Travel Guides Are Unreliable (But They're Still Worth Buying)

With the revelation earlier this week of the travel writer who failed to visit an entire country he needed to cover, the London Times steps in to arm its readers against hearsay advice -- but despite its title, "Which Guidebooks Can You Trust?" has less to do about which sources are downright unreliable and more to do with getting the best from all the information sources out there. True, there is a top 10 of guidebooks and web sites, but they aren't rated in reliability, just in overall goodness. The truth is that every source has its own unique way of sucking. (SqueakyMarmot/flickr)

Since I work in the industry, let me not miss this opportunity to do my duty and point out the obvious: there have been lousy, lazy travel writers since the dawn of time. In the flat to dwindling market we like to call publishing, increased competition means that publishers haven't had much opportunity or incentive to pay high rates for coverage for a long, long time. And because it remains very cheap to at least reach most destinations, it's not as if publishers are likely to run out of minimally qualified candidates willing to do the work for little more than a byline. (Maximally qualified candidates may also end up taking the work, of course, for perverse reasons of their own.)

Given that books have always been hampered by their budgets, where does that leave the helpless reader who just wants a decent vacation free of tourist traps? Take advantage of all the information that's out there, and don't get stuck playing favorites. One guidebook writer, for instance, relies on the internet for hotels and restaurants, but uses guidebooks for general country knowledge. I prefer the read-it-all approach myself -- pay special attention to any sight or restaurant that's only listed in one source. It's likely to be closed or ruined -- but if it isn't, it's often a gem that's worth the effort.

Having edited my share of guides and also done my time in the trenches of updating, it's hard for me to believe that readers are really that much worse off than they were, say, 10 or even 20 years ago. What has changed in the past decade is that it's so much easier to publicly chastise guides and publishers for their mistakes and omissions. And as much as that may occasionally hurt the people involved, that's a very good thing.