Are bots being used to beat the 5 appl rule?

This is the reply I received when I asked what the rule is suppose to fix. :pensive:

'I am sorry to hear about your frustration with the recent update regarding pausing applications. To be transparent with you we have seen some very positive results following this test, and as such, have made the decision to implement the five-application limit across the platform - with some key improvements to be made.

To provide you with some context, previously, there were a couple of challenges: a small number of sitters taking a large majority of sits, and a small number of sits taking a large number of applications. As our community grows, it’s important that the platform works for all of our members - existing and new.

This new process ensures a greater and more even distribution of sits and applications across the platform, which is a fair and positive change for our members. Ensuring sitter and pet parent success is also key in acquiring new pet parent and sitter members, which in turn creates more sit opportunities and sitters, benefitting all of our members.’

I’m not sure why THS would think this rule “ensures a greater and more even distributions of sits and applications.” If I want to go to Paris and can’t apply for sits there due to the 5 app rule, I’m not going to apply to sits elsewhere, I’m just going to get a hotel or Airbnb. THS doesn’t get to distribute sits since sitters are not employees.


:warning: :warning:COME ON, TH MANAGEMENT – ARE YOU LISTENING??? :warning: :warning:
(yes I’m shouting)

That’s a nonsense reply. I can’t believe that with thousands of sits all over the world, “a small number of sitters taking a large majority of sits”. Or the other part either. Agree with @systaran – Yeah, “can’t go to Paris?, OK, let’s go to Australia instead.”
Sounds like a bigger effort to push back is needed. I haven’t read the aforementioned long threads about the limit, but is there a petition or a poll somewhere?


I’d like to know where the heck these listings are that are getting swamped in the first couple of minutes.

Yep. Or another House sitting site…

When they implemented this they claimed it was about speeding up the decision process and getting owners to choose sitters faster. Any suggestion it was about limiting how many sits you can do was denied. This is basically THS admitting it was that all along.

They’ve taken private equity investment money. That means they’ll be getting pushed to drive profit and expand. It’s all private equity understands. This policy will be a direct result of that and now you can see that was the purpose of it.

Every sit a sitter does in a year after their first is essentially one less siiter paying fees. If they have 100 owners with 2 listings a year they want 200 sitters covering that not 50 doing 4 each. 150 paying subscribers vs 300. Small changes add up.


I’d tell you but then I’d be competing with one more person to get them so I won’t :grin:


@cawosey they also said only a very small number of sits reach 5 applications. I think we put that one to bed long ago.


It feels like with the 5 application limit and stopping overlapping sits they’re trying to make it much harder for people to sit full time (or at least more regularly). You have to fill gaps perfectly and be so on top of looking for sits. It doesn’t feel like it hasn’t pushed people to less desirable sits though as I still see plenty going unfilled. It does make me worry about what their next steps will be!

Edit for a confusing typo!


London, Dublin and NYC are 3 of the locations that get filled very quickly. I’ve had saved searches for all 3 cities recently and usually by the time I open the app (even if I open it within seconds of receiving a notification), the sits are in “reviewing” status.

1 Like

Also islands: Greeks islands, Caribbean islands (in stable countries), Bali, etc.

And of course Paris, Venice, Rome, etc.

Those have often gone in “Reviewing” before notifications have gone out. Because those are not instant: notifications for favourites go out after between 5 and 8 minutes, notifications for saved searches are delayed by up to an hour.

1 Like

Madrid is the place where I can’t barely ever even apply for a sit. That isn’t a problem I find so much in London where I can often apply even if the dates aren’t often right or something about the sit makes me not apply in the end. I haven’t got searches for any islands up so no idea what those are like.

…yeah, not likely, but OK…

That is nuts :frowning:
I get e-mail notifications, and they are currently coming in with sits I looked at as “new” the night before :sweat_smile: so even slower.

Um… the owners have a deadline to choose by if they want a sitter, so what does it matter if they choose a month or a week ahead? That’s another silly excuse.

The helpful service to connect people who love pets is going to be more about making money than the needs of its members…? Say it ain’t so. :pleading_face:

It is interesting that this is the first time I’ve seen THS openly stating that it was after all about reducing the number of sits frequent sitters manage to secure.

1 Like

Full-time sitters will still be full-time sitters. Maybe they will be even taking more sits now, because they are less like to get so many of the attractive long-term sits.

Unfortunately, TrustedHousesitters seems to have a take it or leave it attitude towards sitters. They aren’t listening to what works for us. I think of the long run they may realize their mistake but by then many of us will be gone. I have started to take repeats offsite, and I’m not sure I’m going to renew my membership.


I’ve only been on here as an owner for a few months, so pleased to read this and have it all explained.

Just out of interest, if you reject an application, do you have to give a reason?
I feel a bit bad just rejecting. Although I’ve only had two sits so far.