Many museums and historical sites are mainly visited by tourists but not local people.
Why is this the case and what can be done to attract more local people to visit these places?
There is no deny that archaeological sites and old museums provide brief look into history and evidence of by gone era. All over the world there are ample of such places for people to explore but it attracts mostly the tourists and outside explorers and not local folks. This essay will look into few of the issues why people living like in certain proximity do not visit near by historical sites and propose some solutions on making them more pleasing to them.
To begin with, having a close proximity to such sites by people living their makes it less attractive to them. Since, the place is nearer it conceived as a notion that anyone could go anytime in the near future. To tackle this issue, historical welfare society should have a local festival celebrated or a fare should be organised during holiday days this will enhance the value of festival as people would more likely to come and spend quality time at museums or historical sites with families and friends. Hence, combining the local feel with such places could be more lucrative for most of the folks.
Secondly, majority of tourist have limited time and have intend to explore holiday destinations. This motive is unlikely with the people who have been there for long time as they already are aware or visited the monuments and museums. Also, people prefer to go out to new and far away places to have a change from daily routine. To mitigate this problem new additions and changes should be incorporate in old buildings so people would keep on coming to explore even if its local and native to their location.
In conclusion, close proximity and will to explore new places are few of the factors that contribute local people not visiting near by old monuments. Site care-takers play active role in making their sites more appealing to both groups and not just tourists and this issue can be solved by following few of the solutions like by blending local festivals and adding new changes constantly.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 373, Rule ID: NEAR_BY[1]
Message: Did you mean 'nearby'?
Suggestion: nearby
... like in certain proximity do not visit near by historical sites and propose some solut...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 25, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'proximity'.
Suggestion: proximity
...g to them. To begin with, having a close proximity to such sites by people living their ma...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 58, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'intended'.
Suggestion: intended
...y of tourist have limited time and have intend to explore holiday destinations. This m...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 391, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'incorporated'?
Suggestion: incorporated
...lem new additions and changes should be incorporate in old buildings so people would keep o...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 16, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'proximity'.
Suggestion: proximity
... to their location. In conclusion, close proximity and will to explore new places are few ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 128, Rule ID: NEAR_BY[1]
Message: Did you mean 'nearby'?
Suggestion: nearby
...at contribute local people not visiting near by old monuments. Site care-takers play ac...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, look, second, secondly, so, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 10.4138276553 192% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 7.30460921844 55% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 41.998997996 129% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 8.3376753507 36% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1641.0 1615.20841683 102% => OK
No of words: 341.0 315.596192385 108% => OK
Chars per words: 4.81231671554 5.12529762239 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29722995808 4.20363070211 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.38167584665 2.80592935109 85% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 176.041082164 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.530791788856 0.561755894193 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 534.6 506.74238477 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 5.43587174349 37% => OK
Article: 1.0 2.52805611222 40% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 16.0721442886 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 20.2975951904 128% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 59.2458522254 49.4020404114 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.230769231 106.682146367 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.2307692308 20.7667163134 126% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 7.06120827912 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.01903807615 120% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.67935871743 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 3.9879759519 50% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.339394306416 0.244688304435 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.115721536596 0.084324248473 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0579389187448 0.0667982634062 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.219785674472 0.151304729494 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0432671553358 0.056905535591 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 13.0946893788 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 50.2224549098 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 11.3001002004 119% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.91 12.4159519038 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.58950901804 98% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 78.4519038076 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 9.78957915832 138% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 10.1190380762 123% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 10.7795591182 130% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 73.0337078652 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.