Couples with 2 accounts

Sitter Questions, Advice & Chat
21

I don’t think there is any way to link them. I’m curious if you could put the link in the experience section? But I think since HOs would need to cut and paste it would be awkward. I’d suggest preparing a template application email that you can send quickly that has a link to the main account with the reviews, and being very open but consise about the second account.

The reviews will go to the account that applied, but it might not be a bad thing. Once you accumulate some reviews in the second account, you could mention that in the applications with the main account.

22

This measure does not prevent any “opportunist” from taking sits on THS and rovering etcetera on the side.

On THS, there is not much incentive to do double bookings. Sitters are not getting paid. If there are double bookings, I guess it would normally be to help somebody out, like @Myhnabird did.

If THS was really concerned about double bookings, the first thing they should do is to block HOs from sending invitations to sitters that already have a confirmed sit with overlapping dates.

2 Likes
23

Doubt it prevents “All”; pretty sure it helps to mitigate for some or even many through this particular approach. Especially since the next nearest solid workaround is getting a second account, which again, covers everyone (HOs, HSs and TH) from a liability perspective.

And while you may be right about the lack of incentive, I think the bigger issue for a company or community would be avoiding problems, especially legal ones. So not disagreeing with you, but I don’t think that’s the biggest issue that would lead to saying no to double bookings. It would be very difficult to co-sign on a double booking. They’ve already said they don’t allow it/don’t cover it.

If HO’s then go out of their way to reach out to you, that’s on them and on you as a sitter for accepting the double booking even though you know you’re not covered. I think it would be weird to say that a sitter can not be contacted by anyone whenever they have an active sit in place. There are some people on here that sit full-time, no?

24

I don’t think this is a tech issue. I am not in this position as I don’t sit full time, and while my partner likes to accompany me and is helpful, he has no desire to be the “primary” sitter for even a short overlap! But if I were in that position, I’d write something like this. Note: Not Chatgpt generated and not my actual experience.)

I’d love to sit for Angelito and Dolly. They look like great dogs.

My partner _____ and I have 10+ years of dog experience including with strong breeds, and have accumulated over thirty 5 star reviews sitting together. You can read those reviews on this profile: {full link here to other profile}

I’m applying through this second account due to a change in Trusted Housesitter’s tech that makes it impossible to apply for overlapping sits. Your sit has a two-day overlap with our current sit, so I would be starting your sit as a solo sitter, and my partner would be arriving on ______ when our current sit is completed. We have done these types of overlaps seamlessly for years, and are both equally skilled sitters who can handle any situation together or alone.

5 Likes
25

There isn’t much incentive to do double bookings, but there is incentive for full time solo sitters to attempt to overlap by a day or two or three who wish to stay in the same area – in major cities for instance.

Updating to add: I’m just commenting on @pietkuip previous post. I’m not suggesting that doing dropins until another nearby sit ends is a good thing or that it should be supported by THS. I fully understand why it’s not. I am a homeowner as well as a sitter.

I’m not a fan of the new product update for several reasons, but I support the intention of making it harder for sitters to purposely double-book or cancel-hop.

26

You really can’t say this as a statement of fact as none of us have that data, none of us know for sure. The more you say it, the more people will start to believe it is a factual statement.

THS started this blame game narrative and has already put a severe dent in their own ‘trusted’ image - It must be the biggest corporate image gaffe of the year. I’ve read so many times how THS has introduced this new rule because ‘so many’ pets were being abandoned- it is difficult not to take it personally as it reflects on us all

It may be my general glass-half-full outlook on life but if I had to guess, and it is only a guess, I would say the total opposite to you. I would say that the vast majority of sitters are exactly like us.

My guess is that It is the very, very tiny minority ( referred to as “a handful of” and “a couple of” in earlier messages from THS staff) who started this situation, The vast majority are those who are now suffering the consequences.

THS must understand that no matter how big and strong a building is, you can only pick away at its foundations for so long. At some point, there is a real risk that the whole thing will come tumbling down.

10 Likes
27

You’re right, that part was a generalised statement.

The rest of it wasn’t though…removing the open ability to allow overlapping sits and updating terms mitigates liability if something were to go wrong for all parties involved, which is the major point I was trying to make, not that people are innately good or bad, just that people are human and make mistakes and the goal should be a to create an environment that allows for safe and covered sits to the best of the platform’s ability.

