How many visits?
So, we spend some time entering interesting information on this page, making sure it's both correct and acceptable. But we then have no idea if the information was of use to anyone! How about some sort of hit counter so that visits can be visible to both those who contributed and those who enquired? --(WT-en) Russetsprint 14:59, 7 July 2009 (EDT)
- Wikivoyage used to have them, but they were removed years ago since they caused too much server load... (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:36, 7 July 2009 (EDT)
So, no way to measure success at all? Most on line forums have hit counters and don't seem to have problems. Wikivoyage is superior to forums as it avoids the 'me me' bragging and other personality 'conflicts' so a measure of it's success would be useful I would suggest. --(WT-en) Russetsprint 09:54, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
- Do a web search for "Khao Lak" and see how high Wikivoyage comes up. Eg "khao lak travel guide" on Google gets Wikivoyage as the 2nd hit. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:09, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
thanks for your hard work
currently using wikivoyage to plan my 3 week trip to the phuket area! =D
To what end?
I worked my butt off to edit/rewrite/add content on Khao Lak. It was (is?) by far and away the best travel info on the area. Googling "Khao Lak travel" today (2014-06-14) and WV is about the 33d listing that comes up, preceded by a lot of dross that has unapologetically ripped off (my) WV content. This is depressing in the extreme and frankly militates against further participation. --A contributor —The preceding comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you are frustrated, but please don't be too downhearted. Search engine rankings will undoubtedly improve when some effort is put into distinguishing our code from that of Wikitravel and its many clones. Unfortunately Google is resolutely opposed to getting humans to assess sites, so it currently has no way of knowing how much better we are. BushelCandle (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
This edit (and similar recent ones) seems to take issue with one of our policies: our travel writing should describe things fairly, even if that means that a description isn't flattering. This fundamental policy allows travelers to make informed decisions based on honest information. Our guides should not be written from a neutral or encyclopedic point of view, but should be written for travelers from a traveler's point of view. Lively writing is encouraged so long as it describes the destination in a clear and correct manner. We should make every attempt to be fair in articles.
Being "fair" does not necessarily mean being "nice". We have a mission to make (among other things) a reliable and complete travel guide, and a travel guide that doesn't give qualitative information about the things it describes isn't reliable or complete. In other words, we need to call a spade a spade (but not necessarily a fucking shovel); if a restaurant is crowded, loud, and overpriced, we need to say so. If a hotel has bugs, smells of urine, or is dangerously or badly built, we need to say so. If somewhere's dirty, ugly, annoying, or just not worth the effort, we need to say so too!