Such a bad idea!
I think it’s a good idea. In fact I just finished a sit, was told I did a good job by the husband, but the wife left me a mediocre review. They had 4 donkeys, 3 goats, 10 chickens, 2 dogs and 2 cats. That’s a lot of freaking work! What irritated me was that they dinged me in cleanliness when I wasn’t able to use electricity vacuum the rug before they got home. I was nice and gave them a good review when I should have been honest. I really think I wouldn’t have done the sit if I’d been able to talk to previous TH sitters who could have offered a more honest evaluation of the home owners!
3 Likes
Do you realize that you contribute to the problem of a shortfall of useful reviews and now you’re saying that other sitters should offer you their time to help with what you’ve contributed to?
There would be no need to talk privately if review writers didn’t undermine the concept of useful reviews in the first place.
13 Likes
Why did you give a dishonest positive review? While being favorable to the host it is not fair or nice to future sitters who get stuck with a bad host. Same thing happened to me, I got stuck with a bad sitter who was highly rated by other hosts.
2 Likes
I have never had a dog and I cant possible know what it is “reasonable” for when walking a dog, I was just giving an example that every HO have different needs and expectations, perhaps this example of this house sitter from other forum where we both are about contacting the previouse reviewer, prove my point of my needs and request are as valid as anybody else, instead of ridicule me and making me feel responsible of my houssitter failing our agreement.
“They had 4 donkeys, 3 goats, 10 chickens, 2 dogs and 2 cats. That’s a lot of freaking work!'“
I feel the same about at least 2 of my 6 housitters. I think that the review process is good but should be back up with a sort of direct messaging the reviewer although keep it optional by every single applicant and review. As we see, no everyone of us want to be contact. I wouldn’t mind, but not by all of my houssiters’ potential sits.
Other than that, you can answer questions or not or deactivate the option.
1 Like
You never had a dog yet you made it clear in the interview that the dog needs to be walked every 2 hours.
That was a response to another participant that was exagerating what I explained. I never mention any dog needs to my housitter because we have no dogs, i was just giving an example that every pet have different needs, and our pets need to show up during that period of time.
1 Like
I agree and lesson learned. I did respond to their review, so others will see that.
1 Like
Like I said previously, lesson learned. I really was going by what was said between us when we talked before I left, and as I said, her husband apologized to me about his wife’s behavior when he took me to the train station.
I hate to say it, but I won’t be kind again.
1 Like
I actually agree with you leaving a false positive review, I’ve done the same, but for different reasons. And I’d do it again if the situation called for it.
I don’t think so.
You *are* being kind when writing honest reviews - kind to fellow sitters. That is more important than being kind to a homeowner that you will never encounter again.
6 Likes
A sitter has about the same chances of encountering the homeowner again as they will another sitter. Odds are greater that a sitter will have a bad sit because prior sitters did not leave an honest negative review.
I wouldn’t want to be contacted by other sitters to elaborate on my reviews and always try to be as honest as possible in my reviews anyway.
8 Likes
How is that relevant? My response did not mention the probability of the sitter encountering another sitter.
Your reply was that it’s more important to be nice to sitters rather than homeowners since it’s unlikely they will cross paths with a homeowner again. I was pointing out it’s not likely they’ll run into a sitter either, possibly even less likely.
I know what you were pointing out. However, I never said that the reason that a sitter should be nice to other sitters is because they might meet the sitter.
Your eagerness to point out the flaws in other people’s comments often causes you to infer incorrectly.
10 Likes
You said the sitter should compose their reviews to be favorable (aka nice) to other sitters rather than the host because they were unlikely to ever encounter the host again. It’s reasonable to interpret that statement as suggesting there is a greater probability they will meet other sitters and therefore they should be nice to them.
If I’m incorrect and that’s not what you meant then why do you suggest a sitter write a review that is preferential to sitters?
1 Like
You are being deliberately obtuse. You know that’s not what I said.
2 Likes