Re: innkeeping: new service

["David A. Allie" <allied@inntraveler.com>]

Stephan,

At 07:30 PM 6/19/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi everyone. I've recently expanded InnCrawler to include a separate,
>Yahoo-like directory of Inn Home Pages, Association home pages, online B&B
>directory home pages, and RSO home pages.

Good idea!  In one sense, it's too bad that all Web developers aren't 
taking
the time to make sure that their inns are listed in Yahoo, etc., so 
perhaps
your idea may help out.

>Another thought (this one regarding the InnCrawler search engine):=20
>wouldn't
>it be nice if there were a standard for inn home pages so that X-C skiing,
>cross-country skiing, and cross country skiing were all equivalent to the
>search engine. And inns in California are still found if they abbreviate
>their state name to CA or CAL or Calif? If we all decided on a standard=20
>set
>of codes to hide in a hidden comment field on an inn's home page, we could
>do this! What does everyone think... should we all come together on this=20
>to
>set a standard?
>
>I'd definitely appreciate any feedback!!

This is going to be a bit harder, though.  Just like AAA, Mobil, Fodor's,
the IIA, and PAII all have different standards for their inns -- it's 
going
to be hard to get people to standardize.  There could be definite benefits
for inn travelers who would have an easier time in finding inns online.
It's an "ideal" but I have to admit that I have a few concerns about it:

1.  You suggest adding a set of codes within comments in the HTML files
that, I suspect, your InnCrawler would more easily be able to extract.
First guess is that you'd want to use the <META> tag.  The problem that
would arise is that by simply adding more info (in hidden comments) the 
Web
pages become larger -- and since most inn travelers are using modems, this
will increase the amount of time it will take to download the file (though
this is true irregardless of whether they're using a modem or have a T3=
 link).

It might be counter-argued that what takes up the most time are graphics 
and
photos.  This is true, but adding more (hidden) codes does increase the 
file
size, which does increase download time and uses more Internet resources.

Search engines like Alta Vista (we ask people what search engines/indexes
they're using and more people are using Alta Vista) are extremely 
proficient
at creating full-text indexes.  The result is that if the information is 
in
the Web page already, then an inn traveler looking for an inn should get
that page listed if the keyword they typed in is already in the document.

Some of the early search engines and indexes relied solely on hidden
comments and keywords. Full-text search engines were created so Web
developers wouldn't have to add more (hidden) codes to their HTML files
simply to get listed within an index.  I think we've all seen that some
developers go so far as to add keywords multiple times, sometimes in 
hidden
comments -- others are visible within the Web page, simply to use a brute
force approach toward getting their inn(s) listed high in the index.  (I
could probably go on about the ethics of this strategy, but not now...)  
The
point here is that adding hidden codes (and the number of codes could 
become
very great once you think about all the potential info that innkeepers 
would
like included) to represent all the major info about an inn:
  (a) increases file size,
  (b) increases download time, and
  (c) increases cost for development.

2.  Who's going to set the standards?  An innkeeping association?  An
independent Web developer?  Each innkeeping association has its own
standards about what constitutes a "good" inn -- so do traditional innbook
writers -- and so do Web developers.  It's that "differentness" and choice
of focus that accounts for the myriad number of associations, print
publishers, and online publishers -- each of which provides different
amounts and types of information.

Since there's no global, centralized, innkeeping organization -- it would
probably be difficult to get people to agree on what codes 
should/shouldn't
be included.  Think about every innkeeper who has something "unique" -- 
each
and every one of them would want to make sure there was a corresponding=
 code.

Unless the codes were limited to items like: number or rooms, 
private/shared
baths, continental vs. full breakfast, double/queen/king beds, rate range,
and credit cards accepted -- choosing and agreeing on a set of codes will 
be
next to impossible without offending or angering at least a few dozen
innkeepers.

3.  Innkeepers already are concerned about keeping their Web marketing 
costs
down, so making them add hidden codes will simply add to the cost.  This
wouldn't be a problem if the innkeeper totally designs and maintains his 
own
Web pages, but those inns are a distinct minority.  I know from personal
experience how hard it is to keep costs down and suspect a fair number of
Web publishers would have a problem being told to add more info (hidden
codes) while not raising their rates.

4.  A final problem that might arise regards copyright.  If one 
organization
does create a standard, including how that information is presented, they
might choose to claim copyright and then could make it very difficult for
Web publishers to design unique pages that aren't copyright violations.
Before you laugh -- think about it!

All in all, I'm not sure that adding codes is the best way to increase
visibility for any inn's Web pages.  I truly like the idea of an index 
that
lists just bed-and-breakfast and country inns (country house hotels, 
etc.).
Perhaps it should be a simple Yahoo-style index, where it's the
responsibility of each inn (or their Web publisher) to submit their name. 
=
=20

I've looked at the site and like the distinction between pages for inns 
vs.
pages for directories.  This part might be a little simpler by having a
single page with the names of directories (or Web publishers who focus on
the innkeeping industry).  Since the Internet is global, I think you'll 
find
that most of the directories will take international listings.  I'm not 
sure
there's a need to have people go state-to-state when looking for a
directory, unless you're going to allow all directories to be listed in
every state they cover -- as you've done for InnSite.  The number of 
online
directories, guidebooks and innbooks is still relatively small and could 
be
handled on a single page -- also much quicker for the inn traveler who's
looking for an inn!

David

David A. Allie
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
The Inn Traveler  >  http://www.inntraveler.com/
  Copyright  =A9  1995-1996, Phoenix Systems.  All Rights Reserved.
  Associate Member, Professional Association of Innkeepers International