Every time I ask a question on TripAdvisor about our travel plans, the first answer is always "That's not enough time!"
No matter what the destination is...it's always the same.
"You need more time"..."_ days is not enough"... "it will be rushed"...

Why can't people get that everyone travels differently!
Some want to spend a morning with a leisurely breakfast - others don't mind getting up at the crack of dawn for a full day of sightseeing, or to move at fast pace to see something new every day to calm their inner ADD.

And am I the only one who travels with school-age kids and doesn't want to take them out of school for every trip? It seems half the people giving advice on TA are retired with no time constraints.

TA is an awesome resource, but it's annoying to have to deal with that attitude half the time.

Ha! I can relate to this as a parent and business owner, I'm grateful to just make it to the airport. I've spent 2 nights (meaning a day and a half after traveling to get there) in several cities in China, Hong Kong, Cairo, Istanbul and more. I didn't regret it one iota. There are so many places that I may never get back to, that I appreciate what I can, and that's that. I was thinking of going back to Istanbul, and realized that, even in that short time span, I saw many highlights. And, of course, I built the memories. Much to my surprise, I reevaluated whether or not I wanted to spend more of my precious time/travel budget on returning in the near future. There are so many places that I haven't seen at all, that I would love to see, even for 48 hours or less.

Short travel necessitates strict prioritizing, and an "if it's Tuesday, this must be Belgium" pace, but it's still better than nothing. If you were on a cruise ship or a travel tour, a brisk pace is the norm- see the highlights, move on to the next destination.

Yep, and it's pervasive elsewhere...even on FT.

I've done both--flash backpacking, and leisure trips with less adventurous S/O--so I can see arguments for both. Just weird to so ardently proselytize 1 side

Well, you can always just ignore those folks' opinions.

I think that I see the opposite reaction almost as frequently - e.g., "Oh that is waaay too much time spend at ________. You'll be bored!" "Why are you staying __ days in _____? All the interesting stuff can easily be done in a half day"

Yes!
I am also a business owner. When I am there, the business produces $1000/hr.
When I am not, it is closed.
My employees grumble when I am off for 1 week - because if we are closed, they do not get paid.
Taking time off is difficult - and then there are kids!
All of our trips are on school breaks, so it's always Th to the following Sunday.
Luckily, we live near NYC, so it's easy to get out...but still...

I have not seen similar reactions on FT very much.
It seems here, most people understand that Frequent Travel usually has to mean Fast Travel for many of us. For instance, many read your post about spending 2 nights in some far away place and probably thought "yup, I've done that".
I don't see it on TA.

I have a solo practice, so it is difficult to get away for long stretches, especially during flu season. A few years ago, I met my brother for a 3 day weekend in SIN, flying from the US east coast. (He is currently living in China.) Everyone thought I was crazy, except my seatmate on the TYO-SIN leg who was doing the same thing.

I guess there's a happy medium somewhere. But here on FT and elsewhere I often see people posting unrealistic trip plans. 5 countries in 4 days. Spending all of their time going to and from airports. Or planning to visit places that aren't easy to get to as if it's just across the street. Or they are going halfway around the world for a weekend. (Which I have done but don't necessarily recommend) So a reality check can be worthwhile. And if you ask for opinions on your plans, don't be surprised to get them.

I always admit up-front that my style is more that I'd rather spend a day too long in a place than always be on the run. And I like to plan a little buffer in case the weather really sucks for a day or two or I get sick.

are you me?
Solo DocP here too

I'm glad you started this post. I have noticed the same annoying thing on the Rick Steves website and others. Hey, some people only have X amount of vacation time and they just want to see and do all they can during that time. So stop saying "not enough time" and just help them make the most of what time they do have!!!!!

There is definitely no such thing as "not enough time." Check out all the posts in the UK forum here about people with eight hours, or whatever, between flights at Heathrow who want to see London. Is eight hours enough to really see London? Of course not. The posters know this. Does that mean they might as well hunker down at the airport until their flight to East Wherever is called? Heck no! This is a valid question, and hats off to them for wanting to do as much as possible within whatever their time constraints are.

(For what it's worth, in 2001 I flew from Boston to Santiago, Chile, for a day. Liked it a lot. I've been back to Chile four more times since then for longer, most recently for a week in the Atacama desert last month and before that for several days' hiking in Torres del Paine. I knew at the time that a day couldn't do Chile justice, but if I hadn't spent that day there fifteen years ago, I might not have returned later for longer visits.)

It really depends upon your attitude to tourism. If all you want to do is check items off a list, then one country per day is probably sufficient. If, however, what you want to do is to get an understanding of a country, its culture and its people, then clearly it will take much longer - and also it will mean avoiding as far as possible the spread of American culture in major tourist hotspots.

Indeed, I see the American culture has spread far and deep, and has replaced the British art of subtle superiority and condescension within polite discourse with just being outright rude.

No one was talking about one country per day. As it happens, this post was spurred by my asking if Banff National Park will be mostly open on the Memorial Day weekend in the US, and being told that 3 days was not enough to explore it.
First of all, while I am sure the lakes and glaciers are stunning, after several days I begin to feel all laked and glaciered out.
And second, like the posters above, I like getting a taste of a place before I commit major time investment to it. I'd rather spend a day or two and come back for more later, than allot a week and be disappointed.
And third...usually it is not a question of less or more. It is of go or not.
I'd rather have less and go, than wait for more to become available.

On my first trip to Paris (almost 30 years ago, before the prevalence of mileage runs), my partner and I found a great $200 fare to Paris leaving on a Thursday, but he had to be back in town for jury duty on the following Monday. So we arrived there on Friday and returned on Sunday, much to the shock and awe of my coworkers.

My feeling was -- and still is -- "Two days in Paris is better than no days in Paris!"

FWIW, I would say that 3 days at Banff is an excellent vacation! Sure, you could spend a whole week and see a lot more, but 3 days is plenty to see a few highlights and form fond memories that will last a lifetime.

Note, I say this as someone who often tells people their plans don't allow enough time. However much you believe the phrase is overused there are many times it's an appropriate caution. I've lost count of how many times I've offered such advice to people asking the best way, say, to visit 5 national parks and drive 1500 miles in 5 days. So often they're not even aware it's 1500 miles; they've simply looked at a wide area map and figured, "Those places must be close together, there's nothing between them!"

just booked NYC-LIM-CUZ, JUL-LIM-NYC over MLK weekend (leaving Th, landing Fri, coming back Tue AM, shower and go to work/school). 4 nearly full days. Would I like to get more? Sure...but don't want to miss more than one day of school and work.