Qualmark skews its star ratings too high
September 17th, 2009 by Tim Uden
Qualmark is New Zealand’s main star rating agency which is the ‘official’ star rating used by Tourism New Zealand. It was established in partnership with Tourism New Zealand and as such it has an interest in promoting tourism rather than providing travellers with impartial advice.
Furthermore, like many other – so called, official – ratings agencies, they are paid by the accommodation establishments for the rating. This cosy partnership between accommodation providers and the organisation that is supposed to be rating them just leads to higher ratings than the hotels and hostels deserve.
As an independent travel guide BUG never accepts payment for a rating. Having any sort of direct business relationship with a hostel that we rate would jeopardise our independence. Our aim is to provide independent consumer advice, which means that we review and rate a hostel for the benefit of the traveller – not the hostel.
Clearly when an organisation like Qualmark is being paid by the accommodation it is supposed to be rating and is partnered with an organisation involved in promoting tourism, then the ratings are likely to be skewed towards a higher star rating. After all, they look after their customers – the hotels and hostels they rate – rather than travellers like yourself. Looking after their customers means giving them a star rating that hotels and hostels will be proud to display.
I am not saying that they are corrupt in any way. Qualmark (and other ratings agencies such as AAA Tourism in Australia) follow a strict set of guidelines to come to their rating and I am sure that Qualmark’s assessors take their job seriously. However the algorithm used to calculate those ratings produce higher ratings than a truly independent ratings assessor such as BUG (or Michelin if you’re talking about fancy restaurants). After all they look after their customer, the hotels and hostels that pay for the ratings; while BUG looks after our customers, the travellers who buy our guidebooks and use our website.
You would expect that the ratings would be spread between a ½ star and five stars with the majority of ratings near the middle (2, 2½ and 3 stars). That is the case with BUG’s ratings, but Qualmark’s ratings are through the roof. Their backpackers’ hostel ratings do not rate a single hostel less than three stars and even awful hostels like Wedgwood House YHA in Picton and Barnacles Seaside Inn YHA in Paraparaumu get at least three stars while those same hostels barely manage to score two stars with their BUG ratings.
New Zealand also has BBH’s backpacker perception ratings. This is a more subjective rating system than Qualmark’s system, but it is generally more trusted than Qualmark for giving an indication of a hostel’s quality. However it is isn’t a complete rating system as it only rates hostels that are part of the BBH hostel network, thereby eliminating all YHA hostels from their ratings.
Refer to the following table for an idea of the disparity between Qualmark, BUG and BBH ratings:
| Hostel | Qualmark rating | BBH rating | BUG rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accents on the Park (Nelson) | 5 stars | 80% | 4 stars |
| Anndion Lodge (Wanganui) | 5 stars | 4 stars | |
| Base Backpackers (Wellington) | 4 stars plus | 3½ stars | |
| Criterion Art Deco Backpackers (Napier) | 4 stars plus | 3 stars | |
| Downtown Backpackers (Wellington) | 4 stars | 66% | 2 stars |
| Kiwipaka Rotorua (Rotorua) | 4 stars plus | 2½ stars | |
| Moana Lodge (Plimmerton, Wellington) | 5 stars | 89% | 4 stars |
| YHA Auckland International (Auckland) | 5 stars | 3½ stars | |
| YHA Franz Josef (Franz Josef Glacier) | 5 stars | 3½ stars | |
| YHA Mount Cook (Mount Cook) | 5 stars | 4 stars |
While the hostels may love having a high Qualmark star rating, it is a disservice to travellers having all the ratings bunched up at the top end of the scale. For instance, in Wellington there is only one star separating Downtown Backpackers (Qualmark awards them 4 stars, BUG awards then 2 stars) and Moana Lodge (Qualmark awards them 5 stars and BUG awards them 4 stars). Qualmark’s rating of these two hostels would have you believe that they both offer a similar standard of accommodation but in reality these two hostels couldn’t be more different. Moana Lodge is a lovely place that has worked hard to earn its high rating, on the other hand Downtown Backpackers is a big old place in a run-down building that most travellers tolerate for its central location. Qualmark’s rating only separates these two hostels by one star.
