 PM
#179
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I can imagine that someone who relies solely, or perhaps even primarily, on a RS guidebook might not realize what it does not cover. "
kja, I'm not trying to be snide either, but I am the type who will challenge an argument, and that's what I'm doing.
To me, you are not commenting on the guidebook, but on the readership, and what is more, you are commenting by your own admission, only on the readership as it exists in your imagination.
However, even assuming we can come to know someone based on the relatively small sample of posts they might make here, we can't know the RS readership because judging by the number of books sold, most readers don't comment on Fodors. Nor has a proper randomized poll been conducted anywhere to determine what percentage of RS readers rely solely on his guidebooks. But even those that do buy only his guidebooks, may not necessarily assume that the book is comprehensive; you have no evidence for this.
Your comments on the guidebook are fair, because it is a published reference. But to comment on something as variable as a population of readers risks misunderstandings.
"It seems to me logical to think that people who are aware of only a limited range of sightseeing opportunities might spend less time in any given location than those who use more comprehensive guidebooks."
First, why is it logical to assume that because people use a focused guidebook, that they are not aware of other sightseeing opportunities? People might easily guess that the book is condensed and focused, if only because the marketing material for the book clearly states this to be the case.
But more significantly, why is it logical to assume that people using focused guidebooks would spend less time in a location?
The time spent in a given place is a function of many variables, only one of which is how many sights one knows about. The time a given person wants to spend on any given sight, or in other words, the speed at which they sightsee - also affects the total amount of time they spend in any given location. You have no evidence about how closely a reader follows the suggested itineraries. We invariably plan to spend at least 50 per cent more time than Mr. Steves recommends, because our rate of sightseeing is slower than can be accommodated by his schedules, and we determined that before we booked our first trip to Europe. So people like us could easily spend as much time as someone following a different guidebook. (10 sights in 4 days or 3 sights in 4 days, one is still there for 4 days. )
kja, I'm not trying to be snide either, but I am the type who will challenge an argument, and that's what I'm doing.
To me, you are not commenting on the guidebook, but on the readership, and what is more, you are commenting by your own admission, only on the readership as it exists in your imagination.
However, even assuming we can come to know someone based on the relatively small sample of posts they might make here, we can't know the RS readership because judging by the number of books sold, most readers don't comment on Fodors. Nor has a proper randomized poll been conducted anywhere to determine what percentage of RS readers rely solely on his guidebooks. But even those that do buy only his guidebooks, may not necessarily assume that the book is comprehensive; you have no evidence for this.
Your comments on the guidebook are fair, because it is a published reference. But to comment on something as variable as a population of readers risks misunderstandings.
"It seems to me logical to think that people who are aware of only a limited range of sightseeing opportunities might spend less time in any given location than those who use more comprehensive guidebooks."
First, why is it logical to assume that because people use a focused guidebook, that they are not aware of other sightseeing opportunities? People might easily guess that the book is condensed and focused, if only because the marketing material for the book clearly states this to be the case.
But more significantly, why is it logical to assume that people using focused guidebooks would spend less time in a location?
The time spent in a given place is a function of many variables, only one of which is how many sights one knows about. The time a given person wants to spend on any given sight, or in other words, the speed at which they sightsee - also affects the total amount of time they spend in any given location. You have no evidence about how closely a reader follows the suggested itineraries. We invariably plan to spend at least 50 per cent more time than Mr. Steves recommends, because our rate of sightseeing is slower than can be accommodated by his schedules, and we determined that before we booked our first trip to Europe. So people like us could easily spend as much time as someone following a different guidebook. (10 sights in 4 days or 3 sights in 4 days, one is still there for 4 days. )
Sep 28th, 2014, 09:16 PM
#180
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rick Steves lost me when I got off the train in Vernazza in Cinque Terre and I counted 26 folks with his book in their hands quoting him.
The other issue I have had with him is that he has stated in his Britain book that folks should stay out in Bath instead of actually in London as it is an easy commute in and less expensive.
Most of his books don't cover much of a country so I take him with a grain of salt when researching.
The other issue I have had with him is that he has stated in his Britain book that folks should stay out in Bath instead of actually in London as it is an easy commute in and less expensive.
Most of his books don't cover much of a country so I take him with a grain of salt when researching.
