BootsnAll Travel Community

This sort of thing has happened to me a few times and I wonder how others handle it. Let's say you are in a city for the first time and you are seeing the sights, but one famous place is said to be overrated. Can you pass on the opportunity to see for yourself?

For example in Barcelona there is the famous Sagrada Familia church that's been under construction for over 120 years. It's mindblowing from the outside and a must-see, but once you pay to get inside you see that it's basically a hollow shell. There is a museum in the basement, but I found it dry, and you can wait in long lines for an elevator, or even longer lines on the stairwells to see the view from the top of the main part.

So I wouldn't really recommend paying to go in, but if someone tells you that can you skip it yourself? I find if I've come all the way to this city it's very difficult to skip some of the major sights, even if I figure I'll probably join in the chorus of saying they are overrated afterward.

I'm not talking about things like wax museums, but have you gone to cities and passed on famous attractions because you've heard negative things, and did you regret it later? I don't think a person can go to Paris and then brag about skipping the Louvre because they heard it bites.

No.
If I want to see something, I want to see it. If people say it is overrated, I want to find out if that's true. I like to make decisions for myself.

For instance, if you had told me not to buy the ticket into Sagrada Familia, I would have been missing out on some of the most brilliant sites of Barcelona (as seen from the towers), as well as the opportunity to see up close the progress on the various spires (they made some movement between my first and second visits). I wouldn't have known this had I not taken a peak myself.

It is all too subjective to pass something up. One person's trash is another's treasure, and all that.

I guess my answer would be yes.
I put a great deal of stake in certain other's opinions, and then I ask lots of questions. After this I can and do eliminate certain places from my list even if they are very famous. (Paris is off my list for example) My decision not to waste time/money seeing something I would not enjoy comes more from detailed answers on what it was like, than whether or not my sources liked it.

When I go to a place, especially for the first, time I tend to be manic about trying to "see" as much as I can. Whether that is waiting in line for the Empire State Blg, the Eiffel Tower or many such touristy things. If nothing else I can kind of cross them off my list and not have to concern myself with them again. After rushing around seeing the sights for a couple of days I then get a better feel for cities and then can relax a bit and enjoy them more. Usually over a
Guinness.

Okay, I won't be giving anniebanannie any travel advice and maybe that wasn't a good example anyway. I actually don't regret paying to go into the Sagrada Familia and that's sort of my point and question for others.

Let's say it's a person (or even guidebook) whose opinion you usually trust that says in spite of something being famous, it's really pretty disappointing.

Personally, my curiosity usually gets the best of me, but maybe that place will move lower on to my list of priorities. I think every Sex Museum everywhere is disappointing and I've learned to pass on those actually, but what about real museums and palaces and churches and such?

I pretty much fall in line with what braslvr said.

It completely depends on what it is, whether or not I value the person's opinion (obviously), and why, specifically, they consider it overrated. And, of course, how much interest I have in it from the outset.

That said, I'm trying to think of a major site that I took a pass on based on someone else's opinion, and I can't come up with a good one. So maybe I'm a liar.

Can you skip an "overrated" attraction? Sure. Is it a good idea? That depends.

Example - when people ask me about travel in Italy, I'm honest about how much I disliked Pisa. The crowds around the church, everyone posing for pictures like they're "holding up" the leaning tower, the too-high prices for even bad food, etc. The inside of the church is actually quite lovely, though, and the grass around the church is some of the greenest I've ever seen. What I tell people is my experience, but I don't tell them whether or not they should go. It's one of those things people have to decide for themselves. If they're going to Italy and would feel the trip was incomplete without seeing the leaning tower firsthand, then they must go - even if they find it annoying once they're there. If they didn't go, they'd never know, and they'd have regrets. It's always better - in my book - to know for oneself.

Now, on the other hand, I don't care how wonderful people tell me a gondola ride is in Venice. I'm not interested in taking one. They charge too flippin' much, and it's like an amusement park ride or something...

I guess you have to balance other people's opinions against your own. How many people, when I mention going to Paris, asked if I went to Princess Diana's crash site. "No, I was too busy seeing all the amazing other things." Response: "oh..."

I like real museums and palaces and churches and such, but less enthused about riding up the elevator in a landmark tall building. 16 years of living in Toronto might have done that, but it's a frigging $25 elevator ride up the CN tower! I happily skipped the Empire State Building. I resisted the Eiffel too, but gave in to spousal pleading.

I wish I'd listened about the Sex Museum in Amsterdam - what a waste of money. And friends told me I "had" to see a live sex show in Amsterdam - no, I don't. I'm more careful where I get travel advice now. Some people seem affronted if you don't do everything they suggest. On the flip side, I'm nervous about my SIL's non-classical-music-loving family going to the Concertegebouw for a free lunch concert on my recommendation. I think they'll hate it, even if the hall is acoustically superb.

Now that I've gone on a few trips I'm much more able to separate "must-sees" from "I want to see". Which is one more reason why travelling is fun.

I've have mixed feelings on this subject. Several people told me not to bother with going to Pompei. I went and in some ways have never left. I love that place. The same people told me not to go to some of the ruins around Roma and I wish I had listened. It all depends and everybosy is different. So take advice with a huge shaker of salt and do what you want anyway.

quote:

So take advice with a huge shaker of salt and do what you want anyway.

