The term “use” doesn’t bother me. I don’t know what the alternative would be. Maybe “choose” or “engage”, but i dont take offence at “use.”
I am a sitter and HO
8 Likes
I find it offensive too.
I don’t want to be used. Whether I get paid or not!
4 Likes
Sounds like a resonable conclusion to me.
2 Likes
I don’t really object to it. It does feel a bit transactional, once it’s been pointed out, but to me it just feels a bit shorthand-y – that is, you could say “I won’t accept future applications from her”.
1 Like
I don’t like it either. I think it is mainly because one of the meanings of this word, according to Cambridge English Dictionary, is “ to take advantage of a person or situation; to exploit”. Of course, I understand that this meaning does not apply here and what it is intended to mean is not “use” the person but “use” their services. The thing is I don’t like that implication either because it is one sided and it somehow implies sitting is not perceived as a mutual relationship.
That said, I must admit I am a bit of a language geek and we all tend stick to the economy of language principles. So no offense taken. 
1 Like
This really makes me doubt your electronics. As a sitter I would never do that. If it happened by circumstances out of my control I would expect that it was a big mess in the home.
5 Likes
Yeah, Dublin, are you sure they left two big dogs for fifteen hours? That’s longer than any well-intentioned sitter would leave them. If I ended up unavoidably delayed on return from some outing for more than like six, I’d be calling the owner to set the backup plan in motion unless the owner had been clear the dogs could be left for that long.
3 Likes
I think I’d ask her about shorter walks in case there was a reason eg the heatwave. On a recent urban sit I changed the timings of the 2 daily walks because the pavements were too hot for the doggy’s paw pads….
1 Like
Yeah a little. I don’t think they intentionally meant for it to sound exploitative.
But again it just highlights how a lot of HOs view their relationship with sitters.
Since I would walk the dog the required time, I do not have a problem with the camera/ring doorbell. I think it is perfectly reasonable when you have a stranger coming into your house and taking care of your dog. Most people sound good but as you found out do not follow the instructions to walk a dog as much as you wanted. I would do it, so I do not have a problem being checked.`
4 Likes
Some folks prefer a Ring-like doorbell for security reasons, but of course that depends on their neighborhood and sense of safety. In some areas, “porch pirates” who steal deliveries are an issue, for instance. One of our former neighbors used their Ring footage to make a police report, for example. The thief was captured on camera, with their license plate visible while they parked in the driveway.
2 Likes
Doorbell cameras don’t bother me in the least, lots of people have them. I’m not going to have any wild parties, or leave the dogs alone for 15 hours. What’s to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide.
6 Likes
I really don’t think that calling this sitter out for their failings is a great idea.
Both parties are in wrong.
The HO has clearly violated THS policies on multiple occasions and as a result infringed on the right to privacy of their sitter. That’s quite serious…. And the HO could possibly face legal jeopardy should the sitter wish to escalate things.
As annoying as it is - walking a dog less than requested is not that serious.
Best not to leave a review at all would be my advice.
Scrutinising sitters behaviour with a ring camera makes me suspect someone is looking to catch a sitter out.
Sitters should follow the instructions, but on occasion if they lose track of time and walk a pet for 15 minutes shorter or something, but in all other areas give the pet love, supervision, attention and the pet is happy I think it makes the HO look far worse. For all the HO knows the sitter may have had an urgent work email they have to get back to respond to (this has happened to me before) and had to cut the walk short that day. If a HO marked me down for this I would be devastated after giving their pet so much care and attention.
2 Likes
I don’t believe anybody would.
But what if the HO of your sit got the idea from their doorbell electronics that you had done that? They have “proof” from their surveillance logs. You deny (as also this sitter does). You are absolutely certain, but how would you prove it?
1 Like
Surely the cameras would prove that? I don’t have one, so don’t really know.
I also cannot believe there wouldn’t be a lot of mess and very unhappy dogs after 15 hours @pietkuip #techcanfail
3 Likes
That sums it all up really.
2 Likes
I would not have been aware of any camera unless can be clearly seen as a camera 
1 Like
Oh yes, I understand the reasons why some people need a doorbell camera. But not everyone is aware that there are alternatives if all that is required is an extended reach, rather than the camera option.