Compare this with other star rating agencies such as the English and Welsh Tourist Boards, which assess star ratings but are more accurate with lower ratings awarded to simpler or poorer quality hotels and hostels. This is better for the traveller as it gives a better indication of what a place is really like as opposed to Qualmark’s system, which basically involves saying that all the hostels are excellent when they all clearly are not.
Fortunately travellers have the alternative of BBH and BUG’s own independently assessed star ratings.
Some hostel managers need to grow up and treat their guests with respect?
June 12th, 2009 by Tim Uden
We recently had a review submitted to BUG complaining of petty and childish treatment by a hostel manager.
A guest booked the Lyons House Hostel in Niagara Falls (Ontario, Canada) through Hostelworld and after an enjoyable stay she posted this positive review on Hostelworld.
Afterwards, she recieved a rude email from Patrick, the manager of Lyons House, saying she wasn’t welcome at the hostel in the future because her rating wasn’t positive enough. Patrick’s rude and childish email said:
“Megan I am very disappointed by the scores you gave our hostel. The comments are nice and appreciated but the score is horrible. You’ve rated is a full 20 points lower than our average for the month of May. The ranking that you gave us is lower than the foulest puke smelling bed bug ridden hostels in Toronto and New York. Our guests have consistently rated us very highly and your score is completely off the mark in comparison. I would never suggest that a guest stay in a hostel rated as low as you have rated us. The character of a hostel has nothing to do with the outside of the hostel and everything to do with the quality of the experience inside it. We are consistently rated very high for character. What was wrong with security? You had your own apartment with a deadbolt as well as your locked room We live on site and have 24hour security staff, the front door is protected by a security system as well. I can only assume that you are comparing us to motels and hotels.
If you have an suggestions on how to improve our hostel I would be happy to hear them. But, please do not book with us again as your score has hurt our business and I cannot allow that. I suggest you try the other hostel in town or perhaps a cheap motel.
Regards Patrick”
What sort of wacky thoughts could posibly have been running through Patrick’s mind to conjure up such as rude and childish response to someone who wrote a positive review of his hostel? Could you possibly imagine what a fit of rage he may erupt into if he actually got a negative review?
Megan gave his hostel a score in the mid 70s. I don’t see anything wrong with that is the sort of score; translated into a star rating, anything in the 70s would be regarded as four stars. Working as a professional reviewer, I reserve a rating of four stars or higher for the truly outstanding. When I researched BUG’s travel guidebook to Britain & Ireland several years ago, I visited virtually every hostel in the land and assessed an objective star rating for each place. In total only three hostels in England acheived a score this high.
Hostelworld’s rating is on a scale of 0 to 100 and anything above 50% should be regarded as above average. Well it would be if so many people weren’t so free in giving out abnormally high scores (above 90%). When people give such high scores without objectively assessing the standard of the hostel, then it creates a sense of entitlement among hostels who think that they deserve a rating that is way beyond the standards of their establishment. Earlier this year I wrote a blog post commenting about how percentage ratings on review sites seem to be skewed much higher than five-star ratings. A professional reviewer for a print publication would reserve the four and five star ratings for the truly exceptional, yet on some review sites anything below this is considered abnormal. So, come on guys; be fair and objective when you write reviews and don’t worry about giving out one or two star (or 10-20%) ratings. This helps your fellow travellers as they can see what a place is really like, and those truly outstanding hostels that earn a high rating get the credit that they deserve by standing head and shoulders above the rest.
Patrick doesn’t seem to realise that a high rating is something to be earned and some travellers have higher standards than others. His response was rash and came across as petty and childish and a guest who left the hostel with good memories, now has sour memories of his hostel.
In the past 12 years that I have been writing about hostels I have only come across this sort of behaviour a couple of times and each time I was shocked and disgusted that a hostel manager could act in such a petty and childish manner with such little regard for his guests.
According to most reports, Lyons House Hostel is a great hostel and it consistently gets good reports from travellers. Why would a hostel manager want to spoil his hostel’s good reputation by writing rude and petty emails to his guests after they have stayed at his hostel? Doesn’t he realise that upsetting one of his guests will result not only in losing her repeat business, but the business of her friends. And with the internet, one can have a lot of friends.
Grow up Patrick, show your guests some respect.
