Help me be compelling

December 10, 2006 8:03 PM

Have you ever been on a guided walking tour? What did you like about it? What did you dislike? Was the subject matter most important, or the presentation? How long was it? Was it focused narrowly (like, sites to pick up dudes in the Castro) or more broadly (like, the history of Manhattan) I would love to hear as much detail as possible about the walking tours that have bored you, thrilled you, or just made your feet hurt. Thank you!
posted by serazin to sports, hobbies, & recreation (33 comments total)

I did a Jack the Ripper walking tour in London. It started at dusk, but unfortunately I don't remember too much about the tour itself. First, we were walking past some sort of homeless shelter and a couple of old guys were out front eating from a large bag of what looked like day old bread. As we were passing on the other side of the street, these guys started throwing stale buns at us.

Later we started walking down a narrow residential street. There was a police car at the end in front of a house, half on the sidewalk with its lights on. Our tour guide was walking backwards, talking to us, when suddenly a young man leaned out of a second story window, then jumped. He landed on his feet, and took off running towards us. Then two police burst out of the house in pursuit. They all ran through our group. Our guide commented on neither of these incidents.

The only thing I remember actually relevant to tour itself, was that we ended up in the Ten Bells Pub for a well deserved drink.
posted by kimdog at 8:25 PM on December 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

I endured the York (England) "ghost" tour. Slightly less informative than a guidebook. The stories were entertaining, but, frankly, the tour didn't go anywhere. We walked past some old houses, up by the walls, inot a ruined abbey. The day before, I'd done the same walk on my own (for free) and had just as much access to the same sites between my hotel and the pub. This time I had some slightly odd woman in period dress taking me around and it didn't end in me hoisting pints.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:27 PM on December 10, 2006

I create and conduct tours like that for a living (in museums). Email me if you have some specific questions, want resource recommendations, etc.
posted by Miko at 8:34 PM on December 10, 2006

I went to a walking ghost tour at Salem, MA. It was the standard abandoned-home, abandoned-alley, abandoned-graveyard, abandoned-whatever. The (unenthusiastic) tour guide recited a couple of (bad) spooky stories and we walked around a lot. At one point, we saw a restaurant and we left the group silently to have dinner. A couple other families followed out initiative and left.
posted by theiconoclast31 at 8:40 PM on December 10, 2006

I did the Seattle Underground tour last year and really enjoyed it--enthusiastic tour guide who made the effort to get to know the group (who's from seattle, who's from canada, who travelled more than 4 hours to get here? kinda stuff) then would continue to joke about where people are from in a nice way throughout the tour. Very well informed about the whole thing, willing to crack slightly bawdy jokes, and a neat area to tour to begin with.
posted by stray at 8:44 PM on December 10, 2006

I went on a walking tour of the Financial District in NYC, about 6 months after 9/11 (they were put on for free by one of the city groups in an attempt to draw people downtown). My favorite part of the whole tour was after it was officially over, when our tour guide gave us the inside story on why she had told someone earlier in the tour that they absolutely could not videotape her. Apparently her boss had been giving a walking tour of Chinatown, and noticed he was being filmed. He was telling some story about some group of people in the past that hated the Chinese, and had said, We want the Chinese out of this city. That night, on the evening news, there was a clip of this man saying "We want the Chinese out of this city", to accompany a story on xenophobia.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:45 PM on December 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

I've only been on two walking tours that were any good.

One was an impromptu thing at the Forum in Rome. We had met an American archaeologist at a cafe who had dug up a number of roman ruins and just wanted to share his enthusiastic love of ancient Rome. He basically abducted us and dragged us all over town for the next day, it was wonderful! His enthusiasm, charm, and truly in depth personal information made it a one of a kind experience.

The other isn't quite what you're looking for, but it's excellent. It's a self guided audio tour of Alcatraz. It's done by former inmates and guards telling personal stories. It's a great experience to stand in cell and having a prisoner's voice in your ear telling you how he hated standing in that same spot, having a view of the city because it reminded everyone of the world out side they wouldn't see for decades.

