World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers

Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
About this website Forum / About this website /  

New version of the website

Page  Page 4 of 4:  « Previous  1  2  3  4

Author winterkjm
#46 | Posted: 13 Dec 2014 13:17 | Edited by: winterkjm 
WHS: Not Worth the Effort/Time?

If you don't mind Els, can you change this? This was my mistake a while back, this forum topic was meant for general discussions, not the countries topic.

Author winterkjm
#47 | Posted: 15 Dec 2014 22:20 | Edited by: winterkjm 
The number of locationsb. The number of reviews on this Web site"


Is there anyway to make this look more streamlined? It kind of looks convoluted for the sake of more information. While I like having both information, is there any potential solution that presents the info more clearly?


Noticed the Grand Canal was not labeled as inscribed

By the way thanks for updating this!

Author Solivagant
#48 | Posted: 16 Dec 2014 04:53 | Edited by: Solivagant 
is there any potential solution that presents the info more clearly?

You are between a rock and a hard place on this one Els!

I would contend that the "Number of Reviews" is the natural/better figure to give prominence to on the full lists of Inscribed and Tentative sites
a. It changes frequently - unlike e.g number of locations per site
b. It is common across both the Inscribed and T Lists - whereas the number of locations isn't available for the latter
c. It is "unique" to this Web site and is therefore logical to be shown on this site's main list which leads to the reviews themselves it isn't much use clicking on a site to see reviews if it doesn't have one!

Of course there are a number of unchanging "Facts" about sites which could potentially be shown on a full list which at the moment are only available on the individual pages of each site - Number of Locations, year of inscription, country, type of site (Natural/Cultural/Mixed), criteria - and, no doubt some others. I wonder why the number of locations gets "prime billing" ahead of others? One possible reason could be that it is not available from the searches provided on the UNESCO Web site it is certainly an interesting piece of information.

One possible way forward might be to use the right hand side (RHS) of the page where you already provide a couple of "search" facilities across the entire list you could use this as the basis for providing other "views" of the entire list all based on the same basic layout such as Number of Locations. The variety to depend on your inclination e.g by type or year. These could be "preloaded" on your server so as to reduce the processing but would still provide the "hot link" to the site's page? This approach would leave "number of reviews" as the single figure on the main list (both Inscribed and T List) and overcome winterkjm's concern.

Author Solivagant
#49 | Posted: 29 Jan 2015 01:50 
Could there not be a "Last 10 (or even 20!) Reviews" list on the RHS - similar to last new Connections etc?
Since the number of reviews up at any one time was reduced to 4 in the new design one can completely miss several reviews if one doesn't look at the site for a couple of days.

Author elsslots
#50 | Posted: 29 Jan 2015 07:03 
one can completely miss several reviews if one doesn't look at the site for a couple of days

There have been many new reviews over the last couple of days, and I even haven't published them all to just spread them out a bit. Usually there are 1 or 2 a day, now I have 22 in the past few days! Everybody seems to have gone to Mexico recently.

I will create some option accessible from the homepage to see a longer list.

Author meltwaterfalls
#51 | Posted: 29 Jan 2015 08:11 | Edited by: meltwaterfalls 
I have 22 in the past few days!

Sorry, I feel I contributed a fair bit to that, had a creativity boost on my commute. Though I thought I would be nice by not posting all 14 at the same time.

Though I think some sort of list of recent reviews would be nice to have, especially in times of peak activity, such as now, and I guess when the new inscriptions come out.

I have particularly enjoyed reading Hubert's, Kyle's and Nan's recent reviews (Nan's logistics bullet points are a good addition). There are probably others but it is hard to keep up with the recent glut.

Also the increase in photo size and links to photo sharing sites works really well.

It seems you set a trend on Mexico when you visited last January, we were obviously all inspired!

Author elsslots
#52 | Posted: 29 Jan 2015 09:18 
set a trend on Mexico

Mexico is such a great destination for WH travellers. Not (or not only) because they have so many of them, but there are also dozens of great quality. I am currently travelling in Nicaragua, and although it has its own old-fashioned charm it's no match for Mexico.

Author Solivagant
#53 | Posted: 29 Jan 2015 10:57 
I am currently travelling in Nicaragua, and although it has its own old-fashioned charm it's no match for Mexico.

Oh I don't know - I think Granada is better than many of Mexico's excessive number of inscribed provincial "Centros Historicos" - other than Guanajuato.

Author meltwaterfalls
#54 | Posted: 29 Jan 2015 11:43 | Edited by: meltwaterfalls 
but there are also dozens of great quality.

Yeah I must admit I was impressed by the quantity of really good sites.

It made be go off and get my data head on and compared it to other countries with multiple WHS visits (more than 3). Seems it comes out a narrow 3rd, with India being a bit of an outlier anyway.Though it is pretty tough for anywhere with more than 10 sites to keep a high average.
(Hmm it is hard to format a table on this forum, but maybe this is of interest)

Country Visited sites Average of Score
India --------4 --------7.25
Poland --------7 --------6.71
Mexico --------13 --------6.69
USA --------9 --------6.67
Morocco --------7 --------6.43
Italy --------14 --------6.29
Austria --------7 --------6.29
Portugal --------4 --------6.00
Tunisia --------7 --------5.71
Total --------247 --------5.52
China --------7 --------5.43
Czech Republic --------12 --------5.33
France --------17 --------5.29
Spain --------19 --------5.26
Belgium --------10 --------5.20
UK --------23 --------5.13
Sweden --------10 --------4.90
Germany --------29 --------4.90
South Korea --------9 --------4.56
Netherlands --------7 --------4.14

Author Solivagant
#55 | Posted: 29 Jan 2015 12:03 
Area of Mexico = 1,972,550 km Population = 122.3 million
Area of Nicaragua = 129,494 km Population = 6.08 million

The Mexican State of Oaxaca alone has an area of 93,757 km/3.8 million population and Mexico City alone has a population of 8.85 million!

As a destination country Nicaragua needs to be compared against just a couple of Mexican states. Even if one takes the whole of Central America with 7 countries from Guatemala down to Panama one is only talking of an Area of 523000 sq kms and 42.6 million population i.e less than half of Mexico.

I am not saying that Mexico isn't a great destination but taken as a whole the rest of Central America can match much of it site for site in less than its area. Mexico City itself is a "world unique" location of course and is perhaps "overwhelming" the average Mexican site!

Page  Page 4 of 4:  « Previous  1  2  3  4 
About this website Forum / About this website /
 New version of the website

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message

Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first. Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®