I'm asking out of curiousity because I've found personally that it doesn't matter how luxurious a hotel is. To me, it all comes down to the way the hotel staff treats their guests. I've gotten way better treatment from 2 and 3 star hotels than some 4 star hotels.

In this order: <BR><BR>1) Clean<BR>2) Safe<BR>3) Relatively convenient to sites of interest<BR>4) Cheap

I'd agree with clean and safe being essential, and certainly I look for location and price when chooing a hotel. But for a hotel to be "great" on its own doesn't relate to price or location. I agree with Saranata, it's about service.<BR><BR>To me, a great hotel would be one that seems to operate perfectly smoothly so that guests have nothing to worry about -- nothing is dirty or neglected; guests' needs are anticipated and as much as possible they don't have to ask (and if they do ask, they're treated courteously). Rooms are quiet, clean, and furnished to the standard that's consistent with the hotel's image and price. <BR><BR>I guess the bottom line is: comfort and no unpleasant surprises!<BR><BR>And having had very unpleasant experiences at a couple of 4-stars, and wonderful experience at some 2-stars, I'd also have to agree that some 4-stars are definitely not great. <BR><BR>It seems that more and more web sites award hotels's stars according to how *many* services they offer, rather than their quality. Personally, I'd rather stay at a place with good service and no restaurant, gym, or business cener!

I agree with you Suzy about hotels being awarded stars for their amenities but not their quality. I mean sure it's nice to have a gym or a really spacious marble bathroom with a Jacuzzi, but it's not worth if the desk clerks are surly. That can spoil everything.

The whole game of rating hotels is pretty mysterious. For one thing, there doesn't seem to be a universal system on what constitutes the top rating. Most government-based systems - - almost every country in Europe has this, but there is no such thing in the US - - has a 1-star to 4-star system. And I think that it IS (generally) based on "features" and "amenities". There ARE some great 3-star hotels that can never make it to 4-star - - for lack of a restaurant, for example.<BR><BR>Then there are all those other systems - - some of which are widely recognized - - like Mobil or AAA in the US. And in Europe, there are ratings on various internet sites - - like www.venere.com - - and they sometimes list a 5-star or even 5-star-luxe.<BR><BR>I have stayed in quite a few 5-star properties. In general, the staff follow a very precise "code" of courtesy and service to all guests, all the time. But they seem to expect a certain "code of behavior" from guests in return, and they may not accommodate less formal ways of behavior or speech.<BR><BR>It can be almost irritating at times - - you call the concierge looking for a telephone number, in a big hurry perhaps.<BR><BR>And they answer "It's a great day at the Palm Springs Ritz-Carlton. Good afternoon, Dr. Bickers. How might I be of service to you today?"<BR><BR>I might have been happier with "Hello".<BR><BR>Best wishes,<BR><BR>Rex<BR>

It's going to be different for different people.<BR><BR>For "great", I want comfortable both in furnishings, and layout, and in atmosphere.<BR><BR>It's far more immportant that the staff are human and treat me like ahuman being than that they are courteous and civil.<BR><BR>It must have good affordable wine list.<BR><BR>And it should have super views.

Even if hotel staff are really nice, that alone doesn't make a hotel great to me. I've been in places where the staff were pleasant and helpful but the rooms were dark, decorated in an outdated ugly manner, had little ventilation and the room was too small and dark (not to mention noisy due to being near elevator or whatever). So I don't care how nice the staff was, the hotel was not anywhere near great.<BR><BR>I think stars should be based on objective criteria, I'm one who likes that system and basically agrees with it. I don't think anyone can give stars because of subjective things or staff who may not be there next week. I think you should take the ratings for what they are and not try to turn them into something they aren't meant to be, that's all. <BR><BR>I much prefer an objective, std system to websites or travel books making up their own ratings. I do enough research of hotels that I will have to say I've never stayed in a terrible 3 or 4 star hotel. Some were better than others, but on avg, they are indeed a lot better than the avg. 2 star. I don't know where you have to have a restaurant for 4 stars, but that isn't true for everywhere, I know because I've been in 4-star hotels without restaurants (in Prague for sure, and I think France doesn't require it either, only some food or room service availability). People who care so much about star ratings that they would reject a hotel because it was 4 and not 3 stars probably (hopefully) know what that 4th star usually means and have a reason they want that. <BR><BR>Personally, the countries I visit most do pretty good in the ratings dept. as far as I'm concerned and I find them very useful.

yeah, well, you know what I meant -- reject a place because it had only 3 stars, not 4

In general, I expect to get the greatness I pay for, with two exceptions, which define greatness in any hotel category:<BR><BR>A hotel which trains its staff to be precise and accurate when specifying the terms of bookings, and which from the beginning is careful to indicate what my commitments are to them, what they will commit to providing for me, and what they will try, but cannot guarantee, to do for me. <BR><BR>A hotel that trains its staff to treat complaints as problems to be solved if possible, acknowledged courteously always, and never taken personally.<BR><BR>Needless to say, the same is owing from me to them; great hotels require appreciative customers.

Can I pursue this one a little please? I find the differences in approach very interesting.<BR><BR>I guess I've never stayed in a terrible 3 or 4 star hotel, either. But I have stayed in some that wouldn't warm the cockles of my heart- most hiltons or Crowne Plazas for example. as someone said above I really don't care about the number of satellite channels or the quality of the trouser press, But I MUST have somewhere comfortable to sit and read. <BR><BR>I certainly don't think price is a criterion I'd judge by. More is certainly not always better.<BR><BR>Is this a US/Europe thing? Or is it just me?