But honestly, most of those things are just memorably bad. I live in San Francisco, so I've seen millions of guided tours. Even gone on a few when visitors come into town. With the notable Alcatraz exception, the rest were laughably awful. If a couple of them had been 50% more campy I'd almost recommend them for "so bad they're good" factor. The delivery unprofessional, knowledgeable, downright wrong and the humor awful as to make people I'm with wonder about the mental health of the guide.
posted by Ookseer at 8:48 PM on December 10, 2006

I did a ghost tour of Old Montreal a couple of summers ago. We had to wander about and wake various people who would then get up and recite their stories. One actor had been "sleeping" on a park bench, so it seemed quite logical for us next to "wake" a man sleeping in the middle of a grassy lawn near city hall – except he wasn't an actor, he was just some guy trying to sleep something off.

Later, another actor was performing his bit near the edge of one of the excavations on Champ de Mars. These excavations are between six and eight feet deep. As the actor emoted, a homeless dude stalked quietly up behind him and was about to give him an unscripted push into the pit when I called out a warning and the actor whipped around in time to avoid the mishap.

One of the directors of the thing also told us that yet another actor, costumed in a kind of bloody lab coat, who waits for his scene in one of the old alleys down to the port, had unwittingly caused a scene not long before when some well-meaning passerby called 911 and an ambulance showed up, two men rushing down to save him with a stretcher, and he had to make some effort to get them to leave before the tour party showed up...
posted by zadcat at 8:48 PM on December 10, 2006

w: I have been on three guided walking tours this year in London. All were with London Walks, and all were fabulous.

The walks I did this spring:

The Hidden Pubs of Old London Town

The Along the Thames Pub Walk

Old Westminster by Gaslight

What did you like about it?

I liked that the guides were knowledgeable and entertaining and were able to point out many, many things I would of missed if I didn't have a guide.

What did you dislike?

I can't think of anything negative on these particular guided walks.

Was the subject matter most important, or the presentation?

The pub walks were not strictly about pubs, there was plenty of commentary on history, and historical and interesting sites jam-packed into these pub tours. In a city like London, one is hopefully never short for subject matter. The guides were particularly knowledgeable and entertaining. I appreciated and expected that I would be getting a great history lesson in these tours. I have been on walking tours in St. Augustine, FL and Savannah, GA and in these cases I would say presentation trumps subject matter. Both are very important in my opinion though.

How long was it?

Each walk was approximately 3 hours long.

Was it focused narrowly or more broadly?

In this case they were focused on a particular area and subject. In these walks I was able to walk and see three different areas of the city. The pub walks were of course pub focused, but as I said, there was plenty of fantastic information in between visiting pubs.

These walks were especially wonderful. The guides were interesting, funny, extremely knowledgeable, and witty. I think I had a few out-loud cackles, and I know I had a goofy grin stuck on my face the entire time. They were that fabulous and exciting.

The guides also had a headset microphone so the walkers could hear clearly. The price couldn't be beat. 6 GBP per person and no need to book in advance. You just show up at the designated meeting place.

Good luck with your guided walks. I am sure you are fab!
posted by LoriFLA at 8:51 PM on December 10, 2006

I did a walking tour of the Tower of London that was fantastic. The guide was great, not some college kid but a professional who knew his subject matter inside out, the subject matter itself was interesting and the tour was really well thought out. My favourite bits were all the personal details and trivia he threw in. The single best part was the family chapel where apparently they just randonly buried people they'd beheaded in shallow unmarked graves under the floor "We think Anne Boleyn is under this flagstone that lady is standing on".

I've also been on some good winery tours but mostly they are pretty prefunctory and the guides aren't very knowledgable.

The guide makes all the difference imho.
posted by fshgrl at 8:56 PM on December 10, 2006

I've been on walking tours in Paris that were terrific. I've done several walking tours with Paris Walks and enjoyed them, but in one case, for the Marais, I had THE perfect guide:
* He was good at the logistics (how to walk fast enough but not too fast, keep the group together, etc.)
* He was friendly and engaging and made everyone feel comfortable, like we were out with a very well-spoken pal.
* He knew his stuff. And, he didn't make those who knew nothing about the area feel like idiots, but could answer complex questions for the history buffs. And our little group ran the gamut from those painfully unaware of any history to the aforementioned history buffs.
* He pointed out neat obscure facts, trivia, and stories that we would never get out of a guidebook walking tour.
* He was careful to point out what was facts, and what stories were probably too good to be true or were popular gossip at the time. (I.e., didn't make shit up, but gave us the good dirt.)