New Zealand’s top 10 small hostels
June 4th, 2009 by Tim Uden
The latest BUG New Zealand guidebook reviews of around 500 hostels throughout New Zealand.
New Zealand’s hostels range from small intimate places to large modern multi-storey hostels with hundreds of beds although compared with Australia the emphasis is mostly on smaller hostels.
When I asked the authors working on the travel guide, their favourites were invariably these smaller hostels where the managers remember your name and provide a warmer welcome and a more personal service, all while keeping the hostel clean.
New Zealand’s smaller hostels also have the advantage of catering more to true independent travellers as they are generally too small to cater to backpacker buses like Kiwi Experience, Magic or Stray.
Based on the guidebook author’s recommendations I have compiled a list of New Zealand’s top 10 small hostels.
Most of New Zealand’s top 10 small hostels – all with less than 60 beds – are unique hostels with lots of charm, but some are known for the top-quality fittings and others for the friendly hospitable staff.
New Zealand’s top 10 small hostels are:
- Bay Adventurer (Paihia, Northland)
- Beaconstone (Charleston, West Coast)
- Billy Brown’s (Port Chalmers, Otago)
- The Bug (Nelson)
- Hopewell (Marlborough Sounds, Marlborough)
- Juggler’s Rest (Picton, Marlborough)
- Moana Lodge (Plimmerton, Wellington)
- Mt Cook YHA (Mount Cook, Canterbury)
- Old Slaughterhouse (Hector, West Coast)
- Tree House Backpackers Lodge (Kohukohu, Northland)
All these hostels are reviewed on the BUG website and also in the third edition of BUG New Zealand, which is now available in bookshops in Australia, New Zealand and the UK.
You can also buy the book online from amazon.co.uk, Waterstones (with free delivery in the UK) or the Book Depository (which has free worldwide shipping).
Australia’s top 10 small hostels
April 22nd, 2009 by Tim Uden
The latest BUG Australia guidebook reviews over 600 hostels throughout Australia.
Australia’s hostels range from small intimate places to large modern multi-storey hostels with hundreds of beds. The large hostels like Beaches of Broome, Gilligan’s Backpackers in Cairns plus Sydney Central YHA and Wake Up! in Sydney are world class with hundreds of beds plus top notch facilities that include resort-style swimming pools.
When I asked the authors working on the travel guide, their favourites were invariably the smaller hostels where the managers remember your name and provide a warmer welcome and a more personal service, all while keeping the hostel clean.
Based on the guidebook author’s recommendations I have compiled a list of Australia’s top 10 small hostels.
Most of Australia’s top 10 small hostels – all with less than 60 beds – are unique hostels with lots of charm, but some are known for the top-quality fittings and others for the friendly hospitable staff.
Australia’s top 10 small hostels are:
- Bellingen YHA (Bellingen, NSW)
- Black Cockatoo (Nannup, WA)
- Eco-Beach YHA (Apollo Bay, VIC)
- Eumeralla Backpackers (Yambuk, VIC)
- Grampians Eco YHA (Halls Gap, VIC)
- Lakeside Manor YHA (Robe, SA)
- Number 14 (Katoomba, NSW)
- Olembia (Melbourne, VIC)
- On the Wallaby (Yungaburra, QLD)
- Tim’s Place (Halls Gap, VIC)
All these hostels are reviewed on the BUG website and also in the fourth edition of BUG Australia, which is now available in bookshops in Australia, New Zealand and the UK.
You can also buy the book online from amazon.co.uk, Waterstones (with free delivery in the UK) or the Book Depository (which has free worldwide shipping).
Why star ratings are more accurate than percentage ratings
February 19th, 2009 by Tim Uden
A few years ago when we were restructuring the way BUG’s hostel reviews were displayed we considered changing the travellers’ hostel rating to a percentage out of 100 rather than a score from one to five.
This seemed like a good idea at first as we would be able to more accurately differentiate between two closely rated hostels. However after consideration we decided against it as we found that it gives inaccurate ratings compared with the rating out of five that we have continued to use.
In theory this would mean that star ratings would break down to percentage ratings as follows:
Well that was the idea, but in practice the average person tends to give an abnormally high score when rating on a scale of one to 100 compared with a star rating from one to five, which would mean that the majority of scores would be between 70% and 100%.
