Skip Navigation

Accommodation listings etc.

Travel Forums Wiki Travel Guide Accommodation listings etc.

1. Posted by Utrecht (Moderator 5556 posts) 4y

Hi,

When viewing the articles, you can see on the right side, just below the Quick Stats, how many hostels/guesthouses etc. there are.
I noticed a few things:

1. When editing the accom table it doesn't give all those in the table.
2. Sometimes it doesn't show, even if there is an accom table.
3. With some cities listed as country (template) it doesn't show either. For example Singapore or Hong Kong.

Could someone help me with this, or maybe change a few things?

Mike

2. Posted by Sam I Am (Admin 5579 posts) 4y

To get those listings on the right, we run a manual update on the backend which tries to match city articles from the wiki with relevant cities in the accommodation area. Usually this works quite well, but in some cases, a manual match in the database is needed. It's most likely those ones (or the update not having been run a while) that are causing the problem in point 2, ie. even though there is an accommodation table, nothing shows in the wiki. If you run into any cases that clearly should be there, do let me know as I can go through and manually link them up.

With point 1, do you mean that if you've added names of properties from elsewhere that it doesn't update the count? That's true, as the count on the right is automatically pulled in from our accommodation area, not from the table inside the article. The count should match up with the default accommodation table when inserted though!!

Hmm, yes, Singapore and HK would give issues, as the matching only looks at non country pages. On the country pages, the same count does come back (for the whole country), but it's down at the bottom. Perhaps we need to streamline this view across both 'country/city' pages in the redesign anyway. Always keep it on the right, and kill the country related links while we're at it (not much point in having them there when the best ones end up in the guide anyway).

What do you reckon?

3. Posted by Utrecht (Moderator 5556 posts) 4y

Quoting Sam I Am

To get those listings on the right, we run a manual update on the backend which tries to match city articles from the wiki with relevant cities in the accommodation area. Usually this works quite well, but in some cases, a manual match in the database is needed. It's most likely those ones (or the update not having been run a while) that are causing the problem in point 2, ie. even though there is an accommodation table, nothing shows in the wiki. If you run into any cases that clearly should be there, do let me know as I can go through and manually link them up.

With point 1, do you mean that if you've added names of properties from elsewhere that it doesn't update the count? That's true, as the count on the right is automatically pulled in from our accommodation area, not from the table inside the article. The count should match up with the default accommodation table when inserted though!!

Hmm, yes, Singapore and HK would give issues, as the matching only looks at non country pages. On the country pages, the same count does come back (for the whole country), but it's down at the bottom. Perhaps we need to streamline this view across both 'country/city' pages in the redesign anyway. Always keep it on the right, and kill the country related links while we're at it (not much point in having them there when the best ones end up in the guide anyway).

What do you reckon?

To start with the your latter point: fine with me, but I hope that doesn't mean a country will get an accommodation table as well? Technically now it's impossible, because you have to choose a city as well.

Regarding point 1 again: The count now doesn't match up (always) with the default accom table. For example check Vienna which I updated. It shows 88 or something, but there are well over 100.

Another thing I came across:
The last couple of days I have been editing the tables, to be in line with the current accom options in the booking system.
In some cases though (Yerevan, Andorra), there are many more inserted automatically which can not be booked here on TP. This can be solved in two ways:
1. Create an automatic update when applicable: kinda like letting Geobot clear things regarding GPS coordinates. Somehow I suspect you are working on that already
2. Don't insert any other ho(s)tels manually, but instead keep them outside the accom table. That way the extra work is appreciated regarding the % contribution, unlike the accom table which is (with reason, it's just a copy and paste job) left outside that %-count.

4. Posted by Peter (Admin 5522 posts) 4y

Regarding point 1 again: The count now doesn't match up (always) with the default accom table. For example check Vienna which I updated. It shows 88 or something, but there are well over 100.

This was a bug. We've been introducing a new booking provider to our system recently, which has added a bunch more properties. These are then matched up, to avoid the same property being listed twice. The count you were seeing on the right included a lot of the same properties twice, whereas the generated table was clever enough to avoid that. I've just fixed this up, so the count should match now.

I do indeed want to have a system that automatically updates. Bit of a drag doing it manually and too much chance for error. Haven't yet started creating this, but will soon since I want to get it in before the Hipporoller Challenge ends hehe

The main problem I foresee with this is properties that need to be removed. The automatic system would work fine adding new ones and shouldn't be any issue working around manually added ones. But automatically removing properties is much harder. Just because they are not listed on Travellerspoint any more, doesn't mean they don't exist at all! Would be interested to know what you think actually.. say the following happend:

1. Hostel X was added by the bot because it's listed on TP
2. The hostel takes its listing off TP (could be for several reasons - one of which is that they have gone out of business)
3. The bot comes along..

Do we:
a) Delete the listing?
b) Leave the listing, but just remove the TPID number?

I'd be tempted to delete it and then if a member decides to manually add it in, this can be done later of course.

The only other (smaller) issue is for new hostels in our system that might have already been added manually. This will basically result in two listings for that property, unless an editor notices it and removes one. I think we just have to live with it, because it's not really a major enough issue to warrant what would be fairly complex workarounds.

5. Posted by Sam I Am (Admin 5579 posts) 4y

Quoting Peter

1. Hostel X was added by the bot because it's listed on TP
2. The hostel takes its listing off TP (could be for several reasons - one of which is that they have gone out of business)
3. The bot comes along..

Do we:
a) Delete the listing?
b) Leave the listing, but just remove the TPID number?

I'd be tempted to delete it and then if a member decides to manually add it in, this can be done later of course.

The only other (smaller) issue is for new hostels in our system that might have already been added manually. This will basically result in two listings for that property, unless an editor notices it and removes one. I think we just have to live with it, because it's not really a major enough issue to warrant what would be fairly complex workarounds.

Personally I'd be tempted to go with option b in the first case, ie. just remove the TPID number and rating. It might indeed mean that an out of business property remains listed, but I think that happens far less than that they de-register themselves from booking systems.

In the second case, duplicates sounds okay to me.

6. Posted by Utrecht (Moderator 5556 posts) 4y

Thanks for the replies guys.

I'll go with option b as well. It means that at least the hostel is still mentioned, so members can look it up elsewhere and see reviews about it on other websites.

7. Posted by Peter (Admin 5522 posts) 4y

Actually, there's another potential problem with option b.

Since we have the two providers now, there is usually an overlap in which properties are available. We solve this by merging the ones that are identical in both. But there is usually a short delay in doing this. If the table were inserted at a point when the merge hasn't occurred yet, there would be a lot of duplicate properties in that table. If you then ran the merge, the duplicates would be deleted from the database. With option b though, they would still show - just not linked up to TP.

Possibly it's not a major problem, since the merging should happen immediately after new properties have been added. But seeing as it's a manual process, it might not always be like that. And if we had an eager bot adding in accommodation tables say once a day, then it really could be a problem.