In short, he was more informative than a guidebook and more fun, too. My mom was pretty skeptical of the whole walking tour thing and was initially less interested in the Marais than some other areas of the city -- five years later she still remembers how well-done that tour was.

Mind you, this tour was billed as being informative, not theatre. No actors or costumes.

Costumed guides and ghost tours tend to be particularly uninformative (or worse, full of ridiculous inaccuracies), poorly-planned, and boring, in my experience

On preview -- Paris Walks is affliated with London Walks, referenced by LoriFLA.
posted by desuetude at 9:02 PM on December 10, 2006

I agree, the guide does make all the difference. On the Thames walk a disgruntled, intoxicated guide from a different company started harrassing our guide and was following us for a bit, screaming, "this guy doesn't know about London, you people are being duped!", and so on. Our guide took it all in stride and had a couple witty comebacks. Like fshfrl mentioned, I also liked how all three of the guides peppered the tour with trivia and questions for the walkers.

It also didn't hurt that there were many interesting people on the walks. Japanese business men to professors to pilots to Australian government officials.
posted by LoriFLA at 9:04 PM on December 10, 2006

These are such helpful answers folks! I appriciate all the specifics. I don't know who to give 'best answer' to, but kimdog and zadcat, you both made me laugh out loud.

I appriciate especially this idea of trying to connect with the audinece - remembering where they're from and so forth. Now that seems obvious, but I wouldn't have thought of that.

Anyhow, keep the comments coming. Thanks!
posted by serazin at 9:29 PM on December 10, 2006

I had a great walking tour of Greenwood cemetery by Big Onion Tours. It was good because the guide wasn't jaded, but enthusiastic and filled with good bits of interesting trivia, as well as being able to put certain things within the larger historical perspective of the times.

Another good tour was a candlelight tour in Salem Massachusetts by a retired schoolteacher who had lived there all his life. I thought it would be cheesy but it was just plain spooky fun. He was filled with good anecdotes and history, but let the eeriness of the place speak for itself. I.e., he knew when to shut up.

I had a bad tour in NYC of Chinatown. It was really cheap, only five dollars, but it was basically a trip to various mediocre food spots where I'm sure the guide was getting kickbacks. It was over-crowded and you could tell we were the tenth tour of the day.
posted by np312 at 9:33 PM on December 10, 2006

My best was a walking tour of Cambridge, by a guide accredited by the Blue Badge folk.
They might have some tips or study materials you could apply?
posted by bystander at 10:02 PM on December 10, 2006

Go watch (or, more likely, re-watch) Pee Wee Herman's Big Adventure for the scene with the tour guide at the Alamo. Be the exact opposite of Tina. Really. We had a whole class in my nature interpretation course in college based on watching that scene (repeatedly) and dissecting what exactly was so awful about the tour (hint: gum is not your friend!)

It seems goofy, but they're mocking a lot of classic flaws of tour guides, and seeing them "in person" so to speak can help you avoid them. Similarly, I would recommend you take as many tours yourself as you can, both in subject areas related to yours and on completely different topics. You can learn a lot from watching other guides and judging your own reaction to certain styles and techniques. My own success in environmental education has come mainly from lots of practice, a smattering of courses and books, and learning from others (whether they knew I was studying from them or not!)

A few tips relevant to both natural and cultural history interpretation:
- Always try to stand so that your audience can see you clearly and doesn't have the sun in their eyes. Sometimes this means you get the sun in your eyes, so get used to wearing a visor or using your hand. Sunglasses make you seem unapproachable and make your face hard to read, avoid them!
- Similarly, practice projecting your voice without shouting. Face your audience whenever speaking. Reassess throughout the tour that participants are able to hear and understand you.
- Clearly memorized and forced delivery of a tour is death by boredom for both you and your audiences. Do know your material backwards and forwards, do have a mental outline and backbone to your walk, do continually work on improving your delivery. Don't treat your tour like a script, especially when it comes to jokes.
- Pointless reiteration of facts without substance is also death. Have a good reason for telling that particular anecdote or story. Use information to further your tour's goals and move the narrative forward, rather than simply filling time (as a bad example from Pee Wee: does anyone really want to have EVERY use of corn rattled off at them? How does that teach anything about life at the Alamo?)
- Be flexible! Every audience will be different, with different backgrounds, and different interests. Being able to work with participants and incorporate their questions and observations is what can make a walk really great, more than just a roving lecture.
- It is absolutely okay to say "I don't know." This is one of the hardest things for new interpreters to learn, but so much better than winging something or giving some one the wrong understanding. Know where there are resources (books, museums, etc) to direct your especially inquisitive question-askers, and then go look up the answer yourself too!

