This was actually one of the reasons for the communal list exercise. The Out of Race list (or NO list) should encompass those sites which barely anyone from the community members who participated in the discussion embraced. This is a lengthy list full of minor sites.

I totally agree with meltwater falls reasoning and likewise I'm quite happy and eager to find out whether some of those WHS (which I haven't visited yet and which to me seem not very worthwhile) make it to the top 200 or earn quite a number of votes. I'd be more than interested to discover more on such sites to see whether I've overlooked something or whether I could learn something new. Actually, I love lists mostly for that reason, as such odd ones out sometimes hide something very worthwhile visiting, even if not so grandiose or perhaps iconic. Some examples which come to mind from the WHS I visited are Skellig Michael, Pico Island, Aquileia, Arc de Senans (underground salt), woudegemaal, four lifts, etc. Some wouldn't have made it on my top 200 had I not visited out of sheer curiousity or after I found out about them from strange top lists which had placed them on par to some of 'my top whs'.

Possibly, though it depends on whether they used the checklist to guide their list, or whether they developed a list beforehand. My strategy was the latter, which I approached by evaluating one region at a time (Australia and Pacific; North America and Caribbean; South America; Africa; Middle East; Asia; and lastly, Europe) with nominal caps on sites chosen per region to help narrow down the list. Even with this strategy, I found the categories for the most part were well-represented (save for Rock Art where I chose none of the sites listed in the category, but instead relied on sites I selected from other categories that also have rock art components).

Ultimately, it turns out I selected more natural and mixed World Heritage Sites combined than WHS from Europe, so I was happy with the Top 200 I selected. I'm curious how my Top 200 will evolve as I visit more sites worldwide, though.


That's a very good point, particularly for those two examples you mention which are each rather ridiculously treated as two separate World Heritage Sites (the French extension to the Route of Santiago de Compostela also comes to mind...). If you combined votes, though, how would you treat the selections from someone who voted for both contiguous sites (i.e. Iguacu National Park and Iguazu National Park)?

Fair point, though I would imagine there aren't that many that will use two of their votes for the same site, but maybe if people do love a site that much perhaps it is worth counting both.