Something is off with Japan. If one country is that far ahead (4x every other country), there has to be an explanation. If there's no cultural reason, or obvious musical-community explanation, then there's probably something wrong with the numbers. My gut is that it LOOKS wrong. So I would be really careful making it the headline. Japan has the second-lowest Google share and the largest correction. Korea is similar, but where Korea gets flagged as uncertain Japan is celebrated as "leading by a distance." I think that's inconsistent storytellilng.

The methodology overall seems fine, and I like the adjustments for population and online access. But when it comes to google share, I worry a lot about the "corrections" for Korea and Japan. Most of the countries have very high google share but these two do not.

Japan worries me most because the methodology says Google share was 82% in early 2025. A drop from 82% to 59.7% in about 18 months is huge. What happened? And why is 59.7% the number being used in the calculations?

My other methodology problem is the countries where only one language was measured, like English in India, because I think the population denominator should reflect just the English speaking population, not every adult who has google access. To be honest, I have so much trouble understanding the methodology on this particular point that I might be wrong. (Perhaps the population is indeed measured correctly.)

you are publishing the raw data or just what's already been put in the tables?

The dates here don't make sense with the dates mentioned in the methodology above.

How was google trends used?

Where was google trends used?

50% in search volume? I don't know if that is big or small here. I feel like this opens up a lot of questions.

Cut

what? Does this mean it wasn't in the EU data?

above it says participated, which is different

So much unnecessary detail

What does this mean?

This is huge for me. Why are we applying the same methodology to Korea and Japan but we are downplaying Korea as a problematic finding and touting Japan as a headline?

What does this have to do with the methodology / equation?

Yes, but much less than 4.1x. The chart would look really different. This drop from 82% to 59.7% seems drastic to me. I would look into it very closely. Neither figure may be reliable.

See my note at the top of the page.

What is the raw per capita ranking? google queries per person?

I would try to use statcounter for Aug 2025-Feb 2026, if that's the time period used for the searches.

THIS IS THE METHODOLOGY. it should be up way high. And stated more plainly.

Not sure what this time period refers to. The data goes back to 2006, right?

Lost here. But I think that's because I really need help understanding the big section above on merged buckets.

So 45% of Greece's queries had no volume? What is the impact of this on the final number and do we need to adjust for it or remove the country?

google search volume?

How much of what?

But so much lower, in line with the rest of the countries. Hmmm...

I've read this many times and am really struggling to understand it. I am sure it can be said much simpler and with far fewer words. I think AI wants to sound smart.

using google ads

I cannot follow this

India has me a little worried. There are so many languages. How did you accommodate this? I think, based on the methodology, the intent is to only look at English speakers, but I don't see that reflected in the numbers.

Is this just German speakers?

This cannot be right if you are only looking at English speaking population

Does this mean that the populations in the equations are not all adults but just English (or German) speaking adults? Need to make this clear.

One general note about methodology: I personally think it's good practice to disclose that AI pulled the numbers, ran the numbers, and wrote the piece. You can also say where humans were involved in the process (methodology, editing). The EU's recent AI law states that public-interest texts must be labeled as AI-generated. Many of my US clients are now adopting this practice to be in compliance in EU markets.

This methodology is longer than all the text in the study. It can be greatly simplified. I know you don't want me to line edit (and I dislike editing AI text anyway) but I'd really try to simplify all of this in a human way. I'll just flag the stuff that is really nonsensical.

just say methodology

This doesn't need to be stated

How bad is this. I might just cut them from the study

This makes no sense unless there is more detail on what a bucket is and what a query is. Also, there is no table below.

I'm not sure what this means. Share of instrument?

Need to say this was using google ads

I think this footnote belongs somewhere else. In the chart? And I would say what "participation" means. Does it include going to an art museum or an opera or other spectator activities?

Are these open to children and adults or just children?

What does this mean? I think it's trying to say that people can learn music freely easily without needing to search for lessons or solo instruction on Google.

I don't love this section but maybe because it is so short. (just a paragraph). What are we really saying here and why is it important? In places where people participate in arts, people are also interested in learning music -- this seems obvious. But maybe there is more to it that needs to be written.

Perhaps this is the place for a call-to-action. It's a place to say that governments, schools, cultural institutions, etc. play a big role in shaping people's interests?

