
Travel and the algorithmic trap - imartin2k
http://www.perell.com/blog/the-algorithmic-trap
======
crooked-v
"Travel should be seredendipitous" are the words of somebody who can afford a
lot more travel than I can.

~~~
ghaff
I don't know (though I admittedly travel quite a bit, albeit mostly for
business). It's one thing to drop into a place with no real expectations and
spend the time to really get to know it. That can take a lot of time.

But you can also approach a place with an attitude that there are a couple
places/activities you _really_ want to see/do/eat but let the rest develop
more organically. It's easier once you've checked the "must-dos" off your list
admittedly. There are a number of places I enjoy returning to in part because
there's nothing I feel I _must_ do. But if I spend a trip just flitting from
attraction to attraction and don't spend time just wandering around, I feel
that's a miss.

~~~
Kalium
If you only ever expect to get to go to London once in your life, you're going
to be _very_ busy trying to see everything in the week you have.

I know a number of people who travel rarely, as they can't often afford major
trips. Their trips frequently include a relatively large number of must-do
items, because they've spent a lot of time planning the three or five or seven
days they can afford halfway around the world.

And this is before getting into what the obsessive planners I know do when on
vacation!

~~~
ghaff
That's certainly fair. I'm in London 2 or 3 times a year and usually try to
hit something new if I have personal time. But I don't _need_ to hit the
British Museum on a given trip. London's probably something of an extreme
because there are so many must-dos. But I think it's also fair to agree with
the general sentiment that traveling shouldn't be exclusively about a check
list. (If it's Tuesday it must be Belgium.)

Of course, it you're spending a little time in a place for what might be the
only time there are probably one or two things you sorta have to see. But you
should mostly avoid (IMO) just checking off sites.

------
ghaff
>Avoiding algorithms doesn’t apply to traveling in beautiful places. I depend
on algorithms in expansive natural parks. When I’m in Patagonia, I want to do
the best hike. In Alaska, I was to see the prettiest glacier. The focus is on
nature, not people.

I actually disagree with this (in part).

I get what he's saying. Why wouldn't you go to some objective best in terms of
scenic beauty?

But I'd argue that, at least in some cases, there are _almost_ as good
locations that are _far_ less crowded that may make for reasonable
alternatives all things considered. US National Parks tend to be National
Parks for a reason and they are usually worth visiting. But, in many cases,
there are nearby Wilderness Areas and National Forests that have many of the
same virtues with a fraction of the people.

~~~
davidperell
Hey this is David, the guy who wrote the piece. This is an excellent point.

I've observed the same thing with hikes in Yosemite. Many of the best hikes
are off the beaten path. With that said, I stand by my general point. I don't
think the Algorithmic Trap applies to nature quite as much.

Thanks for your thoughtful feedback and thank you for reading.

------
mherdeg
Pynchon writes a similar complaint in V about the "Baedeker world" of the late
19th century, where places like Egypt had begun to lose their local character
and begun to all resemble a glob of similarly shaped tourist cafes.

~~~
gowld
David Foster Wallace's imitation of Pynchon strikes again! Wallace's complains
about tourists made the rounds on HN last week.

~~~
jazzyjackson
Could I bother you to link it for me?

------
empath75
re: the Mona Lisa

If you're ever in Madrid -- the Prado has a copy of the Mona Lisa, made in the
same studio, at the same time, probably by one of Leonardo's students. It's
also been restored, and you'll be the only person there to see it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_(Prado%27s_version)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa_\(Prado%27s_version\))

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
Good tip! We saw the line at the louve and noped right out of there. Paris has
a lot more to offer than waiting in a crowd to see a small painting.

Planning a Madrid trip so I’ll try and do this.

~~~
etiennemarcel
The Louvre is the largest art museum in the world and has huge historical
significance, there's more to see than the Mona Lisa!

------
xapata
> In summary, if you want to learn about the Eiffel Tower or the Golden Gate
> Bridge, it may be better to pick up your smartphone, open up Wikipedia, and
> save yourself the expense.

I enjoy travel more if I've studied the place I'm traveling to. If I haven't
had a chance to read a book about the city before arriving, the first thing I
do as a tourist is visit the history museum.

------
dehrmann
Reminds me of this article on how the hipster Airbnb aesthetic is taking over
the world. Interesting to see a similar hypothesis that algorithms are
optimizing away character in favor of inoffensiveness. Except in our news
feeds.

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/06/hipste...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/06/hipster-
aesthetic-taking-over-world)

~~~
apatters
My take is that the productization of travel is a real and gradual long-term
trend that's correlated with the number of people traveling for the sake of
tourism. For decades international tourism has been getting cheaper and easier
and more people have been doing it.

The algorithms just play a supporting role. If you went to Goa in the 1960s or
drove a motorcycle across China in the 90s, you were adventurous as hell and
you didn't need things to feel familiar. That was the whole point.

Most people going to Bali in 2018 not as creative as those pioneers, they are
looking to have a relaxed time and down a few beers, take some Instagram shots
at a temple, go scuba diving, they want a safe and predictable experience,
bonus if there are many totems of home they can seek as refuges when the world
gets too weird, like a Starbucks.

So as international tourism becomes a more mainstream activity, the
destinations themselves grow more mainstream. This won't necessarily kill the
trade either because there are a lot of first-time and occasional tourists for
whom going to a good aquarium in the tropics that has unusual fish and coral,
or something like that, is a pretty novel experience.

------
micheljansen
There are several good points here, but this trend is certainly not new.
Before the internet, there were plenty of bland tourist traps, catering to a
generic taste or a stereotype of what “local” culture should look and feel
like. Then travel guides like Lonely Planet helped travelers discover more
authentic places that were off the beaten path, which soon meant they were
neither anymore.

