5 replaced http://travel.stackexchange.com/ with https://travel.stackexchange.com/
source | link

In the close question reasons debate, we seemed pretty in favour of not wanting to become travel agents. That is, doing all the research and so on for:

  • someone's specific flights from A to B, the prices and details of which won't benefit any future user
  • designing someone's itinerary around a country when they provide no indication of what they enjoy, want to see, or how they want to travel and so on.

I propose we nail this down now in a discussion.

Where I draw the line now...my view may change, it certainly has on this in the past, is that we're not planning people's trips for them. "Oh I hear Scotland is lovely, where should I go?". No. Even "I want to visit Argentina, I have $2000, will be there in September, and want to stay in Hostels". No. There are too many possible answers, too many itineraries, and it's their holiday.

Now, do they have a specific question? What's the most logical order to visit the Argentinian side of the Iguazu Falls? Is there a tour company that takes you to the whales in Puerto Madryn? Are there day trips to Perito Merino Glacier? Sure, we're happy to help. Those are specific, detailed, non-subjective questions, and we have (hopefully) the answers!

To draw the latest one into the argument which got my attentionlatest one into the argument which got my attention, I've tried to encourage a rewrite, and to some extent he has, but I looked at what he's made, and my heart wasn't in answering. And I realised why. His post isn't a question, there is no question there. (Indeed, the very title is lacking a question. The reason is it's rather hard to ask a question title which encapsulates "I want a tour of the Cotswolds") It's a list of requirements for a tour. It's something you hand over to a travel agent or guide, and ask them to explain how to book it.

And I stand my staff here in the ground, and say, you shall not pass! Or rather, we are not travel agents!

(crickets, silence, crickets)

OK, thoughts?

In the close question reasons debate, we seemed pretty in favour of not wanting to become travel agents. That is, doing all the research and so on for:

  • someone's specific flights from A to B, the prices and details of which won't benefit any future user
  • designing someone's itinerary around a country when they provide no indication of what they enjoy, want to see, or how they want to travel and so on.

I propose we nail this down now in a discussion.

Where I draw the line now...my view may change, it certainly has on this in the past, is that we're not planning people's trips for them. "Oh I hear Scotland is lovely, where should I go?". No. Even "I want to visit Argentina, I have $2000, will be there in September, and want to stay in Hostels". No. There are too many possible answers, too many itineraries, and it's their holiday.

Now, do they have a specific question? What's the most logical order to visit the Argentinian side of the Iguazu Falls? Is there a tour company that takes you to the whales in Puerto Madryn? Are there day trips to Perito Merino Glacier? Sure, we're happy to help. Those are specific, detailed, non-subjective questions, and we have (hopefully) the answers!

To draw the latest one into the argument which got my attention, I've tried to encourage a rewrite, and to some extent he has, but I looked at what he's made, and my heart wasn't in answering. And I realised why. His post isn't a question, there is no question there. (Indeed, the very title is lacking a question. The reason is it's rather hard to ask a question title which encapsulates "I want a tour of the Cotswolds") It's a list of requirements for a tour. It's something you hand over to a travel agent or guide, and ask them to explain how to book it.

And I stand my staff here in the ground, and say, you shall not pass! Or rather, we are not travel agents!

(crickets, silence, crickets)

OK, thoughts?

In the close question reasons debate, we seemed pretty in favour of not wanting to become travel agents. That is, doing all the research and so on for:

  • someone's specific flights from A to B, the prices and details of which won't benefit any future user
  • designing someone's itinerary around a country when they provide no indication of what they enjoy, want to see, or how they want to travel and so on.

I propose we nail this down now in a discussion.

Where I draw the line now...my view may change, it certainly has on this in the past, is that we're not planning people's trips for them. "Oh I hear Scotland is lovely, where should I go?". No. Even "I want to visit Argentina, I have $2000, will be there in September, and want to stay in Hostels". No. There are too many possible answers, too many itineraries, and it's their holiday.

Now, do they have a specific question? What's the most logical order to visit the Argentinian side of the Iguazu Falls? Is there a tour company that takes you to the whales in Puerto Madryn? Are there day trips to Perito Merino Glacier? Sure, we're happy to help. Those are specific, detailed, non-subjective questions, and we have (hopefully) the answers!

To draw the latest one into the argument which got my attention, I've tried to encourage a rewrite, and to some extent he has, but I looked at what he's made, and my heart wasn't in answering. And I realised why. His post isn't a question, there is no question there. (Indeed, the very title is lacking a question. The reason is it's rather hard to ask a question title which encapsulates "I want a tour of the Cotswolds") It's a list of requirements for a tour. It's something you hand over to a travel agent or guide, and ask them to explain how to book it.

And I stand my staff here in the ground, and say, you shall not pass! Or rather, we are not travel agents!

(crickets, silence, crickets)

OK, thoughts?