In the U.S., we have 5* hotels (or so they claim). These hotels have obsequious staff, giant rooms with jacuzzis, free terry cloth bathrobes and a welcome gift of a giant basket of tropical fruit and usually great views over some park or other, or some variation of the aforementioned. People who have servants and palatial homes seem to like this sort of thing (or if they win it on a game show). For this, one pays a pretty penny (vs an ugly penny, I guess). We're talking US$500+ a night. Some are full suites (I'm thinking of the Ritz-Carlton Boston Common as an example) with grillions of services like internet, fax, big screen tvs, professional quality sound systems, etc. Yup, worth every penny of that $500 - four nights and I can go to Europe for two weeks. <BR><BR>Internationally, the Raffles Hotel in Singapore always comes in #1 or 2 in surveys for the best hotel in the world. At US$2000 a night, it better.<BR><BR>For *me*, a great hotel is getting more than I bargained for. I choose a hotel for location/safety/cleanliness - I pay for those features, and don't expect much more in a no* or 1* hotel. If I get a room larger than usual, or a TV with cable, or an electric kettle and specialty teas, then I think I've died and gone to heaven. If I'm paying $500 a night, my expectations will NEVER be met; if I'm paying $50, they'll probably be exceeded. <BR>

T

The two qualities that come above all others are great rooms and impeccable service. I enjoy wonderful service, but if the setting isn't wonderful, it doesn't qualify as a great hotel. <BR><BR>Two experiences stand out in my mind as being my ultimate hotel/resort outstanding service experiences. The first was at the Four Seasons Sayan in Bali. My husband did not bring tennis shoes and we were taking a hike that morning, so they provided brand new tennis shoes along with socks for him to wear. In addition, the hike was a bit muddy so naturally, my shoes got muddy. They took my shoes from our room and cleaned them and then returned them in the afternoon! <BR><BR>The next experience was at the Point resort in Upstate New York. We arrived late in the afternoon (after lunch) and decided to take a boat ride, they insisted that we take a "snack" with us. They provided a picnic with chilled wine, roast beef salad, fruit, cheese, etc. They prepared it immediately so that we could have it for our trip. (and we didn't even have to ask!) <BR><BR>Of course both of these hotels had fabulous rooms in fabulous settings as well, making them in my opinion, "Great Hotels". <BR><BR>

tof

At least i expect to have the same level ofcomfort that i have at home:<BR>-Space<BR>-A/C(much surprised with the cold only feature in the US(?!)<BR>-Cleanliness<BR><BR><BR><BR>

For me, for a hotel to be great it has to combine all the following things, and if it fails in one or other it's not great, no matter how well it achieves the rest. This is just because of MY personal needs in a hotel. So what I am saying is that one hotel might be absolutely wonderful, and someone else might adore it, with great rooms, staff, views. But I might dismiss it because of location according to my needs at the time.<BR><BR>Location: This changes depending on what kind of break it is. On a city break I want a location which is attractive as well as convenient for sites/ ocal transport and also one which has a lot of choice of good restaurants in the vicinity. The location must also feel safe. For a relaxing holiday, the location would often be more rural BUT according to my own interests, I'd be more interested in how easily I could get to places and towns of interest nearby than the hiking trails aroundabout. Views are somewhat important, I don't want to look out over a hideous car park or air conditioning system, but I seldom pay extra for sea or canal or lake view. If the views from the breakfast bar are great, but my room faces onto the inner courtyard instead, that's fine, I still enjoy those views plenty.<BR><BR>Room: Again what I am looking for depends on holiday. In a city break I often come back to the room to relax but just for a couple of hours before going out for dinner. The room needs to be comfortable and attractive but not huge. On a countryside holiday I might sit in the room for a good halfday or more reading my books and magazines in which case I am looking for more space, comfortable reading chairs, good window light etc. The room just has to be that much more special. <BR><BR>Bathroom: The bathroom is really important to me. There HAS to be a good supply of hot water, the place has to be CLEAN and the shower good and strong. A bath is always an added plus to soak away the aches of sightseeing. I also like to have good size towels and often ask for extra, a hotel gets extra marks if the staff remember the request and provide the extra towels for the rest of the stay without reminder. I also like a towel heating rail thing... bliss. Don't care about bidet, don't care about whether there is a showercurtain or a washcloth. <BR><BR>Staff: I want courteous staff who can also give me advice about the locale if I need it and handle any requests. I expect as a given that they will get my reservation details right. I have often found the difference between good and excellent is how they handle it when something goes wrong. I've seldom experienced rude staff - indifferent is the worst and even then not often, however I get an idea of the staff helpfulness during the back and forth emails before booking.<BR><BR>I think those are the key things for me. It's nice to have a good breakfast, but I can always get that somewhere else, particularly on a city break. I am not fussed about whether they offer dry cleaning, an in hotel restaurant, or business facilities. On a relaxation break a spa facility offering well priced massage is always a pleasure.<BR><BR>I am not tied to star rating, though tend in practice to hover at the 3* mark, sometimes going higher for a special holiday or if I can't get what I need in the available 3*. U'll book 2* too, seldom find what I want in a 1 or no* but that's just me.<BR><BR>Kavey

Elvira, I hear what you're saying; that the relationship of greatness-to-price is not strictly a straight line one. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that this relationship tends to apply mostly at the lower ends of the price scale, where small increments in price generally are meaningful, whereas they are not at the upper end.<BR><BR>Nonetheless, the key features a lot of people have mentioned are things like safe area, or convenience to sites, or beautiful views, which in turn are related to real estate prices. And yes, one does indeed get what one pays for in that respect; one must keep up with demand versus supply. If it were simply a function of the hotel building or staff, no way would I pay what I do in Venice/Rome/Paris, for example, for a 2 or 3 star hotel. No matter how hard the establishment tried.