Anyone checked out the Guidebook for their city yet?

[Louise0]

If not, do, because they're hilariously entertaining.    God help any poor guest who relies on them to get that 'live like a local' vibe.    

In Sydney, a guest looking for a place to get some exercise and commune with nature would be steered towards our current frontrunner in the 'Parks and Nature' category, Darling Harbour.  Yes, incredibly Darling Harbour is given the no.1 ranking in this category.  

For those of you who aren't familiar with Sydney, Darling Harbour is a trashy, touristy eyesore in the CBD full of overpriced restaurants, souvenir shops, an Imax, an aquarium and one of the saddest little zoos you'll ever encounter.  Yes, there is an actual park somewhere in the middle of all that dross, but it's as 'natural' as astroturf.  

One can only assume that none of the  recommendations were made by anyone who'd ever been to an actual park and/or whose concept of 'nature' was so broad as to encompass any environment that lacked air conditioning. 

As someone who loves hiking and trail-running in one of the most beautiful cities on the planet, and one where we are surrounded by some amazing picnic and hiking options, to know that guests are being fed this misinformation from an ostensibly trustworthy source is frustrating to say the least.  

[Stephanie6]

Yes @Louise0, I have also been reviewing the new guidebook created by pulling in all of the host guidebooks.  In my San Francisco neighborhood several restaurants are listed that have been closed for over a month.  The location of the very popular Exploratorium museum is 3 years out of date and quite far from the actual location.  I noticed some of the entries are specific to the host location, e.g., "the closest market is around the corner.."  We hosts have generated a large amount of "content" for the guidebooks, but no one is reviewing it and there is no way to flag errors.  Maybe the next feature will be adding "voting" for guidebook entries....like other sites have.

[Louise0]

The methodology used to compile the Guidebooks and the subsequent use of the rankings metric to push guests to book accommodation in a particular 'Neighbourhood' results in a self-perpetuating, banality-driven death spiral.  The result is that the Guidebooks become the antithesis of that which was intended, i.e. they tend to funnel guests to the standard tourist offerings rather than push them onto the less beaten path.

To avoid this, the opportunity for hosts to deliberately game the system by falsely assigning attributes to locations close to their listings and/or by colluding with other site members needs to be addressed.  I'd hope that there's some way the system can identify this behaviour.  

There are also taxonomic issues that need work.  I want; a broader range of categories offered, a change to how contributors can apply the categories (eg. I'd like to be able to assign a place into several different categories)  and a way of ensuring that contributors attach the same meaning to the category attributes (eg.  What exactly is a 'Dessert Shop'?  How does it differ from a Bakery?)

[Victoria57]

"I'd like to be able to assign a place into several different categories"

Yes, absolutely.

"a self-perpetuating, banality-driven death spiral"

that made me laugh 🙂