@Bluehorse I totally get where you are coming from. I can almost guarantee that before the five rule, there were MANY more sits in Europe available to browse at any given time. But because they are being taken up by people living in the same timezone, the chances of securing a sit in Europe is now pretty much zero for me, coming from Australia. By the time I wake up, all sits have been posted and limit reached. I have not renewed my TH membership because of this as I usually fly to UK to sit but wanted somewhere in other places in Europe this trip. I continue to monitor this forum in the hope things will change and I can renew. But as they are simply all gone because of the time issue, I have given up. Noticed an increase in sits in the USA though but the legalities to sit there plus cost of travel insurance makes it not so inviting. But there is without a doubt, many less sits “available to apply for”, in wider Europe, since five came about.
Thanks @ziggy , good to hear it’s not just me who has the impression that the (im)balance between UK and rest-of-Europe sits listed on the site has become yet more extreme since the 5 application rule was introduced, which on average makes the ‘scarce’ non-UK sits disappear from the listings even faster.
Yes I can imagine that when you live outside Europe it has become near-impossible to apply for Europe sits due to the time difference. I do live in Europe though, and I equally struggle to find non-UK sits these days - roughly since September’22 I’ve had a lot of difficulties securing sits. I’ve only done 3 sits since, 2 of which were in the UK. The 3rd one (non-UK) was a lucky strike. Normally I would have done more sits by now though in that same time period.
Nonetheless, this is not a thread about the 5 rule - that already exists (although it’s closed), but it did make me realize that the rule contributes to an even greater imbalance in listed UK vs non-UK sits at a given time, as the latter have on average a shorter ‘turaround’ time before they switch to reviewing status
I am extremely dissatisfied with the 5 application limit. I just went through the listings for NY where I have a saved search. I did not get notifications for any of them. By the time I saw them, they are all reviewing applications. Huge disservice to the home owners as well. I always get my best pet sitters way past 5 applicants. The best ones are busy caring for pets and homes. Not sitting on their phones waiting for a notification.
I too noticed a significant reduction in European sits following the introduction of the 5 applicant rule. Unsurprisingly, attractive sits in Europe tend to receive applications quickly and if you are not one of the first 5 then you will probably be out of luck.
I doubt we will be renewing our membership if this situation continues. May as well rely on repeat sits, word of mouth and sites like Nomador.
A few weeks ago, I wrote the exact same post - saying we had to change our route as we couldn’t land any sits on our planned route in Europe, and that we were unlikely to renew our membership due to this. Would you believe it, my post got deleted by Admin as being off topic…let’s see if this one makes it 
I have a notification for Lisbon, as one of my adult children lives there. Literally each time I have recieved a notifier and looked at the sit it is already under review! Have other sitters find this with popular sit sites? If so then the system does not work very well unless you are willing to sit on the app all day and apply as soon as a sit appears in your desired location as the notification is too slow.
I am becoming very disgusted with this new “5 applicant” rule. By the time i even see the listing, it’s been maxed out.
I have made several alerts but, again, as soon as i receive it, i click in but it, too, has been maxed out.
I cannot believe im the only member who feels this way. Have THS revisited this VERY IMPORTANT AND FRUSTRATING TOPIC. Can you do a survey to all your paid members to see their views and publish the results for us all to see?
Over the past few months I have missed out on applying for many sits I feel I would have been well suited for, but have also been lucky enough to be able to apply to some others, this is because I have been reduced to monitoring the THS website day and night, week in week out. Of those applications, I have been accepted for one, rejected by around ten, and completely ignored by three. I routinely wait for one to weeks before an owner replies. I have two current applications for which I am awaiting a response - after several days neither of them has even read my application.
If the whole point of the ‘5 limit’ is to improve my experience on the platform by speeding up the selection process then it has failed miserably. Seen as members weren’t even advised of the new rule, most are unaware of the change and accordingly they’re behaviours are also unchanged.
Please just accept that this experiment hasn’t solved any problems, it has only created them - and we sitters are the biggest losers.
The five application limit is SO annoying! Just another layer of tedious difficulty.
Any consideration for a review of the ‘5 application’ limit to allow that limit to be selectable by the individual owner?
Hi @prholst we have moved your comment to this thread to keep all 5 applications content in one place as the functionality is fully implemented with no planned changes at this time. Thank you
Change the ‘5 application’ limit to make it home owner optional or allow home owners to select their limit. I have posted this suggestion in other topics and only just saw this one where it should appropriately be.
Thank you. I think it’s good that the profiles are separate from the profile on this forum so prefer to keep it that way. I do not have any particular issues at the moment that are not already being addressed. Not thrilled with the new system of only allowing 5 applications. In my experience it has been negative on both the host and sitter sides of things. Overall, my experience with TH has been very good.
I think limiting that to first five applicants is the worst approach in such system overall.
Looking from HO perspective:
- the fastest applied doesn’t mean they’re best, obviously I want the best, not the first
- the process is longer because I have to decline, then wait for new to apply and so on
Looking from HS perspective:
- if let’s say I want to sit somewhere in US or Asia (I’m in Europe), that means that I have to be very late in the night to catch the new assignments (when morning starts in US or Asia) or invent some kind of automated way to do that (which is also sounds to me like cheating).
- I have to keep always refreshing multiple windows with multiple searches to catch new assignments just on time, this is really frustrating and really time consuming
- for the price I"m paying for the platform - I want to have convenient service and not feel anxious that I have to compete for time and be the first from 5 to apply
I think this limit should be removed from the platform, I don’t see any positive thing in it. Ideally HO could set they’re own limit of applications. So everyone would have the batch they want. Some want to choose from 3, some are really picky and want to consider 30 sitters.
I think a great option would be that a HO can set the amount of applications they like in their preferences.
Then all is solved.
And/Or possibility to ‘close’ their ad when they want because have received enough applications.
So THS is forcing nothing
HO can choose how they like
HS have a fair chance
Absolutely Karilil, I agree. It should be open to the owners how many applicants they accept.
Another ‘work around’ that owners have had to implement due to the short comings of the 5 applicant change. Just plain crazy that the system has to be ‘worked’ just so owners can choose the best applicant.
Reading on this forum about the dislike from HO and Sitters about this «new» rule, I only found out recently! I really hope that THS will remove this and make it optional for HO as to how many applicants THEY choose to accept. Some would like to choose from a big pool of 50, others are contents with much less; it really should be up to the HO. I hope this gets revised quickly.