I dedicated now over 15 years to visiting WHS. I clearly belong to the group within the community, that has a faster pace, when it comes to visits. However, looking back especially at the first years (2009-2013), when I had plenty of clusters left and my son was not born yet, I asked myself later, how many sites I did not visit in a way, that would satisfy my current standards.

The result is my "revisit needed" column in my nerdy excel, where I marked all the sites I visited, but I am not satisfied with my visit. Sites that land nowadays on that list are mostly there because of bad weather at time of the visit. But sites from my "wild" years are often there, because in hindside I did not spend enough time there and missed one ore several elements that are important for the OUV. There are also sites I rushed through so fast (especially when I did Ruceks), I barely remember now, what the visit was like.
By now I revisited almost 25% of my visited sites, with another 10% still on my to do list.

I also see the legendary Ian Jackson's "50% +1" rule much more favourable, then when I started. I won't visit 500 Mediterranean Rock Art sites, but I do try to visit as many Vauban Fortifications and as many Corbusier sites, Struve points and Pile Dwellings as possible. Especially, when the components are in different countries.

How do others handle this? Are you satisfied with just stepping into the core zone, visiting only 1 out of 10 inscribed components, or if an important part was closed/temporarily not accessible at the time of your visit? Do you also sacrifice holidays you could have used to visit a new site, to revisit a site instead?

This is a thoughtful discussion. I think all of these questions are highly context-dependent. For example, does visiting one site out of ten feel sufficient? If I'm traveling from Chile to Turkey for just a week, it wouldn't make much sense to spend all my time visiting dozens of madrasahs, Venetian castles, or caravanserais, many of which share similar features. Seeing one or two usually gives you a solid understanding; visiting a hundred more adds very little to your overall perception. Of course, there are exceptions, but this applies to most types of repeated sites.

The situation changes if I live in Turkey. In that case, visiting many of them becomes more feasible and worthwhile over time.

I also keep a list of visits that felt incomplete, but I don't dwell on them. What's done is done—I prefer to focus on new experiences. I only revisit places if it naturally fits into a future trip. For example, I visited the Holy Trinity Column in Olomouc during renovation last year, which made it a non-optimal experience since it was covered. I noted it as a place to revisit if I happen to be in the area again. But I wouldn't plan a trip solely to see it after renovation, that would feel excessive to me.

Ultimately, I travel for my own experience. Once I understand the essence of a place, that's usually enough. My approach might be different if I were a historian or had a specific scholarly interest, but for me, it's about exploring new places rather than repeating old ones.

Very interesting thread

Like you,Kintante, I wont visit hundreds of Mediterranean Rock Art sites and I for sure wont visit all Struve points or numerous Pile dwellings sites.
but I do try to visit as many Vauban Fortifications and as many as I can when nearby. However, I wont make an extra effort in terms of money and time to visit them.There are too many more fascinating whs out there, so to speak.
Another problem is the amount of time you spend on a certain whs....I mean.....every minute
is better than nothing, but is one day enough for a site like the Tomioka Mill or the Ho Citadel?? Sure,it is. But what about a site like Sukhothai
or Potsdam or Angkor Wat ? How many days you need to get to know the aforementioned sites more or less well?
I recently visited Istanbul for 1,5 days.....far too short for my taste to say that I got to know the very essence of that whs.
I have to revisit Istanbul as it doesn't mert my inner standards to claim a truly successful visit.
As for the serial sites.....foy my personal standard a visit to a handful of them is enough.
Of course some serial sites are more interesting than others...the Vauban fortifications are far more bewichting
than a Struve point in my opinion. Thats why I would slightly go out of my way to visit another of them..
And at times you have to make a tough decision whether to visit a lukewarm whs or a very promising tentative site.
Happened to me with Veliky Rostov and Bolgar. I opted for Veliky Rostov.....a fantastic tentative whs so
that I don't regret my decision..I didn't have enough time for both of them.

I think no rule can be applied across the board, though some are better than others. In many cases, I think I've only discovered what would be 'good enough' for a satisfactory visit after I've seen all the components!

Works of Antoni Gaudí (visited all 7 components)
- Essential: Sagrada Família & Park Güell
- Essential to visit one house: Casa Batlló, Casa Milà, or Casa Vicens

Rewarding as it is to visit all 7 components, I think you can get away with visiting 3 components for a full experience.

The 20th-century Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright (visited all 8 components)
- Essential: Visit Taliesin or Taliesin West (organic architecture represented)
- Essential: Visit Guggenheim Museum or Fallingwater (icons)
- Essential: Visit one FLW style house - Robie House or Hollyhock House (Prairie or Textile Block)

Rewarding as it is to visit all 8 components, I think you can get away with visiting 3 components for a full experience. Unlike the Gaudí sites, I think you have to visit at least 3 different states to capture the scope of FLW works, so some real effort is required! This does not mean that visiting Fallingwater alone or another component would not count, I'm just sharing what I would consider a satisfactory visit.

The Palau de la Música Catalana and the Hospital de Sant Pau, Barcelona (visited both components)

In this case, I kind of think you have to visit both (its in the name), at least for a satisfactory visit, not necessarily to observe OUV. If I had to visit only one, I would just consider the other site a must on a return visit.

Gochang, Hwasun, and Ganghwa Dolmen Sites (visited all 3 components)

Visited all 3 components, but it actually did not add much to the collective experience. I think its possible to capture a satisfactory experience at any of the three components if you just allocate enough time to truly explore the full extent of the site. The Ganghwa dolmen site includes other sites on the island (not just the large dolmen), Gochang offers a wide assortment and high concentration of dolmen, and Hwasun is where dolmen construction is represented best. I don't think it necessary to visit all 3 sites, just visit one very well and its good enough. It is a modest WHS and ones expectations thoroughly grounded in its OUV (not simply the 'impressiveness' of the dolmen on display) will serve the world heritage traveller better.

When it comes to natural sites, I often try to allocate multiple days, and sometimes even that is not enough. I spent 4 days in Yellowstone National Park, could have used 3 more! I was satisfied, but there was still much more to see and experience. For the Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California, I was not satisfied with just one visit and to some degree (even after multiple return trips), I still feel I need to explore one or two more National Parks / Biosphere Reserves (plans for a revisit ongoing). With approximately 5 National Parks and 4 Biosphere Reserves, how can one or two visits be enough? Did some snorkeling in one of the national parks, birding at another, got on boats multiple times in the WHS, hiking within inscribed coastal areas and yet I still feel I visited just a fraction of the Gulf of California (though I believe I witnessed its OUV).