And while I don’t have formal data points from the system, it would make sense to me based on the types of comments and questions asked even in just the forum, issues with cancellations/confused departure/arrival times and general communication issues, that not everyone is as experienced at sitting as some of the veterans, and that’s ok (We’re all here to learn, I hope!). Point is, the system needs to be built to support a standard user and double booking is not a standard use case and I can also understand why it would not be one that is legally supported or encouraged.

I have nothing against people that make it work and love the examples that both you, @Marion, and many others have already shared, but I think asking TH to take liability for you being in two places at once is a big ask and one that doesn’t make sense from a security or legal perspective. That’s really the only point I’m making.

THS must understand that no matter how big and strong a building is, you can only pick away at its foundations for so long. At some point, there is a real risk that the whole thing will come tumbling down.

This is literally all any and every company tries to do, especially as it scales…some get it right, some don’t. but I’m also not sure how disallowing double bookings picks away at the foundations?..unless you are more so referring to the way and the messaging around why it was done?

( referred to as ‘a handful’ in earlier messages from THS staff)

Unpopular comment ahead I’m sure, but in many cases, a handful that make very costly problems is why you end up having adjustments…because you have to account for this and the amount of spend when someone does abuse a system,…I realise a lot of this is probably not new to people which is why I’m not sure why, even though we may not like certain changes, I don’t think it’s about a half full/half empty attitude, it’s about being practical and doing your best to create something that a given community can benefit from, no? If you don’t trust that TH made the right decision, I assume this will continue to come up more or people will legit just leave the platform.

Most system changes occur because they become big enough of a priority (i.e. problem or issue) to get worked on whether it’s because they solve a problem for the user or some other reason such as mitigating some other risk to the overall business or system…i.e. (also an assumption) but I assume this changed for some variant or combination of the above and either way, based on the other multi-party policies that exist, I can see why this one would be in place, but in the other direction…i.e. no third parties at the sit, but also no 1/2 parties at the sit…again, what you and the HO decide between the two of you is on you, so all good.

This last sentence in particular…you wouldn’t want to be responsible for a third party so why would you (universal you) then ask someone else to be responsible for someone who is only half there when they’re supposed to be fully there based on what you guaranteed in your T&C’s?

28

I love this. My spouse sometimes accompanies me on sits. When I combined our membership he talked about doing solo sits, but I told him, “Get your own account!”

1 Like
29

Ha ha! So much easier!

30

Airbnb, as far as I know, does not permit you to book more than one place on one profile for the same dates. Therefore, no wave of cancellations once a renter determines which property suits best.

I’m also curious to see what THS will do once it catches on to couples continuing to overlap sits now with a workaround in place of two separate accounts. Wait and see.

31

Thank you for the info on airbnb - I didn’t know that they didn’t allow multiple bookings for the same dates.

I can’t see how THS will be unhappy about two separate accounts - it increases their revenue, after all. I guess it’s a risk that some couples are going to abuse having two accounts but I wish that THS would weed out the bad apples and not assume all of us are untrustworthy.

2 Likes
32

Yes, agreed regarding the increased revenue, however, I don’t think increased revenue was THS’s intention when it created the new rule. With separate accounts, couples get around the new rule, but there’s still the potential for the same problem recurring. I believe it was a liability risk that raised the red flag regarding overlapping sits and thus THS’s exposure, especially in light of its investment opportunities with large companies.

Now, I personally don’t think it was experienced couple sitters who were the problem and thus the need for the no overlapping rule. I am also in the camp with those that believe the trouble makers should be punished, not the group as a whole (sitters and home owners included). And I don’t see those trouble makers signing up for multiple accounts, so it’s a double whammy to those that were behaving and taking good care of pets and homes.

33

I kind of wonder why an alert or something wasn’t implemented instead of or in addition to the no overlaps so that basically TH can just say “you are booking or looking at dates or starting a conversation about cuz that would constitute an overlapped sit. if you choose to proceed, we waive liability of both your sits and they will not be covered by TH’s standard insurance policies” or something like that and then require both the HO and the HS to confirm they’re ok with waiving their rights within TH T&Cs.

I think when you put the ownership and accountability on the individual, they change behaviour pretty fast.

At the same time, the goal is ultimately to not make it possible for people to book things that breach terms… so I get it.