What the internet has mainly done is accelerate something that was already
there. Where in the past something could go from being a quirky find to a
packed tourist trap over years, now it can be months. I do think the
proprietors of the old “tourist traps” are now actively catering to different
tastes, to actively target the type of taste and aesthetic that does well on
Instagram etc. but that’s perhaps even an improvement.

The good thing is that all these online discovery platforms pair well with old
fashioned serendipity: walk around until you are lost. Then check to make sure
a place is not too popular on Foursquare or Tripadvisor :)

------
bogomipz
The author states:

>"And yet, this coffee shop is packed. Here, you’ll find nothing but trend-
hungry foreigners in search of familiarity and a neon-lit stage for their next
Instagram post."

And then they go on to post a picture of "Bathtub Gin" as their favorite
hometown bar.

This is a bar in NYC that is a generic "mixology" bar with exposed brick and
velvet chairs in the trendiest and most hyper-consumerism neighborhood in
Manhattan. This is the same high end cocktail bar you can find any major city.
The author even refers to it as a "speakeasy" \- a marketing term re-
appropriated to describe a certain ready-made aesthetic. There is nothing
unique or "local" about it. It's full of tourists who staying down the street
at the Maritime Hotel. Needless to say there's lots of Instagramming goin on
there.

------
ankit219
He is part right in his observation that things have become so generic due to
influx of tourists, and increasing globalisation.

The reasons for those are that, a majority of tourists(not travelers) like
that 'generic services' about the basic things, like the food, transit,
conversations etc. Quite a few of them want to go to places others have
already gone to, and want the least surprises (hence low anxiety) and hence
this generic trend is kicking on. Source: user interviews. I run a travel
startup - in early days - and have been talking to the users a lot. The ones I
talked to, do not see travel as a unique or surreal experience, but something
to take a break out of their mundane lives.

So, these generic experiences are becoming more mainstream. My hometown is
Udaipur - the city of lakes in India. You would find all those generic things
that author describes in that small city too. However, there are specific
hubs, places that are formed only to cater to those travelers who want to
experience the local culture - food, clothings, living like a local, and so
on. These places get a lot of traction. But are not publicized anywhere on
tripadvisor or those popular blogs [1].

Just how things have evolved. People want to experience different culture,
only in the things they like, and want other things to be same.

[1]
[https://www.tripadvisor.in/Attraction_Review-g297672-d311645...](https://www.tripadvisor.in/Attraction_Review-g297672-d311645-Reviews-
Shilpgram-Udaipur_Udaipur_District_Rajasthan.html) One such place.If you look
at the reviews, it is not that high. But you can find it easily if you are
willing to talk to travelers been here, or read the blogs and accounts of
those who visited here.

------
CalRobert
A lot of it is time and ease. The travel stories we want for ourselves don't
come from ten days zipping through a few countries. But most people that can
afford to travel have careers limiting their trips to a few weeks a year. If
you can live somewhere for a while it changes a lot.

Also, getting out of the big cities helps.

------
peter_l_downs
If you're interested in this general concept of "genericization", take a look
at Marc Auge's _Non-Places_.

------
kartan
> The world is becoming optimized for the dominant aesthetic of the internet.

Nope. The world is becoming ever more communicated. Ideas travel faster. Good
ideas - and sometime bad ones - are copied around the globe.

Why should I be able to eat sushi just in Japan?

> I swear: every trendy, optimized-for-algorithms place has the same lights,
> the same chairs, and the same damn avocado toast.

It is difficult to be unique in a 8 billion people world. If your design is
good, I will copy it. That forces people to look harder for new things. There
is more originality and novelty than ever before in human history. That so
much people has access to it, that it can be produced cheap and enjoyed by
millions is not a bad thing.

> The issue is this: hotel visitors know they’re getting something generic.
> That’s the point. Mid-tier hotels advertise safety and reliability. They
> sell risk minimization, not experience maximization. Algorithms, though,
> advertise authenticity while selling commodities.

McDonalds (1955) predates Intel (1968) and the rise of the algorithm.
Algorithms has nothing to do with your travel experience. You may get the
recommendation from an algorithm that you should visit the Eiffel Tower. 50
years ago was a travel agent doing that job.

> At first, authentic travel experiences such as tours and cooking classes are
> too expensive to buy. As they gain popularity, they become standardized and
> mass-produced.

Should travel be only allowed for the rich?

> In fact, the best parts of travel are precisely the things that technology
> cannot touch.

In my travels in Japan I use technology to move around. I use technology to
read signs and museum notes (I do not speak Japanese). I get lost in a city
knowing that I just need to look at my phone to get back to the hotel.

> One caveat: Avoiding algorithms doesn’t apply to traveling in beautiful
> places. I depend on algorithms in expansive natural parks. When I’m in
> Patagonia, I want to do the best hike.

Yep. Algorithms looks like a solution, not a problem.

> City travel works best when we put down our phones, seek serendipity, and
> lean into another culture.

If you really want to know a culture forget about traveling. You need to live
there for a few years. Some people may thing that traveling with the locals is
being part of their culture. It is not. Working there, getting the same
salary, getting the same laws, looking for a job, looking for an apartment...
it is very different that hanging out with interesting people. I love to do
the later, but it is not being part of the culture, you are still a
tourist.(tourism: the commercial organization and operation of holidays and
visits to places of interest.)

> I see travel as a method of learning. It’s an investment. I rarely travel
> for leisure, recreation or relaxation. I understand why people do it, but at
> this time in my life, that’s not where my priorities lie.

I feel the same. But I still thing that the people that looks for leisure are
traveling. The people that want to relax are traveling. I would have liked the
article if it has been less judgemental, eliminated or explained what it means
by algorithm - because it makes no sense in some context - and kept things as
an opinion not as a truism.

