[Roosh]

A complaint I get with the travel subforum is that there is hype on places that don't deserve it. Perhaps a guy goes to a city, kisses a couple girls, and then comes back here to make it seem better than it really is.

I think both positive and negative commentary on places should be qualified with comparisons. If a place is good, what places have you been to that are worse? If it's awful, what places have you been to that are better?

For example, if I'm doing a Denmark report, I'll say, "This shit sucks. It's worse than everywhere I've been, including DC. Brazilian/Colombian women are much hotter."

If I just said, "Denmark sucks," that doesn't mean much since my tastes are obviously different than everyone else's. Sucks compared to what?

There was a recent thread of a guy who went to Stockholm and was singing its praises. It turns out that he was comparing it only to a city in Canada. That information came later but would've been useful early on.

It's fine to get excited about a place, but give as much detail as you can while comparing it to other places so readers can make better judgements about where to go. I realize that a lot of guys travel based on information they read here, so I want to make the forum as accurate as possible.

If you see a guy that is hyping a place without giving supporting evidence or comparisons, feel free to use this new emoticon:



Code:

Code:

:hype:

It translates to: please elaborate with more facts and less vague praise.