If a traveller is to give a true objective rating they should use the mid-point as an average and score above or below that point if they think the hostel they are rating is above or below average. In other words when working with a rating from one to five, they would start at 2½ stars and score higher or lower depending on the standard of the hostel and working with a percentage score you should start at 50%.
With a rating from one to five it works more or less like this (although the ratings are skewed slightly higher than I would like because of a limitation in the software that prevents you from giving a zero score).
However with a percentage score the ratings are through the roof – just look at the ratings on hostel booking sites like Hostelworld. On these sites the average isn’t 50% (as it should be), but instead it is somewhere in the high 70s or low 80s. If you are not familiar with these ratings you would expect all the hostels to be brilliant, but clearly there are many hostels there that deserve a much lower rating.
I think the problem stems from a lot of travellers wanting to be nice. They stayed at the hostel and found it dirty with limited facilities, but the staff were friendly so they want to be nice in return and give them a good score.
This trend toward giving nice (rather than accurate) ratings stems partly from websites like eBay where users rate each other. On these sites well over 95% of ratings are extremely positive, mainly because users are scared of a negative rating in return. This trend should not carry over into instances where the assessor can’t be assessed but it does.
I think the trend towards unfeasibly high percentage ratings also comes down to perception and the lack of established precedent.
Percentage-based rating systems are a relatively recent phenomenon and have only come into play in the past few years as hostel booking sites like Hostelworld have become more popular. The ratings on these websites are implausibly high because there is no historic precedent set by professional reviewers for what percentage rating should be applied to different quality standards. With no precedent to follow, travellers writing the reviews just give a high rating because they want to be nice as a favour to the friendly staff at the hostel or they follow the lead set by other travellers who have rated the same hostel.
In contrast, star ratings have been around for years. They were around long before anyone had heard of the internet. The five-star rating system has been used for hotels and for reviews in newspapers and magazines for everything from music, electrical equipment, restaurants and wine to the latest blockbuster film.
Professional reviewers in the traditional media have high standards and don’t just randomly give out four or five star ratings. A high rating is something to be earned. A positive review doesn’t have the same impact when all the reviews are glowing with praise, but it has real meaning when put into context with other less favourable reviews. Ratings are a great way to compare products or services, but only when all the ratings are given objective consideration based on their merit with five stars awarded only to the truly exceptional and half a star to the really dreadful, with honest and objective ratings for everything that falls in between.
In addition to the ratings and reviews that you, the traveller, can write on the BUG website; BUG has our own star rating system. BUG’s own staff are trained to follow an objective set of standards that they apply when giving our own star rating. We have rated over 1500 hostels in over 15 countries and have yet to award an overall score of five stars. We realise that hostels are constantly improving and 20 years from now we may have several five star hostels, and when we do give a five-star rating the hostel will have well and truly earned it.
Many hotels proudly advertise as one or two stars and many chefs consider being awarded a single Michelin star as a highlight of their career, so giving one or two stars is certainly not mean; it is just honest, accurate and truthful. And honestly is something that should be reflected in all reviews and ratings.
Most travellers write hostel reviews because they want to help other travellers. So don’t be afraid to give one star if the place is crap – you’ll be doing other travellers a favour. By giving poor hostels the rating they warrant, the really good hostels with four stars or higher will stand on their own and get the recognition that they have earned.
The Secret Life of Us
September 17th, 2008 by Tim Uden
I recently finished reading The Secret Life of Backpackers by Barry Divola. It’s a great read if you’re planning a trip to Australia and an interesting insight into backpacking culture.
Barry is an Australian journalist who had previously written an article about backpackers after spending a week in a hostel at Bondi Beach. This time Barry opts for a longer month-long trip up Australia’s east coast and the book follows his travels along the heavily beaten backpacker trail between Sydney and Cairns and includes Byron Bay, Hervey Bay, Fraser Island, Airlie Beach and Whitsunday Islands.
Although the book does profile these destinations, the real focus is on the backpacking sub-culture. However there are some interesting destination profiles and Barry’s sceptical view of the flaky new age side of Byron Bay is a great read.