Those are just some major points off the top of my head. I might be back with more, and/or may try to put together some good reading resources in an email for you. Lots of good answers in this thread. Best of luck to you!
posted by nelleish at 10:36 PM on December 10, 2006

My wife and I did a couple in Paris through Contexts. Both were excellent I thought.

The first was a Chocolate/Pastry tour. And it was wonderful. My wife is a pastry chef and she thought she had died and gone to heaven. It helps that it was led by a man who has written several pastry and chocolate books all which my wife own. He had a good itinerary but was very flexible if we wanted to talk with a particular chocolatier for longer etc.

The 2nd was a Gothic Architecture tour. The docent was an architect and teacher at the Sorbonne. Coming from an academic background it felt like an architecture lecture and I really enjoyed it. We learned a lot about the subject and she was able to show us many examples of the different periods to reinforce what she was talking about. Sadly I think the other people in the tour were a little overwhelmed as they were not expecting such a detailed tour.

Both were about 3hrs long which I think is a good length. The chocolate tour was limited to 5 people but only 4 of us showed up, but that was a perfect number. The architecture tour had 7 people and I think the guide was having a bit of a tough time keeping track of us and making herself heard.
posted by Razzle Bathbone at 10:45 PM on December 10, 2006

I did a tour of Portland's underground "Shanghai Tunnels," a network of subterranean tunnels allegedly used by the city's criminal in the pre-prohibition era.

My two complaints:
1 - It was billed as a big deal, but even though it lasted a long time (due to the guide's verbosity), we only walked maybe a city block.
2. There were lots of claims about the sorts of things that went on the tunnels, but there was no evidence that any of the claims were true, the guide couldn't point us to other references (except his own un-sourced Web site). A lot of what he said just sounded made up.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 11:15 PM on December 10, 2006

I used to give three-hours walking tours of Venice, Italy.

Being able to say "I don't know" was definitely huge. Learning people's names was also huge. My tours were limited to 25, so that helped, but I really learned everyone's name at the beginning of the tour, did my little intro spiel, then said, "Let me make sure I have everyone's name..." and pointed person to person and recited them from memory. As soon as I started doing that, my tips went up exponentially, so I assume it was a positive as far as my tourists were concerned.

I also had a lot of luck making them feel like they were "good tourists" and contrasting them, gently and subtly, with the "bad tourists." Near the end of the tour, just speaking of Venice's future, and how much it really relied on tourism, because there was little infrastructure for much else, and how fragile that therefore made the city. How many people came in and just spent a few hours there, never giving money to local businesses or supporting the city in any way, just treating it like Disneyland. How such treatment was damaging to the city; how such damage could be combatted by really looking at the city they were standing in and taking the time to appreciate it, rather than just checking it off their To Do lists, just as they were appreciating it right now with this tour.

The hit was a bit more subtle than that, and all of it is totally true -- I really *loved* giving the tour because I absolutely felt that an educated tourist was an asset to the city, while an ignorant tourist was a liability. But it was also a way to say "Look how much I taught you, and how much better off you now are, for contributing to this wonderful place, than you were when you started. *I* did that, and you were smart enough to let me."

Pop quizzes en route are also good; I used to give them on architectural styles. I would present the three major historical styles early on, then occasionally make people yell out the styles at other stops. I had a family come up to me that day *after* the tour to tell me that their kids (like, 6 and 11 years old) were correctly identifying Byzantine, Gothic, and Renaissance architecture throughout the city. It was pretty cool, both for me and the parents. I might also start some of the stops with questions about what my group thought we were looking at, trying to get them critically engaged with something *before* I explained it.

