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)