So, I'm thinking about anti-recommendations for restaurants, bars, hotels, attractions, etc. My general feeling is that it's probably not worthwhile to list places that just suck, unless they're so prominent/well-known/whatever that unwitting travelers may be sucked in. For example, the hotel right across from the train station, the roadside attraction with billboards for miles in every direction, the bar listed in another guide.
I'm wondering where and how to express this idea, though. Any opinions or ideas? --Evan 10:37, 8 Dec 2003 (PST)
Just put it into the appropriate section under a sub-header "What to avoid". Seems like the most straight forward answer to me. Nils Jan 8th 2004
Yeah, but why should we have a whole section on what to avoid? Unless there's a really good chance that people are going to go somewhere, and we need to warn them away, I don't see a good reason to take up valuable space in a destination guide with information about a place not worth going. I think we should just list ones that we need to have negative stuff about with other attractions/restaurants/bars/hotels/etc. Just have a negative description. --Evan 00:34, 20 Jan 2004 (EST)
Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and start writing a few negative reviews (like the RP). I figure travellers deserve to know about a place that is cheap (for london) and does have a fantastic location. They just also deserve to know that the in-hall showers don't work so well. -- Mark 01:25, 20 Jan 2004 (EST)
We should not review mediocre stuff ("this place was not the best") or places with small problems ("I waited 5 minutes for the receptionist"). But if a place is really, really horrible ("our room was covered in cockroaches and there was a dead guy in the shower!"), we owe it to our readers to warn them. Of course, there should be a definite reason (not just "it sucked!"), and if others disagree, they will probably edit until an "objective view" emerges. -- Nils 09:16, 7 Apr 2004 (EDT)
Warning about tourist traps is definitely what I would expect of a decent travel guide. I would be happy not to repeat the mistakes others made. In fact I'd consider this piece of information one of the most valuable and certainly not a waste of space. Of course they have to keep the NPOV as anything else here. Wojsyl 14:29, 1 Jan 2005 (EST)
There are some things about this place that suck
Wow. I have no idea where to put the info, but man do I want to. I just stayed at the Regent's Palace in London, and was pretty unhappy with it. I had booked a room with a hall shower having experienced hall showers in Paris and several locations in Switzerland, where they were perfectly acceptable, but at the Regent's Palace they were mostly broken, and in some cases dirty, and locked most of the time, so one had to ring up the cleaning staff to get into the shower! -- Mark 10:44, 8 Dec 2003 (PST)
"If you can't say something nice don't say anything at all" is a nice policy but I mean almost all guidebooks, save the pure propaganda, are unafraid to take a well deserved dig now and then. Should we take any omitted page to indicate a negative review (and we're holding our tongues)? Or just empty pages? Who is the target audience? For example, I travel a lot, and often times find myself in new cities looking for something to do or where to go next and I'd really appreciate hearing negative reviews.
Emery 22:11, 8 Apr 2005
It's not about being goody-two-shoeses -- it's about not wasting a lot of time, space, and energy saying "don't go here". Like, finding out the address, phone number, opening hours, average prices, and URL of a restaurant just to say, "...and it's not worth the effort of going." If that's the case, I think it's a good indication that it's not worth our effort to make a listing for a place.
More than half of this page describes when to make exceptions for that: do you need to see more? Keeping attraction, restaurant, hotel and bar listings up-to-date is a lot of work, and it doesn't seem like a good use of volunteer time just so one person can practice clever ways of saying "tastes bad". --Evan 08:01, 8 Apr 2005 (EDT)
I see both sides of this view. In my opinion Wikitravel's too new to start editing it: I'm thinking we're at the stage where the book's being written. We will eventuallly need to start removing crap pubs from the articles: For example, Norwich has over 300 pubs, listing all of them would be insane). But all these removals should be noted in the Talk pages, so people who think they should go back (eg the pub's become fantastic) don't need to re-research the contact details etc. Lionfish 08:55, 8 Apr 2005 (EDT) (2pm GMT really)
I think if you feel like going to the trouble of getting a pub's details and entering them, then listing it must be worthwhile. I imagine that the converse is also true.
Meanwhile, did you know that you can set your timezone offset to 0 in the preferences? That will cause Mediawiki to print your signature with GMT. -- Mark 09:13, 8 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Sorry, I meant 'BST' :P. I've had the correct time set in my preferences for a while now "Server time is now: 14:12 Local time display: 15:12". But when I use the ~~~~ thing it seems to get it wrong (sorry for being Off topic). Lionfish 10:14, 8 Apr 2005 (EDT)
oh duh... I've just realized that it does that to me too. I'm actually in CEDT. -- Mark 10:19, 8 Apr 2005 (EDT)
One thing I've been doing recently is adding pubs etc I've not been to for the more rural parts of the cotswolds. I've added an 'unreviewed' note to them though. I know this is kinda bad, as this is suposed to be all 1st hand information but there's method in my madness: There are quite a few places in Morocco and Eastern Europe I'd like to comment about but I can't remember what they were called. If someone else had put the pub or hotel/hostel on the article already, even if they hadn't been, I'd have recognised it and been able to fill in the blanks. I'm hoping that putting in the well known pubs in the area (even the ones I've not been to or can't remember clearly) will help others add stuff later.Lionfish 12:32, 8 Apr 2005 (EDT) (5:34 BST)
Where does it say that this is supposed to be first hand information? I add stuff that I don't know first hand all the time. I just leave the review part blank. We've talked about it before and nobody's ever suggested that they thought it was a bad idea. -- Mark 14:30, 8 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Oh phew! I'm sure I saw that mentioned somewhere once. Lol, nm then :) Lionfish 15:01, 8 Apr 2005 (EDT) (8pm BST)
So there have been some cases (eg. Ko Lanta) where places are removed because of a rather strict interpretation of this policy. In my opinion, some information ("this place is bad/overpriced") is better than no information (a deleted entry), and culling should only start to take place when we start nudging up and over the suggested maximum (5-10) of places per category. Jpatokal 01:07, 5 Oct 2005 (EDT)
I totally agree. What I like to do is to re-write totally negative reviews to point out that while there are some serious problems reported "at least it's a place to stay" or something like that. -- Mark 01:16, 5 Oct 2005 (EDT)
I think it'd be fair to say that if a listing is one of the only 5-10 places listed for a destination, then maybe it meets the "prominence" requirement. --Evan 02:13, 5 Oct 2005 (EDT)
Consensus! I've gone ahead and attempted to update the policy accordingly. Jpatokal 06:49, 5 Oct 2005 (EDT)
single negative report should remove a place?
I have an interesting case to consider: Cerveceria Catalana:
was originally reported as recommended
then there was clearly a single negative report: 
and then it was removed from the listings as a negative review 
clearly the negative report was a single event, not a shared opinion of several wikitravelers or based on several visits
it also looks a valid way to remove info on competitor: just edit review for it into negative, and someone else will do the dirty job for you, removing it at all, sooner or later
I propose a policy for anyone having a negative experience to discuss it first in article's talk page--and provide details of individual single event a person has in hand in most cases. And only basing on discussion, either remove the listing or agree on how to edit it.
I think we can use common sense with this. Obviously some clear reason for removing a place should be given, but a longtime user nuking a restaurant with an edit summary of "they cloned my credit card and gave me food poisoning" is OK in my book, but obviously an anon nuking all restaurants except one is not. Jpatokal 10:57, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
How these can be applied to the specific case I refer to above? --DenisYurkin 11:06, 22 March 2008 (EDT)