Something else I notice is that a lot of people in that overbooking thread complained about be blocked by HO’s not updating the date of sits…whenever that has happened, I just contact support and have them do it manually. IMO, that’s the right way to escalate this anyway because if they find a bunch of HS’s are having to get them to update sits bc HOs aren’t doing it, I’d be chocked if they didn’t start working on finding new ways to get HOs to be more proactive.

1 Like
34

Just speculation but I don’t think it was a “liability issue”. Per what was written in the thread there were concerns about sitters trying to be two places at once and neglecting pets. Liability implies they were afraid HOs would sue them for this neglect, but I think given that they are only a “matching” service that’s unlikely. I think there was a genuine concern, however, that animals were being neglected, and unhappy Homeowners are bad for business, and damage the brand.

It might not seem on the surface like single sitters would have a motive to overlap, but in fact they have the same reason couples do – to fill up gaps in the schedule. In some cases they may also be getting other benefits from sits – reviews, possibly tips, groceries, gift cards, fitness room access, etc. Maybe a better longer sit came along near a committed sit, and the sitter reasoned it was better to do both than to cancel the original, since the HO might complain? In small densely populated urban areas, it would not be that difficult for a sitter to overlap, especially with a nearby small pet or cat sit. (Again, I am NOT endorsing this.)

A homeowner might be upset if they found out that a petsitter was just doing dropins when the sitter had agreed to overnights. (I have older cats one of whom takes meds, and they don’t free feed, so I want those overnights.) However, a homeowner might not care at all if a sitter showed up for the sit without a partner and the partner joined a few days later – unless they were specificly looking for a couple due to the work load or location or something. Couples, especially those who sit full time really were collatoral damage with this policy. Though prior to the overlap policy, the secondary person – who is not ID checked/background checked could do solo sits, so couples really in effect had two accounts for the price of one, and with only one person fully vetted.

I don’t think sitter couples who now have two separate accounts so they can do overlaps are breaking any rules or the spirit of any rules or neglecting any animals. They weren’t before either. The unintended consequence for THS is they will get more sitter revenue. (And sitter couples who have no interest in overlapping, don’t need two accounts.)

2 Likes
35

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 :joy: 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. :steam_locomotive::joy: :pray:t4::black_heart:

36

My partner and I have also split up on several occasions with the home owners aware. At times it has been beneficial to us while traveling internationally but for the most part we have done it to help home owners. I did not realize until this post this is no longer an option and another disappointing change to the platform.

1 Like
37

I don’t think anyone is saying that it’s okay to provide a single service unit to two homeowners at the same time. There are many words about this on the “Product Update” thread. If you go back there it’s clear from responses by Angela that this came about because of cases where solo sitters took on overlapping sits and couldn’t physically be present overnight in two places.

But many people made the case on that other thread, that paired-sitters could split up and one could provide the service needed. Paired-sitters who both considered themselves equal as partners – could act separately – in the same sense as two parents can split up when necessary and the kids will be alright. So those paired-sitters – generally full time sitters setting up long term sits with as few gaps as possible, had employed this strategy successfully for years, and then not only was it suddenly unavailable, but it felt like they were being held responsible for the actions of other sitters who were not acting transparently or ethically.

Many of us wish THS was more responsive to members – both sitters and homeowners – and would get more input before making changes. It feels like some changes come about reactively and create new issues.

I get what you’re saying about other solutions being expensive and requiring more engineering and coding, but in the end it’s not just about providing the best “service” to homeowners. The site is an exchange between members. Members are equal. The homeowners get a service (petcare) but the sitters get a service too (travel accomodations). The way the change was rolled out caused a disruption in that service for some sitters. (It might have caused an unintended disruption for some homeowners as well as it might have taken some experienced sitters out of the mix). And some people on the other thread suggested different ways of dealing with the paired sitter issue – even if it meant having those sitters pay more for a paired account.

However, members don’t create policies on the forum. They create work arounds. The obvious workaround is that paired-sitters can continue doing what they do but pay more for a second account – since there is no other “tier” at the moment. This thread was started to try to figure out next steps for paired-sitters who have chosen to start a second account.

2 Likes
38

Very well said. Thank you.

39

Thanks, Marion! :black_heart:

1 Like
40

Another thing you could do, not in application but on the second profile. I think this would work unless the system flags it. You could use “save as” to convert your PDF into a JPEG. Then you could upload it as a photograph to your sitter profile.