So after catching the travel bug about ten years ago, I want the real deal on whether you think its quantity or quality of places.....
When I first started traveling I wanted to go see as many places as I could. Now that it has been ten years I realize the amount of places don't matter but the quality of time you spend exploring and learning. Anybody can keep going to new places, but I think it takes a lot of dedication to go back to your favorites and keep exploring. This summer I am going back to India for my second time because the first was not enough. What do you tell the people that are in the "Great race" to brag about numbers? Or do you let them find out the hard way.
-Ben
Reply to this I know what you mean. I like to think I'm relatively well travelled but whenever I meet people who can say 'oh yeah, I've been to 50, 80, 100 countries' I start feeling like I'm never going to catch up, as if number of destinations is the most important. I don't think it really is. I mean surely if you spent a couple of months touring one country you've seen much more than the people who leap onto a new flight and only spend a couple of days at each place.
I think a balance is good. I would certainly view someone who maybe lived for a few months each in 5 or 6 countires as better travelled than someone who spent two or three days in 20 different countries. However at the same time I think you should explore new countries and cultures. While you could very easily keep returning to one country over and over I think it's a good idea to have more variety and try a new destination.
I try to do both, see a new place each year if possible as well as fitting in return visits.
Reply to this Hello Ben 😊
Quality for sure. As well as some in the comfort zone travelling because I still find Europe, US... fun. I try to shove myself out of this zone now and again. ie I go to places where not many tourists go and where I am not quite sure what to expect.
I have already been to around 40 countries so I dont feel any urgency to push for quantity. Dont know if I would get hooked into country counting if I was only starting to travel now. Stats and reports are everywhere these days. One cant help paying attention to them. :D
Mel
Reply to this I would say definitely quality over quantity. I don't count a country I've been in less than a few days as having visited it.
It's a very subjective decision, but one which not everyone has the freedom of choice over. Some have limited time, or may prefer tour-travel because they're not confident to travel independently, so only spend a few days here and there.
But all the best to those who do go for quantity - the fact they're travelling at all is the main thing ;-)
Reply to this Whatever floats your boat.
For some people, it's enough to get interested in one or two regions, and explore them in depth.
For others, this isn't satisfactory, and they constantly need the buzz of experiencing new places constantly.
I have no idea where I fall into this yet.......
Reply to this Let them brag about the number of countries entered, airports, miles covered, etc. Fast travel is about as satisfying as fast food.
Think about how little we really see when we first get to a new place. Walk a charming city street. Then walk it again and see how much you missed the first time. Walk it a thrid time and there is probably more. A regional travel 'specialization' can also mean gaining the language skills that allow us to chat with a wider span of people, not just the tourist industry employees and well-educated elite who speak English.
KST
Reply to this So, just to throw in a different perspective, my wife and I just got finished with a year abroad and we hit close to 40 countries. We viewed it as one of those big American appetizer samplers where you get to taste a bit of everything on the menu. That way we'd know in the future where we wanted to return to... In some cases we felt rushed, like we wanted to see more and had no time. In other cases we wanted less. I got tired of eastern Europe after a while so we started doing the whirlwind thing. On the other hand, I only want more of Africa. We also found that, over time, we got more efficient and were able to do more in less time. At the beginning we needed time to acclimate and get used to a place. Later, we hit the ground running and needed a ton less time to adjust. I guess its all up to your personal style!
If you only have a few weeks a year of vacation/holiday time, then pick wisely and really enjoy what time you have. If you have a big block of time, you may want to pick up the pace some so that you can really gather in as much as you can.
Reply to this I agree with Anna, it's a balance.
I think if you run through places quickly just to move on, hit the major sites instead of slowing things down and beginning to experience things, the only difference between reading a travel magazine or blog and going there is the plane ticket. I find myself guilty of wanting to do so much in so little time because I'm relatively new at real travel and have so much to see/want to see so much, but I try to maximize whatever time I have that makes me come out of a place with an idea of the place that I can't necessarily find in a tour guide book.
You don't have to almost reside in a place nor even be an expert of the place before you move on, but just counting the number of countries/places/flights they have been on is a tad ridiculous. 😊
Reply to this I don't think quantity is important whatsoever...you can't see anything in a few days...you will only have time to talk to the hotel clerk or the bus driver and there are few chances that you will get something rewarding from it...(I'm not saying hotel clerks or bus drivers are not interesting people)
I understand that there are people who are more concern about collecting passport stamps than collecting experiences (specially young or new travelers), but, like the italians say: "piano, piano se arriva lontano", that is "slowly, slowly you get far" .
You need a few days to get used to the new country or city you're in: climate, food, times, language...so I don't see how it is possible to "discover" place in a few days if that's what you spend getting ready to "discover" it...
I agree with Jo Trouble that I don't count a country I've only been a few days to : I've been for a weekend in Paris but that doesn't mean I know France. When we were in Detroit we cross the border and went to Windsor for a pizza, I've got a canadian stamp on my passport...it doesn't mean that I've REALLY been to Canada, does it??
Don't take me wrong...I'm one of these people who wants to go EVERYWHERE, but I try to stop myself and try to get to know the places I'm in before moving on, otherwise, after a while, you don't really know where you are...that's one of the reasons why we decided to travel by bicycle on our next trip...to move slowly...
But I also understand that not everybody can take months off to go traveling and, just because we only have a few days, doesn't mean that we shouldn't travel...but we must think again before saying "I've been to this number of countries"...does that mean that you have a passport stamp or that you got to know something about it?...as Liz said, you don't have to be an expert, but you need more that a few days to get even a general idea of what's going on...
Reply to this There is no doubt that quality is the way to go!
I have been to almost 50 countries over the years, but the ones I have enjoyed and understood the most are the ones that I have spent the most time in. It takes time to have a quality experience and I think traveling, not just being a tourist, means slow travel. Less is more. Slow travel is MUCH cheaper, better for the planet and infinitely more enriching.
That said, the world is large and if you REALLY got to know every area, one would not get too far, because the world is large. We have been traveling the world as a family since 2006 and go very slowly, often spending a month or more in one spot. We have only seen 15 countries so far. We have wintered the last two winters in Spain and seen much of this country. We are deeply immersed in the culture now and my child goes to school here in the winter and takes flamenco etc, BUT we still have barely made a dent even in Spain.
So one needs to find the balance with the time that they have. Slow travel , is with no doubt, the far superior, quality way to go, but sometimes for what ever reason, one has to do some places a little faster. ...even on an open ended, multi-year trip like ours. I would love to go much slower everywhere, but there are always choices to be made. If I went as slow as I would like we would never finish this trip this life time.
Still, I would encourage those with a passion for travel to do less and spend more time truly immersing.... at least for the vast majority of their travel time. Racing fast around the planet just to say you hit another country is such a waste of energy on every level. ....it soon all becomes a blur and there is rarely anything authentic about such an experience.
Soultravelers3
Reply to this I would have to agree that quality is always better!
I'm able to travel for pennies on the dollar and enjoy all the exotic vacations anywhere around the world and earn a little extra money as well. To be able to receive free upgrades to first class on any airlines and presidential suites at five star hotels is the best experience anyone should have. A friend of mine told be about this and I've been doing it for the past year. It just makes sense to travel for less and earn additional income at the same time.
I recomend it for anyone who enjoys saving money on there vacations and be pampered in the most exoctic locoations around the world.
check it out for yourself, log on to
There you'll see how you can enjoy a QUALITY trip of your life! Reply to this 