Also needs a transition. And I'm most concerned about this section because the decline over time may be a factor of people moving to social media. (This is mentioned at the end of the section, and it seems like a big deal, but I don't know how big).

I like calling out Norway. But it is not the only exception. Finland is a much greater exception.

Again, it depends on how you figured this out. Did you look at TikTok in each country?

Jargon

A few things: - How did you figure this out? I don't see it in the methodology. - If this is the reason for the drop, then I'm not sure this section makes a lot of sense. It being sold as a cultural shift, but it's really a methodology problem.

Any ideas why?

Chart notes: - 2016 = 100 - move the methodology to the bottom of the chart - label or annotate the 2020 spike due to pandemic - There are many countries not shown. Why are we singling out japan? - Reduce the number of countries to space out the lines a bit - Make the country name the same color as the line

This should come before the second chart

I would do a baseline of 2016, not 2019. This will show the trends more clearly over the 10 years (also the 100 at 2019 makes the pandemic spike look funny .. it reminds me of the dark side of the moon cover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Side_of_the_Moon)

I would do a human fact check / gut check on these. - Also, check that the images are good representations. Spain's cajón looks like a box. - Also, make sure it doesn't go by another name. Japan's "sangen" and "shamisen" should both be part of the seach data.

But in other countries the accordion is quite low (France).

Cut them out of the anlysis

Notes for the chart below: - I love the images. But you need to credit them. - Needs a color key. - Do not plot any data that is unreliable (hatched bars, below reporting floor). - The description should not be methodology. (put methodology at bottom)

I actually think this is the most fascinating finding in the study.

Why did the study look at this? It feel like a hard pivot to a different study. Need a transition to bridge the sections.

Interesting. But, could this be a methodology problem? Naver dominates Korean-language search, so Google users are probably a skewed group (for example, more tech-oriented or more likely to search in English?) I worry they don't represent the country.

This needs to be rewritten. I'm not sure what the message is here.

Is there a Suzuki method for guitar. (There is one for violin and piano -- I know I studied under it as a kid!) Very culturally important. That might be a big part of this finding? Or maybe another reason?

I feel like this is not measuring the same thing as this survey. Might drop it. Or make it its own paragraph and expand it.

Another AI mess of writing. I read this many times to understand it. Needs to be broken up and explained differently. I would even suggest a treemap of the data to show the proportions of the five instruments in the three categories (learn, how to play, lessons). Treemap example: https://www.amcharts.com/demos/simple-treemap/

Good to highlight countries and their topline numbers, but the text below is repetitive and leaves me with questions, not answers. I'd rather an explanation about what is happening at these countries. Why the heck do people not want to learn music in Colombia!?

Somewhere up high, there needs to a a brief explanation of what this study is measuring: searches for lessons or online instruction o how to play an instrument. It doesn't need to be long, but right now it's too far down.

The below chart needs a headline.

Need to establish that you are looking at 5 instruments and how you picked those instruments. In the US, piano and guitar are not typically options at public school, so perhaps that's why these are more likely to be self taught? I do not know about Europe, but I feel like this needs to be addressed somewhere.

Overall, I wish this piece had more personality and better flow. I don't see a good flow. It feels like a bunch of different data findings put into one piece. But there is no natural transitions between the sections. I was genuinely surprised at each section because it felt like a hard pivot each time. I also generally wish there was more context about certain countries. This piece is very numbers heavy without saying much about the reasons behind the numbers. It kind of dumps a lot of stats and rankings and then leaves the reader with a lot of questions. I liked the mention of Norway's public music schools, but those tidbits are like crumbs buried under a heap of tables and data.

Comments about the chart (because I cannot highlight text in the chart): - Do not introduce the list of instruments in the description text. It should be in the main text first. - Needs a color key. Readers do not know what is red and what is purple. - Go out another decimal place, or plot at the tenths place. Right now some countries have different lengths but they have the same number value. - Right-align the countries and add country flags. Much easier to find your own flag in a list this long. - Use a vertical line at 1.0x so that it's easier to see which countries are above average and which are below average.

Haha, this is AI writing at its worst. Very confusing to follow. Japan is in the lead, but all indicators show its population is not interested in music right now based on instrument sales. That completely undercuts the headline.

Then the paragraph shifts to preschoolers taking piano lessons, but the methodology to arrive at these numbers is only people over 15.

population and google usage

Measured where? Introduce this as a paper or study or something...