And I would say that I think one of my strengths was always assuming an intelligent audience. I would define my terms, but almost always in subordinate clauses or really quick practical definitions so that the definitions (which tend to be boring) did not take over the explanation of what we were looking at. "You can see the influence of the Renaissance here. The Renaissance means 'rebirth,' and it was a rebirth of humanist ideals that went away in the Middle Ages, a refocusing of devotion away from god and more toward what humans could achieve. You can see that in this mosaic, in which the humans have become more realistic and much more the focus of the art.... etc. etc." Give people the background they need, but keep it focused on what they're looking at.
posted by occhiblu at 11:41 PM on December 10, 2006 [1 favorite]

Also! (because that last comment just wasn't quite long enough...) I think it's important for the guide to focus on what he or she is good at. My predecessor in Venice is this totally wonderful, totally charming, and TOTALLY pedantic guy who really loved explaining details and throwing in as much info as he could. He could charm huge groups of people by being a professor-type, because that's just what came naturally and how he liked to interact.

I had more of the American ingenue thing going for me, so I tried to work that. I would play up my looks more, and talk a bit conspiratorially about my Italian boyfriend. With my friend's tour, people felt like they were getting an exhaustive view of the city from a super-brilliant man. With my tour, people felt like they were getting an insider's perspective from a woman who knew what those Italians were like. It was almost the identical tour in terms of information, it was just a question of which aspects of the history got played up, or how the jokes were delivered. I really think to be a successful guide, you need to know how you come across to other people, and know how to work that successfully.
posted by occhiblu at 11:47 PM on December 10, 2006

I've been on who knows how many walking tours with my mother. Locations included: Amsterdam, London, Belgium, and shitloads in Rome)
What did you like about it?
I like tours that have interesting little tidbits that you can't necessarily pick up in a guidebook. I also dig interacting with locals (nicely or by poking fun).

What did you dislike?
I absolutely cannot stand the tour transmitter things that have one headphone that you put in your ear and that the tour guide talks through. I hate it when tour guides do not keep the group together, or understand limitations. (My mother is very arthritic and walks slowly. One walking tour I was in contained many elderly people, one of whom was walking with a cane and the tour guide buzzed along and would have to then stop and wait for everyone to catch up.) I hate it when the tour guide doesn't give people a chance to take pictures. I hate it when tour guides shill for certain restaurants/shops (although I do understand that sometimes it's a part of the business).

Was the subject matter most important, or the presentation?
It's a combination of both. If the subject matter is very interesting, but given poorly, it sucks to listen to. If the presentation is superb, but the subject matter is something I could've picked up out of a guidebook, it sucks.

How long was it?
Most of the tours I've been on have ranged from 45 minutes to well over 3 hours. (Once again, the whole subject matter vs. presentation can factor in here. If the tour sucks, it's going to seem much, MUCH longer than it actually is.)

Was it focused narrowly or broadly?
Most of the tours I've been on have focused pretty broadly (aside from some of the Rome tours). The Amsterdam one was neat because it was city history, done in the evening, through the red light district. The Belgium one was very broadly based. One of the Rome tours was just about the Vatican Museum and The Vatican.

Other things: Make sure to keep an eye on the group. If you are in an area where pickpockets are frequent, give some sort of hint about it and possibly try to scare them away if they start to get too close to one of your tour people taking pictures. Get an idea of who is in your group. Is it all younger people? Elderly? People with severe arthritis that might not walk as quickly? Keep an eye out for those with mobility issues, and possibly offer to give them a hand at certain locations if it is needed (or have alternate routes if someone is in a wheelchair, even though it might not be possible). If you are going into some sort of very crowded area (like a building), have a location for people to meet at in case they get lost or swept away with another crowd/tour.
posted by sperose at 12:19 AM on December 11, 2006

I went on a 6 hour walking tour of Berlin. It was quite broadly focused, covering many of the historical developments of the 20th century in that city. We did both East and West Berlin, the Berlin Wall, Checkpoint Charlie, the Bundestag, some parks... hard to remember everything now, but it was great.