A lot of the book focuses on party hostels and there is a good overview of backpackers’ hostels including Noah’s and Surfside in Bondi Beach, Cape Byron Hostel in Byron Bay, Koala’s in Hervey Bay, Magnum’s in Airlie Beach and Gilligan’s in Cairns. If you do stick to this style of hostel on Australia’s east coast there is a good chance that your trip will be similar to Barry’s and you will spend a lot of your time drinking in backpackers’ bars like Cheeky Monkey’s in Bryon Bay, Magnums in Airlie Beach and PJ O’Briens or the Woolshed in Cairns or just drinking cask wine at your hostel but I can’t guarantee that you’ll make a bong from an apple or have as much sex as the book portrays.
It is important, however, not to pigeonhole all backpackers. We are all unique and backpacking culture is different in destinations off the beaten backpackers’ trail and smaller hostels have a different atmosphere to the party hostels profiled in the book. Your travel experience will probably be a lot different if you stay in smaller hostels and travel away from the beaten Sydney-Cairns route.
Stockholm to get a unique new hostel
September 4th, 2008 by Tim Uden
Last Thursday, the world’s first hostel housed inside a Boeing 747 jumbo jet progressed a step closer as the unused aeroplane was towed to a spot near Stockholm’s Arlanda Airport. The Swedish news website, The Local, reports that the plane, which had been resting on Arlanda’s third runway since 2002, has been purchased by Swedish entrepreneur Oscar Diös.
There had been rumours about the Jumbo Hostel for a few years now, although approval from the airports authority and the Swedish National Roads Administration mean the hostel looks set to open for business in December.
The interior of the jumbo jet will be completely overhauled with construction of 25 three-bed dormitories plus a luxury suite in the converted cockpit.
The Jumbo Hostel will also feature a café and a walkway onto the plane’s left wing.
The location at Arlanda Airport isn’t the most convenient to Stockholm city centre, but I am sure it will prove popular with plane-spotters and travellers arriving on a late flight as it is only a 10-minute walk from the airport terminal building.
If this hostel is sucessful; Oscar, who had previously run Uppsala Vandrarhem, plans to open more Jumbo Hostels elsewhere in the world.
Do big hostels need a bar to create a good atmosphere?
August 13th, 2008 by Tim Uden
I recently read a post on the forums at hostelmanagement.com (a great site if you want the inside scoop on hostelling from the hostel manager’s perspective) that says that a large hostel without a bar is a large boring hostel and the kitchen/common room scene only really works in small hostels.
This made me think about hostels – both big and small – that I have stayed at and what makes them tick. Are small hostels always better and does a big hostel need a bar to not be boring.
I hadn’t really considered that before although it makes sense. However on reflection I don’t really think it is the bar that gives the hostel atmosphere, but the decor of the common areas. It just happens that most hostels pay more attention to the interior design of a bar because it is a revenue producing area.
I’ve been to a lot of large boring hostels, but there are also plenty of big hostels without bars that manage a good atmosphere. The good big hostels without bars pay more attention to design and have the common areas in warm colours, with interesting furnishings and some art to give it a cosy feel. Even a big hostel can have a warm atmosphere if the right attention is paid to design.
Being big doesn’t mean being charmless and impersonal and being part of a big chain shouldn’t mean that either. A lot of big hostels buy the cheapest furniture to fill their vast common areas and they end up looking as cosy as a hospital cafeteria. Those that put thought – and a little money – into their business have a better atmosphere.
As a non-hostel example, let’s compare multi-store chains like Burger King and Starbucks. One feels cold and plastic and the other is warm and inviting in comparison. They are both chains with thousands of almost identical outlets; the difference is that one has darker warmer colours, dimmed lighting and comfortable seating and the other has bright colours and cold and plastic furnishings.
Sure Starbucks doesn’t have the atmosphere of a small independent cafe, but it is a lot better than if might have been with a different interior design.
If good design can make even a big corporate outlet feel welcoming and that means that design can transform any retail or hospitality business and that includes hostels.
Now back to the question of whether a bar improves a hostel. Well it comes down to how the bar is incorporated into the hostel and how it is run.