What do you mean by this? "good connectivity"? I might say "great connectivity and other remote-work essentials"

I would say what this is in parenthesis: remote work infrastructure (such as high-speed internet, coworking spaces) <-- true?

cut this. we're not describing the demographic here but we do later on in the "what we can't control" section

remaining

cut the plus

cut the plus

2/5 (the plus is confusing)

some offer visa-free entry for Germans, though rules on whether you can work on a short-term travel visa vary by country. Some countries have so-called "digital nomad" visas for remote workers. Georgia...

excitement is a better word

...who generally have more choice and flexibility.

cut. Freelancers also are subject to this.

With the exception of Bali, this section contains all repeated information. So I don't think it is adding anything to the study.

i would cut this box. The information about the A1s and 183 day rule were described already and this is repetitive. I also don't think we need to talk about Non-EU destinations here, especially if we noted in the prior section that visas are necessary and to take care to get the proper one.

About 20%

cheaper than flying anywhere else on our three lists.

Actually, it is almost the cheapest, so I'd just say "Not the most exotic..."

average? median?

takes the top spot

concerning constraint

processed without issue.

I would add "and partly about logistics, such as making work hours easily align with time zones."

ADD: Whether freelance or employed, you will likely need to be attuned to certain regulations. For instance, if you are working in another European country, you will likely need an A1 certificate that shows which country’s social-security system applies to you while you work temporarily abroad. You will also need to be aware of the "183-day rule" which is the threshold time period that determines whether you are a tax resident of the country. Employers in particularly are rather strict about their employees adherence to these rules.

Cut these highlighted words. Freelancers also have to deal with A1 certificates for social-security coverage and the 183-day rule for tax purposes. I'm adding a sentence below that incporates this.

See which

Discover which city on all our lists touts the cheapest flights

Smart Spender

Under this table, you may want to add the same footnote as the first table, for consistency: "Cost of Living: Numbeo index, Berlin = 70.5 for reference. Flight prices: Google Flights median round-trip, Q2 2026."

Under this table, you may want to add the same footnote as the prior table, for consistency: "Cost of Living: Numbeo index, Berlin = 70.5 for reference. Flight prices: Google Flights median round-trip, Q2 2026."

no overlap

No, Rome is cheaper. I would make this something else, like, "Discover destinations both near and far" since this list has the best mix of distances.

Smart Spender

What is the source for this? I cannot find this number in fact checking

destination may end up more expensive

Cut this. Air quality wasn't a factor in this ranking, so it can't hold it back from making the list.

I would just say "cheaper," not "quieter" since we didn't measure that.

Yes, this is correct

Antalya, a city in southwestern Turkey, at #6.

Cut. (Rome is cheaper)

What about Rome? Flights are 85 Eur. You can say "it has one of the cheapest flights on any of our lists."

...cost threshold is in place so only...

Munich isn't in the data sets so I am not sure how to verify.

this doesn't seem right. It suggests that, if not for flights, Bangkok would be #1. But is that really true? The flights are almost exactly the same. More likely Jaipur is #1 because it is significantly cheaper, right? If I'm correct here, the text should be: "Jaipur came out on top because its is an extremely affordable city — cheaper than any other on the top 10 list."

Jaipur, a city in northwestern India, came out...

This column should be right next to cost of living

Freelancers (cut "also")

And for good reason.

cut this

Why one Western European city makes the top 10

Find out which city beats Bangkok and why

This is a complicated area, legally. I think it's safer to just say "Most destinations on this list need some form of visa or permit. Check with each country for rules on working and length of stay."

Visa free for Germans IF you don't work. I would cut this.

This is not correct and I would cut it as an example. The B211A is for family visits and tourism. "Prohibited from carrying out any profit-making activities in any form." https://evisa.imigrasi.go.id/front/faq/dd5c2220-28a7-4024-9a10-82f30a09e0d2

many Europeans are flying

poor internet reliability

connectivity? (It's #15 for internet speed)

data set says 4.5 out of 5.

Flight affordability is not a factor for this list according to the methdology. (Even if it were, 888 Eur is not as expensive as other destinations on the list)

hm, food isn't one of the measured metrics so isn't really helpful. And the 12 hour flight makes no sense because most of these asia destinations are just as far

high

distance from Europe

cut

ADD: Score is based on a weighted average of 7 metrics described in the methodology.