I think the subject matter was about equally important as the presentation. Our guide was a grad student who was originally from Chicago, and he wove lots of amusing and interesting anecdotes into the general historical narrative.

One nice thing was that we stopped about halfway through for lunch, which kept it from getting too tiring.
posted by number9dream at 1:10 AM on December 11, 2006

I did one in Austin Texas a few years back. The tour guide really makes a difference, almost more than the stops on the way. This lady was so boring we ditched it half way - of course this was a free tour.

I took the horse and carriage tour in Philly a few times - they are history studens who really are into it and makes the tour pretty good.
posted by thilmony at 6:16 AM on December 11, 2006

I'll second the above comment about Blue Badge guides. In Edinburgh - six years ago - my mother and I met someone who was in the process of being accredited by them while we were in a public bus in some random part of the city. We ended up staying on the bus for far longer than we planned, being given an impromptu history of the neighborhood, the buildings, and local industry, characters, and drama.
posted by whatzit at 6:25 AM on December 11, 2006

Robocop and I have been on a couple of walking tours. One was a 3 hour food tour of the Lower East Side, Chinatown, and Little Italy. The tour guide was very lively and clearly loves what she does, which is great, though she did get a bit pedantic at times. The last stop was a place with restrooms, after walking for 3 hours guzzling water in the hot summer sun, that was a definite must.

We also did a ghost tour in Chester, England that was super campy but tons of fun. The guide pointed out interesting historical spots and "haunted" pubs. He was entertaining and did a good job engaging the group (and did a great job selling the local pubs, we had a fabulous time the rest of our stay hanging out in some of his recommended spots).
posted by banjo_and_the_pork at 6:27 AM on December 11, 2006

Have you ever been on a guided walking tour? ... What did you dislike?

The other people on the tour crowding around smallish things. If you aren't one of the people who have shouldered to the front, you are left looking at the backs of a few tourists standing on their toes because they also can't see past the tourists in front of them. Then the guide moves on to the next thing and the crowd trails behind and you finally catch a glimpse of the thing that doesn't look at all like the thing you'd imagined from the description but the guide is disappearing towards the next thing and you can't ask anything now because everyone is focused on the guide's description of the next thing that you cannot see.

I also dislike being shown non-things in non-places. "Here is a genuine... replica... reconstructed from actual... synthetic... thought to be... not actually the actual... entirely rebuilt in 1987 according to a photograph of what was believed to be a tourist's sketch... based on... plans... estimates... what actually would have been like... before being consumed by a series of conflagrations following a strike by gravely underpaid tour guides... we really cannot be sure."

That, and I hate the person who farted most of the way up the Statue of Liberty.
posted by pracowity at 7:08 AM on December 11, 2006

I would have to say, for practical considerations, that I disagree vehemently with sperose about letting the group take pictures. Depends on where you are, of course, but in Venice, letting people take photos: Left the entire group scattered, with half the people following the guide and the other half wandering around taking photos; left the entire group open to pickpockets or other interruptions; left the entire group only half focused on me for the *entire* tour, even when there were no photos being taken, because people get used to looking around rather than listening or to looking around while we waited for the photographers to catch up; eats up *so* much time from your tour.

I always told people it was not going to be one of those "Here's St. Mark's, take a photo, ok let's move on" tours, but an actual in-depth look at the history and culture, so that they were prepared for that. I also mentioned that we had a lot to cover, that I do walk fast (though I walked the slowest of any of our city guides), and that Venice is easy to get lost in, so it was important they stayed with me. The few people who took photos anyway were mostly fine, except for the few that I quite literally lost in the city because they weren't paying attention. (And I am extremely good at keeping an eye on people, and being visible myself.)

If you're trying to be compelling, or give a narrative of the place you're touring, you do not want constant photo breaks. They completely suck the life out of the tour for everyone. I can of course understand why individuals would want pause to take photos, but that's just one of those times when the good of the group needs to outweight the desires of the individual.
posted by occhiblu at 8:29 AM on December 11, 2006

I went on a ghost walking tour of Charleston. Loved it. Right amount of walking, interesting stories.

Also, a walking tour of Dublin. I think it was just a general history of Dublin. The guide was a local history major, very knowledgeable, articulate, cute (that didn't hurt!), hip. Again the distance was good. The group was small, which we loved.