4 replaced http://meta.travel.stackexchange.com/ with https://travel.meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link

In the close question reasons debate, we seemed pretty in favourseemed pretty in favour of not wanting to become travel agents. That is, doing all the research and so on for:

  • someone's specific flights from A to B, the prices and details of which won't benefit any future user
  • designing someone's itinerary around a country when they provide no indication of what they enjoy, want to see, or how they want to travel and so on.

I propose we nail this down now in a discussion.

Where I draw the line now...my view may change, it certainly has on this in the past, is that we're not planning people's trips for them. "Oh I hear Scotland is lovely, where should I go?". No. Even "I want to visit Argentina, I have $2000, will be there in September, and want to stay in Hostels". No. There are too many possible answers, too many itineraries, and it's their holiday.

Now, do they have a specific question? What's the most logical order to visit the Argentinian side of the Iguazu Falls? Is there a tour company that takes you to the whales in Puerto Madryn? Are there day trips to Perito Merino Glacier? Sure, we're happy to help. Those are specific, detailed, non-subjective questions, and we have (hopefully) the answers!

To draw the latest one into the argument which got my attention, I've tried to encourage a rewrite, and to some extent he has, but I looked at what he's made, and my heart wasn't in answering. And I realised why. His post isn't a question, there is no question there. (Indeed, the very title is lacking a question. The reason is it's rather hard to ask a question title which encapsulates "I want a tour of the Cotswolds") It's a list of requirements for a tour. It's something you hand over to a travel agent or guide, and ask them to explain how to book it.

And I stand my staff here in the ground, and say, you shall not pass! Or rather, we are not travel agents!

(crickets, silence, crickets)

OK, thoughts?

In the close question reasons debate, we seemed pretty in favour of not wanting to become travel agents. That is, doing all the research and so on for:

  • someone's specific flights from A to B, the prices and details of which won't benefit any future user
  • designing someone's itinerary around a country when they provide no indication of what they enjoy, want to see, or how they want to travel and so on.

I propose we nail this down now in a discussion.

Where I draw the line now...my view may change, it certainly has on this in the past, is that we're not planning people's trips for them. "Oh I hear Scotland is lovely, where should I go?". No. Even "I want to visit Argentina, I have $2000, will be there in September, and want to stay in Hostels". No. There are too many possible answers, too many itineraries, and it's their holiday.

Now, do they have a specific question? What's the most logical order to visit the Argentinian side of the Iguazu Falls? Is there a tour company that takes you to the whales in Puerto Madryn? Are there day trips to Perito Merino Glacier? Sure, we're happy to help. Those are specific, detailed, non-subjective questions, and we have (hopefully) the answers!

To draw the latest one into the argument which got my attention, I've tried to encourage a rewrite, and to some extent he has, but I looked at what he's made, and my heart wasn't in answering. And I realised why. His post isn't a question, there is no question there. (Indeed, the very title is lacking a question. The reason is it's rather hard to ask a question title which encapsulates "I want a tour of the Cotswolds") It's a list of requirements for a tour. It's something you hand over to a travel agent or guide, and ask them to explain how to book it.

And I stand my staff here in the ground, and say, you shall not pass! Or rather, we are not travel agents!

(crickets, silence, crickets)

OK, thoughts?

In the close question reasons debate, we seemed pretty in favour of not wanting to become travel agents. That is, doing all the research and so on for:

  • someone's specific flights from A to B, the prices and details of which won't benefit any future user
  • designing someone's itinerary around a country when they provide no indication of what they enjoy, want to see, or how they want to travel and so on.

I propose we nail this down now in a discussion.

Where I draw the line now...my view may change, it certainly has on this in the past, is that we're not planning people's trips for them. "Oh I hear Scotland is lovely, where should I go?". No. Even "I want to visit Argentina, I have $2000, will be there in September, and want to stay in Hostels". No. There are too many possible answers, too many itineraries, and it's their holiday.

Now, do they have a specific question? What's the most logical order to visit the Argentinian side of the Iguazu Falls? Is there a tour company that takes you to the whales in Puerto Madryn? Are there day trips to Perito Merino Glacier? Sure, we're happy to help. Those are specific, detailed, non-subjective questions, and we have (hopefully) the answers!

To draw the latest one into the argument which got my attention, I've tried to encourage a rewrite, and to some extent he has, but I looked at what he's made, and my heart wasn't in answering. And I realised why. His post isn't a question, there is no question there. (Indeed, the very title is lacking a question. The reason is it's rather hard to ask a question title which encapsulates "I want a tour of the Cotswolds") It's a list of requirements for a tour. It's something you hand over to a travel agent or guide, and ask them to explain how to book it.

And I stand my staff here in the ground, and say, you shall not pass! Or rather, we are not travel agents!

(crickets, silence, crickets)

OK, thoughts?

    Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackTravel/status/364811919451897856
3 edited title
| link

The WANTAWANTA™ debate (We are not travel agents)

2 edited title
| link
1
source | link