I think we need more information here. Like, "includes nonstop and layovers" (right?) and maybe also "economy flights" (if that's true.)

Flights are shown for informational purposes; flights are not a metric that is factored into the ranking for this list.

Question: Numbeo often provides information on the number of contributors or data points used to calculate averages for that location. Did you require a minimum number of contributors for the data to be included?

slight downward adjustment? Though, what do you mean by this? The weighting is already set at 10%.

Make this a new bullet and clarify if this is for all lists or just one. Climate / warmth: minimum 15 degC temperature.

only)

only)

only)

threshold

threshold

distance from Germany

just say distance. cultural distance feel like a subjective metric.

gap between Bangkok and less obvious destinations

because, despite being among the most popular destinations, its other workation factors outweigh its lower novelty score. But the gap...

The methodology shows that novelty is not a metric in the other rankings, so I'd make that clear here. "We made an editorial choice here: As part of this list's rankings, we factored in a novelty metric based on number of people who go to each city. The cities with a greater population of remote workers score lower on this metric, because..."

beyond Thailand's capital.

I would cut this. We can talk about A1s in the easy mover section, but this makes it sound like only employers require A1s.

where everyone goes

Bangkok is #1 on our list. We're in good company here, because the destination has also been...

I don't understand this headline. Maybe, "If you are a globetrotting explorer, keep reading"

are more likely to be on the table

are more likely to be a feasible workation option

again, more of a teaser: Why Tokyo made the list despite being expensive.

I would make this a teaser like "The surprising place where broadband is faster than Berlin's"

Rewrite: "How these rankings are different from others"

We do not really say why Germans are so into this. I'd rephrase to "Why we are approaching this topic from a German perspective"

cut. This section does not get into methodology

and how they fit into our three lists

maybe "excitement" is a better word

I would cut. "attempt" isn't a good word, but more importantly, I wouldn't keep drawing comparisons to the other lists. Instead, we could try something playful like, "Let's spin the globe and see where we land!"

freelancers

the corporate-employee group

the corporate-worker group

I would cut this. It's offering a definition for something that we don't return to.

I do not see this chart in datawrapper but it needs correction. There should not be "rest of world" and "other." Also, the numbers in the donut should be percentage, not the search numbers, because the headline and the description say "52%" and "share"

this data is number of searches, not number of Germans, right? Also, I calculate 13% increase, not 16%. I'd rewrite: "There were an average of 15,000 monthly searches for "workation" in Germany in 2025, up 13% from the year earlier, and according to...

For this chart, I would start the x-axis on Jan 2019 and end on Dec 2025. I would not show the forecast. Then change the title to "2019-2025" and change the subtitle to +13% year-over-year growth.

Alternatively, here is what the chart looks like with yearly averages. I find it easier to read than the monthly: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/dAvI0/1/

hm - if it's this study, it would be late 2005, right? https://www.iao.fraunhofer.de/de/presseservice/aktuelles/workation-im-faktencheck-auswirkungen-auf-die-arbeitswelt.html

"...itself if more prevalent in German-speaking countries than other parts of the world."

rewrite: "...themselves, it's helpful to know that this kind of work-travel experience is embraced more emphatically in Germany than in other countries.

"adventure" is a better word. (experience is too broad -- everyone who travels has an experience)

I would cut this paragraph. It's really not adding any information and it is confusing. (How would one person narrow their decision to ubud or seville? -- they have nothing in common!)

I would rewrite for accuracy. On the TUI list, I do not see Bangkok. Seville is 17th on the list of top 50. https://www.tui.com/tui-workation-index/ Also, Nomads provides recommended locations based on your preferences. In light of this, I'd write, "Many workation lists provide a single ranking of destinations for any worker. Our goal is different. We look at the data from the unique perspective of German workers, accounting for things like flight costs and personal priorities and constraints.

But which city is actually worth the experience?

Lufthansa (Ryanair doesn't fly from FRA to SVQ). Looks like Ryanair flies from HHN, but then that adds time from Frankfurt. The price is still fine. Sorry to be so picky.

I wasn't clear on the temperature reference here because coworking spaces are indoor. Maybe try "Three hours later you're answering emails in sunshine, fueled by café con leche and tapas."