Also, a walking tour of Dubrovnik - general history. We liked it because of the combo of fascinating history, and the guide's personal anecodotes of growing up in old Dubrovnik, and living through the war in Dubrovnik.
posted by Amizu at 8:35 AM on December 11, 2006

I'd say the engagement of the tour leader is the crucial aspect. But, as occhiblu said, being able to say "I don't know" is also very important. The worst walking tour I've been on was when the guide pretended to know more about the area than she actually did. (It might have been an unfair advantage - it was one of those free teaser tours that recent American college grads give in the Roman Forum, designed to entice you to purchase tours from them for other areas of the city. My friend and I are Roman archaeologists, and decided to go along for fun. We knew more than she did, but that would have been totally fine if she hadn't purported to know everything. *Very* few people know everything there is to know about the Forum, especially people who "studied some Art History in college, so I know what I'm talking about." Hah.)

The best one I've been on was a ghost tour of old Edinburgh. Granted, I was 18 at the time, and the location was not only incredibly cool (the medieval closes off of the Royal Mile), but they were also otherwise off limits to the public, so we got into a restricted area. That's bound to add a lot to the overall experience. But what I remember the most is that my gude was enthusiastic, informed (as much as we needed him to be), and charismatic. We had a blast.
posted by AthenaPolias at 9:03 AM on December 11, 2006

The only walking tour I've been on was the Literary Pub Crawl in Dublin. Subject matter was well done--not too broad or too deeply covered, which was probably good for the rest of the audience (I would've been happy with more depth, but I love that stuff). Length was about two hours, I think, and distance was quite manageable. The presenters were engaging, pretty funny, and full of anecdotes. And we had time for half-pints of yummy beer whenever we stopped at a pub.
posted by paleography at 9:34 AM on December 11, 2006

Lots of good details upthread about the good and the bad, so I'll just chime in here to say I've been on many walking tours, some I joined 'legitimately' (ie showed up at the appointed time and paying, if it wasn't free) and others I've joined spontaneously because we were in the same place at the same time. The best of the latter type was the night tour of Rothenburg, in Germany (this was the tour in English) given by a guide dressed as a medieval night watchman. The best of the former was also in Germany, Berlin Walks I believe, a tour of Third Reich sites in central Berlin. I've also been on walking tours of the Sunset Strip in LA (in which the guide carried around an unnecessary PA system), Art Deco in Santa Monica, and San Francisco's Chinatown. All of those last three were educational and entertaining. And once, I organized and prepared a walking tour of Palo Alto. It's hard work.
posted by Rash at 10:25 AM on December 11, 2006

You all rule! These are such awesomely detailed, specific, and helpful answers. Thank you!
posted by serazin at 10:36 AM on December 11, 2006

(Me again; sorry, I keep reading the responses and thinking of more things.)

Keeping the group squished in together can be a really good trick. (I was apparently known throughout Italy as the guide who always told people to "scooch in.") It helps save your voice, because you don't have to shout (that was the reason I gave out loud for making people scooch in closer); if you're in a busy public place it keeps your group from taking up too much space and being in the way (which, in Venice at least, I considered training for good tourist etiquette); and most importantly, it *really* helps people focus in on you and stay interested and interactive (which was the real reason I kept people in close).

It's just good, in general, to try to get the group functioning as a unit rather than individuals, and to encourage them to interact with the entire group rather than just the friends they showed up with. (This ties into the stuff I wrote about no photo stops as well.) It's great for both the participants and the guide when you get that interaction flowing, with people teaching each other (and you!) as the tour progresses. That's often the underlying function of some of the goofy tourguide behavior -- reeling off memorized names, or telling really stupid jokes, or inserting the tourist's names into one of the anecdotes, or making fun of yourself as a guide. These little unexpected things become shared experiences that the participants can talk about between stops, and a lot of what I was doing, at least, was creating an environment that made English-speakers feel at home in a non-English-speaking country. Giving them reason to interact with and learn from each other seemed to make their vacations a bit brighter and less lonely .... which put them in a good mood, which increased their learning potential and increased my tips. So it was good for everyone!
posted by occhiblu at 11:19 AM on December 11, 2006