So, quality or quantity?

[Diamond Dog]

When choosing a holiday, to a destination nine hours away, is it more likely you would:

a) go for 10 days and stay in 4 or 5 * accommodation, or
b) go for 14 days and stay in 3* ?

Both working out around the same price?

[Nolamike]

Depends on the reason for the trip and what I'm hoping to see while I'm there.

If the difference is 10 days at a 4 or 5 star place v. 14 days at a 3 star, I'd definitely go with the shorter, nicer stay, but part of that is that I'm tired of being away from home after four or five days, and a full two weeks would be insane.

[Nikki Gradual]

Depends what the real-world difference between 3* and 4/5* is. Actually, it probably doesn't matter, I'd still go for the longer break because I'm guessing that 3* is hardly slumming it and, even if it is, I can pretty much tolerate anything so the quality of where I am staying tends to be one of the less important factors in a holiday for me.

[jude]

That would depend on how long i was planning on spending in the accommodation. If i was going to be out most of the time doing stuff, the standard of the room i came back to would be less important than the time i spent there. If i was likely to spend a lot of time in the place i was staying, i might go for the higher-quality place for a shorter stay.

Without that information, and all things being equal, i'd probably go for the longer stay, so i voted for that one.

[Sambient]

I'd go for quality. 10 days is still a substantial chunk of time. Some cushion time of vacation days not actually at your destination on either side of the vacation also make for the whole experience being more restoring.

[Footy]

I'd go camping and stay a month.

[Bungo the Mungo]

I'd go camping and stay a month.

i bet you would, duckie!

[Penk!]

Longer stay every time. As others have said, a three-star hotel is perfectly fine and a holiday should be about the place and the experience rather than the hotel.

[Hugh]

The 10 day quality holiday for me. 10 days is just about the right length of stay regardless of the accommodation.

[Footy]

I'd go camping and stay a month.

i bet you would, duckie!

Would you come with me Adam?

I remember that one night we shared in North London all those years ago..............

The accommodation was immaterial.

[Charlie O.]

Depends what the real-world difference between 3* and 4/5* is. Actually, it probably doesn't matter, I'd still go for the longer break because I'm guessing that 3* is hardly slumming it and, even if it is, I can pretty much tolerate anything so the quality of where I am staying tends to be one of the less important factors in a holiday for me.

Same here. Traveling in the States, I'm almost invariably more comfortable in a Super 8 motel than in a "nice" hotel anyway. (Motel 6 sucks eggs, though.)

[Bungo the Mungo]

I'd go camping and stay a month.

i bet you would, duckie!

Would you come with me Adam?

I remember that one night we shared in North London all those years ago..............

The accommodation was immaterial.

i wonder if griff ever managed to remove the stains from his couch?

[Patty O'Furniture]

Depends what kind of holiday it is. For beach holidays, I tend to go for 10 days - I run out of books to read for 14! City breaks and exploring holidays, the longer the better!

Given the poll choices, I'd go for the top quality hotel for 10 days.

[Footy]

i wonder if griff ever managed to remove the stains from his couch?

It was the bite marks in the coffee table that gave him a bigger problem.

[Diamond Dog]

i wonder if griff ever managed to remove the stains from his couch?

It was the bite marks in the coffee table that gave him a bigger problem.

And removing the blood stains caused by the carpet burns to your knees.

[Nolamike]

Depends what kind of holiday it is. For beach holidays, I tend to go for 10 days - I run out of books to read for 14! City breaks and exploring holidays, the longer the better!

Given the poll choices, I'd go for the top quality hotel for 10 days.

Welcome to the Board Karma Policeman!

[Magilla]

Longer stay every time. As others have said, a three-star hotel is perfectly fine and a holiday should be about the place and the experience rather than the hotel.

I agree. In years to come you're going to have lots of great memories about the time you went to place X and did lots of neat things, not that the hotel rooms didn't have huge flat-screen TVs and shag-pile carpets in them.

[Loki]

I'm with Hugh. Without question, 10 days of quality. I'm talking about the type of getaway for relaxation and perhaps a more salubrious climate. A week isn't long enuf to completely unwind, but 2 weeks can get tedious. Ten days is perfect.

But for say a European excursion, anything less than 3 weeks is just....preamble. Barely getting yer feet wet.

[Nolamike]

Longer stay every time. As others have said, a three-star hotel is perfectly fine and a holiday should be about the place and the experience rather than the hotel.

I agree. In years to come you're going to have lots of great memories about the time you went to place X and did lots of neat things, not that the hotel rooms didn't have huge flat-screen TVs and shag-pile carpets in them.

Oh man, not for me. I love staying in those old historic luxury hotels - staying somewhere like the Peabody in Memphis or the Tutwiler or Redmont in Birmingham or the Roosevelt here in New Orleans is really nice - in fact, staying in those places, and just how relaxing and serene it helped make the visit, is as memorable as other sites we saw on the various trips. Of course, those are all great hotels with a lot of history in them, which adds to it.

[Loki]

Of course, those are all great hotels with a lot of history in them, which adds to it.

And ghosts!