Wake Up! (Sydney, Australia) has a bar, but it doesn’t really add any atmosphere to the hostel because it is downstairs away from the main ground floor common area. Likewise the bar at Nomads Capital (Wellington, New Zealand) doesn’t add to the hostel’s atmosphere because it isn’t in the hostel, you have to go next door for the bar.
However a bar is a more central feature of Nomads Industry (Melbourne, Australia) as it incorporates the main ground floor common area, making it a top choice of Melbourne’s flashpackers’ hostels. On a smaller scale, Kimberley Klub (Broome, Australia) wouldn’t be the same without its poolside bar.
For a bar to improve the hostel’s atmosphere; it has to be integrated with the common area and it has to have the right atmosphere so guests who don’t want to drink will feel comfortable hanging out there as well.
A bar can detract from the atmosphere if it is poorly run. For instance Globetrotters Inn in London and Edinburgh have bars but they just feel depressing and you have to pay for everything at the bar and elsewhere in the hostel using a prepaid smart card. It just shows that the management don’t trust their staff with money and the lack of trust creates an unwelcoming and uncomfortable atmosphere.
Big hostels can’t rely on the owner’s personality so they have to try harder to create the right atmosphere, but it can be done. However having a bar is not always the answer.
Going Green
April 5th, 2008 by Thomas Maresca
Having driven more than 4500 kilometers around New Zealand in the last month, and having flown several thousand more to get here in the first place, it’s hard not to think about the environmental impact that traveling has. New Zealand already gets 2.4 million tourists a year; now imagine the growth of economies like China’s (New Zealands’s fastest-growing tourism market–new direct flights from Beijing have just begun on Air Zealand). Something has to give.
Obviously, the greening of travel has already begun in a number of ways. Carbon offsets are increasingly common options for travelers, and sustainable ecotourism has been around for quite some time (although generally this is geared towards more upmarket travelers.) Still, these feel like nothing more than baby steps. Is sustainable long-distance travel even possible?
On my wanderings around the North Island, I came across a number of hostels that are addressing this issue on an individual-scale basis. A few of the more interesting places you might want to check out:
Tree House Backpackers Lodge, Kohukohu: They don’t make a big show of it, but the owners of this place have been restoring the forestland around their property for nearly 30 years, long before it was fashionable. You’d think you were staying among natural gardens surrounded by wild native bush, but almost all of it was planted and nurtured by these enterprising and friendly people.
Solscape, Raglan: This hostel/lodge is more upfront about its eco-message. Set high on a hill with lodging ranging from old train carriages to tipis, the owners are striving to make the whole operation as self-sustaining as possible. The tipi area is completely off the grid, generating its own power and water, composting waste, etc.
Mel’s Place, Hicks Bay: This small place along the East Cape is also trying to be as environmentally friendly as possible. The owners, a Maori couple who run fishing charters, practice sustainable fishing and are very articulate about describing the Maori relationship to the land and its resources.
Just a few examples of local-level eco-conscious travel—you have to assume we’re going to be seeing a good deal more of this in the coming years.
Clean Underwear: Or the Secret to Backpacker Ecstasy
July 12th, 2007 by Leif Pettersen
While in Paris, I had an epiphany about a singular form of backpacker ecstasy. There’s an unequalled bliss available to long-haul backpackers that’s entirely drug-free, Pope-approved and, best of all, socially encouraged. I’m speaking of clean underwear.
Laundry is an irritating hassle when you’re on the road. It’s time consuming, boring, every goddamn country has a different, confounding system and it can get expensive, and not just in perennially overpriced towns like Paris.
Prior to Paris, the last time I’d done laundry was way back in Valencia, Spain. I won’t say here how much chronological time had transpired since that event, but I had passed through nine cities in three countries in the interim and needless to say by the time I reached Paris, even homeless people were shrinking away from me.
Back in Valencia there were no self-service launderettes, but the task could not be put off any longer. I got a line on a laundry service from the clerk at my pension that only charged €10(AUD$15.90/GBP£6.75/USD$13.65). This seemed expensive by budget backpacker standards, but after I considered that I would have spent a minimum of six euros to do the laundry on my own, the measly four euros that I was going to pay for the labour seemed totally worth the money.
