I suppose I'm in the minority, but that never really bothers me too much.
For those who don't know, genealogy travelogue writing is a style that emphasis how research was conducted, the order in which certain documents were located and the path the research took. It is suggested that this type of writing is not really relevant to most genealogical researchers and that a style that lists the materials that have been located along with an analysis is preferable.
Personally I learn more from why certain things were done rather than just an analysis of documents. Don't get me wrong, I can learn from an article that discusses all the records that were applied to a specific problem. But I learn more about research and methodology when I see what a document lead that researcher to do next and why they did it.
The reason a significant number of researchers have brick walls is that they do not know where to go next in their research when they have one document and no additional information. Showing them a whole stack of documents with the completed research does not always help.
Students in my math classes learn more when I show process, when I show things that do not work and when I make mistakes. When they can see my process and ways that I "problem-solve," that helps them to develop those skills themselves.
To be certain there is a benefit in seeing the final work on a problem, all neat and clean and organized. But if I'm to learn about research, or if I am to teach about research, then I need to either see the process of research demonstrated or to demonstrate that process.
I'll stick to travelogue style writing for my research and for most of my lectures. Travelogue writing is not simply listing what was done in the order in which is was done. Researchers want to see process--particularly researchers who are stuck in their own research.
At least that's my thoughts.