So today I was at a class with my pup. The instructor runs a series a popular classes that usually sell out but for regulars she opens a waiting list.
For some reason it clicked with me - the 5 applicant rule should be revised to include a waiting list.
For popular sits, why not still hit a pause after the first 5 applicants - but instead of ‘reviewing’ it switches to ‘wait list’ - sitters can still apply but HO have to decline one or more of the first five to open up the next one (or 5) in the pool of wait list candidates.
It would also help if HO can set the initial limit instead of THS rule. Some might want it set at 10 applicants, some might want it at 3.
I dunno, just random musings from trying to get into to popular dog training classes 
19 Likes
Hey, @Felinelover ; if you can get this moved to the THS News & Feedback category, other forum members can vote on it. That doesn’t mean it will get implemented, but it does help show demand / interest. (I think each forum member has 5 votes to spend, but I may be wrong there.)
2 Likes
With regard to the 5 application limit, an unofficial poll of forum members appeared on the site briefly in October 2023.
At that time hosts could pause applications as and when they liked.
Nothing came of it.
7 Likes
Well done @Twitcher for your research!!
2 Likes
I read the suggestion to be about adding a waitlist, meaning the 5 application limit would essentially stay in place, but allow backup applications in case those were got through without finding a suitable sitter. But perhaps I misunderstood.
2 Likes
You also mentioned having a vote on a waiting list.
A previous poll on a similar topic didn’t make any difference and was quickly taken down.
2 Likes
Another can of worms. Humans work like this: tell them that there might be more choices, and they will look for those choices, even though studies show that it will not make your life better. Meaning that most hosts would just reject applicant after applicant in the hopes of finding “something better”. I would not want to be in the first 5 - or in the waiting list either - on that process. This is why dating apps don’t work (aka they dont produce relationships) - there is always more “applicants” you can click trough, so having one good one means nothing (to our option hungry brain).
Waiting lists work in situations where the product (class, therapy session, etc) does not include the seller/provider to actively choose which customers they want, but just means that the next on in line will be taken in and offered the service (and they can reject, and only in case of serious misfit will be rejected).
3 Likes
Not sure how to do that but maybe the admins can?
Yes that was the thought…
1 Like
Yes, could “@“ them by name.
This is news to me, especially given that via dating apps I’ve met some wonderful women, including several relationships of a few years duration, a 10 year relationship and now my wife.
Perhaps you’re generalizing your own personal experiences?
We fill our applicant pool within an hour of listing a sit date and sometimes have as many as 8 applicants. Typically we work our way down the list and choose a sitter from the bottom of the list. We haven’t need to relist the dates a second time around.
Sitters are often rejected because they don’t have any credentials or more often they realize the sit won’t work for them because they didn’t read the listing prior to applying (the dates don’t work, it seems like too much responsibility, they don’t like big dogs or chihuahuas, or cleaning a chicken coop).
Point is, the waiting list idea makes sense. Sitters aren’t always picked from the top of the list of applicants.
1 Like
Me and you Steve, we have something in common. Let’s see if you eventually find out what. Right now I just point to that we both thrive in dating apps. We will find great matches and great relationships - though it is getting harder than before because the apps are moving faster towards planned failure.
What I did was the opposite of generalization based on own experience. I did not generalize my experience (dating apps work great!) but instead looked at the data. I cant link it here I believe, but you can easily find several articles and even books about the subject, about how the algorithms etc of dating apps and why and how they work.
But there is also logic: who is the customer of a dating app? Someone who is a single. What happens to the dating app when customer gets a relationship? They loose a customer. (Yes, I am generalizing - apps are used for polyamory (never ending customership) and cheating (relationship status does not affect use) etc. It is not really useful to every time give every exception). So why would they want to get someone to a relationship? Sure they need some poster people to show that it -could- work. But beside that, it is better to keep people hooked to swiping than to optimize for them to find a partner.
Your second point (“applicant pool of 8”) seems to miss my criticism in a way where contesting your belief about dating apps does not make a difference.
It’s certainly not how we view the success of dating apps or the downside of limiting the number of sitter applicants.
