So for me, when I use the term liability, I mean legally, financially, reputationally. And that’s what you’re describing.
At the end of the day, I don’t get why we’re saying it’s ok to provide a single service unit to two people at the same time bc that’s what we’re doing with an double booking.
If you go into a sit on one account with two people, you’re going in and providing one service to one HO as a single unit.
Just cause there may be two of you and you decide to split and become two units informally, doesn’t make it that way on the system and that can’t be tracked safely to ensure that animals are getting the coverage that they need…all things @Marion just called out. It’s also easier to abuse (as we all know) and in any other situation when a gap like that exists in a system, you make an attempt to patch or fix it, you don’t just leave it open
The unintended consequence for THS is they will get more sitter revenue.
At the end of the day, if you want to move between being two units or one, you’d need two separate units to do that which means two accounts (right now), and that makes sense because when we get right down to it, for the pets and homes we’re talking about, full coverage from an insurance, transparency, and tracing perspective won’t happen if you’re sometimes one or two service units on a single account and that is what TH is guaranteeing on these sits. Back to that quote…the INTENDED CONSEQUENCE is that TH can confidentially be accountable and justify that pets are getting the care they’re supposed to be getting. I doubt they implemented this just because they want to make more money. If they did, shame on them but I doubt that’s what this is about. @Colin me being optimistic
but really I feel like it’s whatever if it means two birds are taken out with one stone and let’s be honest, Is this change really how we see TH making the big bucks and pulling the wool over our eyes? (If it is, you’re free to call that out in your a reply)
Airbnb also does not allow you to do this type of stuff and if they find out you did, you’re kicked off. In their version, The main account holder is supposed to be present on the stay. Do people still book for relatives or friends? I’m sure they do, but then they know what the consequences are and take on that risk and they also have your credit card on file to address the fallout.
So I guess my question is, why is this situation different? what would a “better patch” look like?
Are we genuinely saying that we’re ok with these types of sits to not be guaranteed and have the same level of transparency and tracking/coverage by TH as they do when one unit is assigned to each sit because in truth, it’s only a partial unit?
Are we saying we want accounts where you’re allowed to go from one unit to two when it’s convenient to do so, I.e. multi-user accounts where each combination has its own unique profile (what is it like with you? What is it like with your partner, what is it like when both of y’all are there) which would then mean a separate set of reviews for each combo in a single account to show what the experience is like depending on which profile is doing the sit?
Are we saying ok multiple accounts but if we’re clearly together can we get a discount and have some way to “link” them so ppl know that sometimes we’re together?
Are we saying something else? What would good look like? Genuine question. And then are y’all ok with what that will cost elsewhere in terms of de-prioritising other stuff instead? Cause a multi-user game within a given account each with multiple combinations and unique review sets is waaaaaaaaay more complex to build. Is this even the primary use case? Should it be?
And additionally, I know similar has also been asked of creating multiple households or homes in a single account and then different pet combinations within each home/household on the HO side as well. HOs were also told to create a separate account for each home OR update their listing to reflect current state.
Would love to hear thoughts. Thank you for those that stuck with me on this train of thought. 

