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.