From early on, each WHS (and now also each TWHS) has an introductory paragraph that characterizes the site in a few sentences.
It should answer the question 'What is it' and I have tried to capture the OUV as well.

However, I think that these texts add little value at the moment. I've been considering replacing them with a list of 4 or 5 factual / trivial items about the site (such as: it is in danger because/it is spread out across 5 countries), but am not sure how this would work out for the 'common' WHS where there isn't much to tell. Replacing them with the UNESCO descriptions also has been suggested to me recently.

Questions:
1. Do you read the introductory paragraph if you read up on a WHS, or do you go straight to the map or the reviews?
2. Would it make sense to start using the Official Descriptions as presented on the UNESCO website instead? They would need attribution then.
3. Do you have a suggestion what could be included in the introduction instead?

1. Yes, I do read the introductory paragraphs. I think they give the basic info about a site very well. They tell objective informations, while the reviews are subjectives to me. When I don't know much about the site in the daily review, I usually read the introductory paragraph first to know what this review is about.
2. No. There's already the link to the Unesco description if someone wanna read it. The official description is often bad and lenghty for TWHS. I think those introductory paragraphs is a strenght. People will just use the official site if we provide the same information.
3. I honestly like them as they are. The factual statements you mention belong more to the list on the right of the review I think. This is where I would add more information (Site history and Locations subsections for the exemple you give), if we wanna do so.

1) Yes.
2) No. Able to open links. And Unesco is too bloated anyhow.
3) Yes...

For me, the intro was originally where you (= Els) put fact information that doesnt go well with a travel post/review. I think it absolutely makes sense, but... If you want to change it, I think there are a few options.

General agenda I could see:
* Why? OUV and context -> Already there.
* Where?
** Some clarifications on locations for serials / difficult core zones.
** Best locations.
* Practicalities? Opening hours, getting there, ...
* Exec summary of reviews, especially if several reviewers give feedback.

Example:
* Upper Svaneti is a cultural heritage site ...
* The core zone is tiny. It only covers the village of XXX, albeit the surrounding valley holds many of the marquee towers from Mestia to the glacier.
* To get there, you have to go to Mestia. From there tours and drivers can be organised. The tour takes 4h. More details can be found in my review.
* For a breakdown of the different cultural aspects and the Unesco process, check out Paul's review. Consensus of the community is that this is Georgia's best world heritage site and should not be missed.

Ah, and Paul will love it... You could feed all reviews into chatgpt and turn it automatically into a summary .D

Good questions.

1. Yes, I read the introductory paragraphs. I appreciate their distilled assessment of what the site is and why it was selected. For TWHS I understand that the paragraphs may need to be amended when they become a WHS because some of the criteria may have changed.

2. No, for the reasons already listed.

3. I like how succinct the introductions are now. I'm not sure they would benefit from a list. If you were inclined to come up with a list of facts, I might recommend just including a single fact below the paragraph, and then using a script to cycle through the other facts periodically, similar to the banners on the homepage. Also, not necessarily related to the introductory paragraph, but is your Michelin list of sites fulfilling the commandments still in work?

Yes, I am reading introductory paragraphs and they are already great within current form. Why did you think the opposite?

Good that you remind me, I need to complete that as well this summer.

I don't like reading them myself, maybe because I wrote them? What I would like to be added is more of an executive summary of all that we learned about a site (similar to what nfmungard suggests above). Although it must be said that the bigger caveats (such as Upper Svaneti is only one village and the Stoclet House is not open to visitors) are already there in the texts.

1. Do you read them?
Mostly no and straight to the map. However I have been visiting this site for 20 years and would probably know the basics of most WHS anyway. For those that I don't know the introductions are useful.

2. Should we use the UNESCO description?
No, I think your introductions are probably better at getting to the heart of the site. The official ones don't necessarily do that as well.

3. What could improve?
As identified by nan, I think flagging up some of the things we know from reviews, or perhaps even take as common knowledge amongst the community, and flagging that up early would be useful e.g.
-Upper Svaneti the name suggests vast areas but actually it is just a single village,
-9/10 visits to Pile Dwellings will leave you staring at a field or a lake with no rotten wood in sight,
-visiting Bwindi will cost the same as a buying a 15 year old car....

Perhaps some of these things can be done visually, with a symbol, icon or badge, a bit like washing instructions on a t-shirt?

We could use something like the icons on the Noun project
Or if symbols seem too much it could be as simple as having a number and a key, like allergen guides on restaurant menus.

I guess it would mostly flag up the things we identify in the Visiting conditions connections but perhaps there is scope for more.
-Meets Criteria I
-Maybe a little pie chart showing how many of your 10 commandments it meets?
-We could perhaps even have a sort of "Community Cult Classic" for the Struve Geodetic Arc etc.

Neither point 1,2,3 matter to much as it's different for everyone

i would make 1 paragraph with a strong text (maybe ChatGPT can help? but rewrite it as google won't like 1:1 copy) for SEO purposes.

Summarising our community content (reviews, connections) etc. could be really nice. Generative AI could support here. But then would require editing.

Especially when a site has several reviews, an overview would be nice.

Really like this idea!

I think, considering the executive summary approach, it would be good to "warn" people at the start when they are looking at a particularly difficult site to visit, or a costly one, or one with characteristics ABC. That can be done with icons as the underlying data is already there in some of the connections. And there is a "10 commandments" badge to come obviously.

We could have icons for:
· Early bird (Part of batches of 1978-1979-1980)
· Inscribed on all criteria
· High entrance fees
· Free entrance
· Not open to tourists
· Guided tour only
· Seasonal WHS
· Serial transnational/Transboundary
· One million visitors or more
· One thousand or less + Takes more than 5 days

Requires reservations: days, weeks, months, years.

Still would be nice to have a paragraph on the reviews. ChatGPT version:

Michael Turtle (Australia, 21-Jun-23): Initially found the term "fortress" misleading, but after researching, understood it as a small city surrounded by a defensive wall, recommends walking the length of the walls and visiting Hwaseong Haenggung Palace as a day trip from Seoul to explore a different part of Joseon Dynasty's history.

Gary Arndt (USA, 03-Jul-17): Visited Hwaseong Fortress and stumbled upon a movie set, finding it more interesting than the historical relics.

Clyde (Malta, 02-Jun-17): Considers Hwaseong Fortress one of the best day trips from Seoul, mentioning impressive size, condition, and various military constructions and defense structures, recommends staying overnight for a nighttime experience.

Kim Chae Yoon (South Korea, 18-Aug-13): Excitedly describes the visit to Hwaseong Fortress, appreciating the castle path, historical relics, and the beauty of the surroundings.

Kim Yu Kyung (South Korea, 18-Aug-13): Finds the history of Hwaseong Fortress intriguing, highlights its construction reasons, mentions Hwahongmun and clean Suwoncheon, considers the visit an unforgettable and precious memory.

Personally, I would prefer a personal curation.

I agree, if doable and if there is anything worthwhile enough to repeat in an exec summary. For Hwaseong it could be "one of the best day trips from Seoul, recommended to walk the entire length of the walls and/or staying overnight for a nighttime experience"

So we are now at:
- Paragraph 1 should be a strong write-up of What is it and what's the OUV. Similar to the one we have now, but needs to be checked for all sites if there isn't too much fluff in it.
- Paragraph 2 could be findings from reviews.
- And finishing it off with a couple of relevant icons as described above.