I think that's the point. However when you really know someone, and they know you, their opinions are of much greater value. There is a reason why I have never visited Hawaii. That is because 6-8 of my MOST trusted friends have spent a good deal of time(working) there over the years(and most of them liked it). I have the true inside scoop. After listening to all they said, I am 99% sure it would not be worth my time to go there on my own dime. On the other hand, most of these same friends went to Brazil along with me the first time in 97 and all of them hated it. I liked it so much I've been back 13 times.

But anyway, I know you were asking about attractions, not places. I'm not into the typical attractions. Museums, temples, churches, most historical landmarks, etc. don't interest me at all. I would much rather tour a manufacturing plant of some sort. I'm babbling now. Yes, I could theoretically easily avoid the lourve if I was in Paris and not be ashamed to admit it.

If I really want to see something I will go see it but if I'm on the fence about a specific location or attraction I can definitely be pursaded by others that it isn't worth it.

For example in Ethiopia there are the Blue Nile Falls which at first I was very excited to see it but after countless reports that the falls have turned into nothing but a 4 meter wide trickle and a shadow of its former self, I had no problem scratching it off my list.

Overall I agree with the points already made that it depends on the nature of / reason behind the advice not to go and also my reasons for wanting to see something.

I also think a big draw of travel in general is "seeing for myself" and not relying on what someone else tells me...but so many travel decisions have to be based on what others tell you anyway (like the first decision about where to go, which cities to see, etc.).

I think I agree with braslvr. I listen to what people say about places, and to the details of why they liked something, or didn't like something. I have an array of different friends, and many of them would love things that I totally don't care about. And vice versa - my favorite activities are things that many other people would find totally boring.

But more to the original question, I'm not going to skip something just because it's overrated -- if it's something I think I'd like or enjoy, I'd check it out. If it's overrated and something I think I'll hate, then I won't go. Often though I don't care about many of the suggested landmarks/museums listed in guidebooks, so I don't visit them.

Also, regarding certain famous landmarks -- might sound weird, but if I've seen tons of photos of a place, I don't have an incredible need to see it firsthand - Pisa would be the prime example - I've seen photos, I get it, I don't need to see it with my own eyes. ;-)

I've got no problem passing by big attractions/tourist draws if it doesn't interest me. While I like the occasional museum, I can't do museums day after day. It has to be mixed with other sights.

When I get to a new place I tend to take a short tour, get a lay of the land, have the highlights pointed out to me, and then spend the rest of my time there exploring on my own.

While I love churches, ruins, small museums, and different buildings, I'm not a "rush around have-to-see-everything while I'm there" person. I'd rather find a neighborhood I like the feel of, and spend my days getting to know that small slice.

Of course I also always tell myself I don't have to see everything during my first trip someplace because I will go back.

I guess an important thing to consider is how something becomes 'overrated.' It's so subjective and depends on the hype someone else has heard about a place prior to them gong there. If someone felt a site was 'rated' 10 out of 10, and they went to see it and felt it was a 8 out of 10, they might feel disappointed/let down. But would they still want to see the 8? Probably.

It's all so subjective, so if something sounds interesting to me, I'll check it out. I may take opinions into consideration if i'm choosing between 2 things to see and i only have time for one. But, if i'm in Paris I might as well see the Louvre, form my own opinion, and be able to discuss why it was overrated or argue why it wasn't.

Good topic!

I was in Taipei last week, which is home to the world's tallest building. Now, Taipei doesnt have much of a skyline to see on a clear day even, and that day it was so rainy and overcast, they actually warned me before i bought my ticket. But that's just the kind of thing one has to take part in...

first, I COMPLETELY AGREE...La Sagrada Familia was way over rated. I found Gaudi's buildings throughout the city and his park to be much cooler.

second, how do you feel about movie reviews? in particular Ebert. i hate all movie reviews and reviewers because they tend to say things like The English Patient and Shakespeare in Love were great films, when most of us can agree they were hideously boring. i don't trust other people's judgement most of the time and would rather go see something, decide for myself that it is overrated and then complain vociferously that "i can't believe no one told me to skip that crap?"

So, to conclude, I wholeheartedly recommend "The Last King of Scotland". It was an amazing movie. But skip La Sagrada Familia...

Most of the time, I actually prefer to skip the more 'touristy' must do things and wander around discovering things for myself. Sometimes I think that the appeal is more to say you've been to see 'insert item' rather than actually seeing the place/thing.

I think I'm much more inclined to listen to someone's advice if they can provide a coherent case for why something is overrated.
Eg: my mate told me not to bother with the Picasso musuem in Barcelona because it features a lot of earlier work and sketches but not much that the average-joe-not-an-art-history-student would recognise or get much out of. She then recommended alternatives such as the MNAC and the Dali musuem, both of which were great.
Just to say "its overrated" doesn't mean much. It could genuinely not be very impressive, it could be the person was in the wrong mood the day they saw it or maybe it was just really crowded so it was hard to appreciate.. but that doesn't mean it's not worth it.. there must be some reason all those other people were there..

I agree with the comments on understanding why someone thinks an attraction is overrated. I'm not nuts about crowds, so I will often skip a "must see" at peak season just to preserve my sanity. I'm also not thrilled with places that have had tourist makeovers and I'll often skip those.

However, if the objection is "it's dirty" - I was told that about Morocco and Shanghai, and it was true, but I was still fascinated.

I'm also not deterred with "the locals are weird", "no one speaks english" or "there's nothing to see."

La