Then I got the bill. Twenty euros!? “What the fuck?” I said to the smiling laundry lady. Actually, in my most polite, formal Spanish, I explained that she herself had quoted me the ten euro price earlier that day, to which she smugly replied that it was ten euros per load and that I had whites and colours, so that was two loads. My whites consisted of one undershirt and five pairs of ankle socks, hardly a “load”. In any event, I ended up paying more for those two “loads” of laundry than I was paying for my over-priced, private pension room.
So why did I put off my next significant laundry event until Paris? Well, part of the reason was that I had paid twenty fricking euros for the last goddamn load and I was gonna stretch it as far as it would go! Ahem. Additionally, I am not ashamed to admit that there had been a few somewhat malodorous occasions in the interim when I had worn the same ensemble, underwear and all, for three days straight. Gag and judge me if you must, but these things aren’t as unusual as they seem when you’re backpacking and constantly on the move. Days blend together. Over-night bus rides merge into the following day without the thought of a shower. Then you get wasted on cheap sangria that night and the next day is a hungover haze of non-productive confusion. See how easily it can happen?
Furthermore, in my case, endurance clothes wearing is not as revolting as you might think. I have a very unique and blessed body chemistry that makes it nearly impossible for me to generate objectionable body odour. I’ve been like this for as long as I can remember. Try as I might, I simply do not stink. In fact, there are certain, possibly insane people in my life who actually prefer the scent that I give off after, say, a two hour juggling workout. They come prancing across the gym, grab me, bury their noses into my chest and snort deeply. Then they go limp with bliss and sigh heavily while their eyes roll back into their heads and a little goo drips out of the sides of their mouths like Homer Simpson at an overturned doughnut truck.
These people are the extreme cases. What I normally get are benign, mildly amazed comments as to how I never seem to smell bad. Keeping the above in mind, theoretically speaking, I could subsist almost indefinitely without washing my clothes if I weren’t spending my days wandering through teeming European cities where chain-smokers abound and every surface in all public places is peed on at least twice a week. Inexorably, even for a pheromone deity like myself, garments suffer a general build-up of funkiness when exposed to this environment and so the dreaded laundry chore must eventually be dealt with.
So, back to Paris.
Wearing only my swimsuit and a “Simpsons” t-shirt that I had been using as a pillowcase in hostels that don’t provide linens, I raced four blocks through the chilly Paris night, carrying a plastic laundry sack the size of a body bag, that contained every scrap clothing I owned.
Gratifyingly, Paris has self-service launderettes, like God intended. The downside is that you practically need to be a mechanical engineer to successfully operate the vast array of equipment contained therein.
To start, there’s the issue of coaxing the soap machine into dispensing a single use packet of detergent. Then you wash your clothes. Then you centrifuge your clothes. Then you dry your clothes until you run out of change or until they are actually dry, whichever comes first. All of the above tasks are controlled from an aging, coin operated programming console in the centre of the room. In order to successfully wash and dry your clothes you need excellent timing, meticulous planning and, if possible, passing fluency in French. Without these prerequisites, you will inevitably have to deal with little surprises like your washing machine starting up across the room while your back is turned, with the door open and no soap in it.
After two obscenity-filled hours and about nine euros – it would have only been six euros if my French reading comprehension skills had been better – I was hurrying through the cold back to my hostel with an armload of pleasantly fragrant, clean clothes.
One of the very few moments when a long-term backpacker feels almost human and respectable is when they triumphantly pack away all of their newly clean clothes and ball up the now empty dirty clothes sack and stuff it into a small side pocket of their backpack, where it will stay for a few days until its inevitable growth requires that it be moved back into the main compartment.
When you have a backpack full of clean clothes, the difference in your appearance, odour, confidence and general outlook on life is astounding. Your wardrobe choice is at its peak and everything is fresh, smooth and free, if ever so briefly, of red wine stains.
For a precious few days, your spirits are as boundless and unsullied as your choice of underwear. Yes, you detest the moment of knuckling down and washing your clothes like you used to loathe cleaning out the gerbil cage when you were a kid, but the end result is the same swollen feeling of accomplishment.
Best of all, you know that at that very moment, you are as far away from having to repeat that hateful task as you can possibly get.
And that, my friends, is backpacker ecstasy.