"Prague. This might be controversial, but I was underwhelmed. While Prague definitely boasts beautiful architecture, I felt that was pretty much the only draw. There was not much to do there as a tourist. I visited four other countries on the same Eurotrip and had some incredible food, but I found the food in Prague to be very lackluster. In fact, we didn't have a single good meal in three days there. IMO, you don't need much time there because you can see the whole city in 48 hours."
Absolutely true, especially if you day-trip. You have to be prepared for itr, and remember that Venice was a tourist town 600 years ago. If you want to get a better feel for it you have to stay over night. The whole vibe changes after the last train leaves in the evening. Still, it is extremely expensive to stay and eat there.
As negative as this sounds... I live in a tourist city in Alaska and ANYONE that goes to a "famous" destination is obviously gonna have OTHER tourists that also know of its fame. Tourist places make their living off selling extras, making mass food, and having thousands of people each day go through tiny locations. Best option, see what you can while you can and accept anything as an experience even if its not the one you fantisized.
In lots of these places locals need tourism to live. Can't blame the for advertising it with great pictures.
What country? They never said whwre they were from, only their USA tourist experience.
#18 Hear hear!!
Also, look into what else is there . E.G. Prague was home to Kepler, Einstein, Dvorak, Doppler, Kafka - visit (the front of) their homes and drink beer at their favorite bars. Mozart premiered Don Giovanni here, etc. Every place has its charms.
In Iceland we also skipped the BlueLagoon and we at smaller thermal springs.