I would say ‘available sits’ are only those actually available to apply for and the second category of paused / under review would include all those not currently available to apply for. I can’t see ambiguity but that’s just my take on it.
A negative aspect that I’m sure was not anticipated by THS before implementing the five-application rule is that there are now far fewer available sits to tempt new sitters to the site, and also how confusing and not true the terminology would become.
I just checked Greece and there are no sits currently listed. However, when clicking on the first five listings shown as ‘Sits in Greece currently not looking for a sitter’ they show ‘reviewing applications’ so before this rule came into place THS could honestly be advertising that there are actually five sits available in Greece not zero!
So, my question is this - are listings reviewing applications still in the process of looking for a sitter or not? If they are not looking for a sitter why are they reviewing applications? The terminology has all become very confusing for experienced sitters let alone anyone looking to become a sitter for the first time!!
Whilst I agree that those sits should not be falsely advertised to new sitters as ‘available’ to apply for, it is also not true to have them listed as 'currently not looking for a sitter as I would argue that they most definitely are still in the process of looking for a sitter!.
5 Likes
Another discrepancy: Today a search for London says ’ There are currently 1236 house sits in London, United Kingdom’ but the map to the right has a green drop smack on London with 382. This is while I’m logged in as a member.
2 Likes
Hello,
I’m agree with @Colin , the process and terminology are confused.
When listing is “reviewing” it is probably because they haven’t confirmed the pet sitter yet, but you can’t apply, just put the listing in your favorites.
Otherwise, it will be mentionned : " Currently no sitter needed". (When I research Greece, it is what I see for the first listing, if we see the same in the same order).
But now, we are no longer sure of anything.
It is very difficult even to send just a word to rank in the top five when you do not see the listings.
And, as mentioned, @Ben-ProductManager Sitters who have started an application will be allowed to submit it. I don’t believe that even if we started to respond to a listing when there are not yet 5 applicants, it is possible to send in the application. It doesn’t seem to work. (I tried and nothing, the message, reviewing applications ). But maybe I didn’t understand.
So my question is : Is it really possible to apply when you start to write, or even in this case you need to be in the 5 who start to write ?
If somebody has the answer, thank you
1 Like
Hi @Lauraa - out of interest I just did a search on London as a signed in member. I couldn’t get anywhere near 1236.
When I typed in London it came up with three options so I will start with the smallest geographical size first
City of London 131
London 139
Greater London 72
Total 342
I would expect the Greater London figure to be the largest as it includes the City of London and the London sits.
A quick search on Sheffield shows the magical figure of 1236 (coincidence)? but there are actually 22 available to apply for.
As @Ben-ProductManager is already investigating the numbers perhaps this could be a useful example.
I realise all this must seem very pedantic to many members but I feel it is important to be able to trust in the figures and for prospective and current members to have confidence in the fact that they are seeing the same information.
2 Likes
Not logged in I just asked for London and the result was 199. It turned out my settings for 2 sorts of pet only, for a saved London search, were in play so I ticked the boxes for all possible pets and the total comes to 735.
Then logged in to my saved search for London the number is 33 (2 sorts of pets only, no other exclusions). The difference between 199 and 33 is awfully big. What does that difference mean? @Ben-ProductManager I’ve been a member for 10 years and don’t get it.
5 Likes
Hi All and @Lauraa
A discrepancy is within the radius. We show a wider radius when you’re an anonymous member. The reason for this is to encourage looking beyond the original search and to show a wider range of Sitting opportunities. In particular it encourages interaction with the map.
When you are a member, we show a smaller radius to make the search more focused on a specific area. (Based on member feedback)
I am continuing to look into the discrepancies since being highlighted in this thread. We are exploring options to make the experiences consistent.
As soon as I have an update I will post in this and the product thread.
Thanks, Ben
Ah. I considered that, but some sits appearing in my saved London search are quite far away, definitely not Greater London: the city of St Albans and the town of Windsor, in today’s example.
1 Like
As of recently my search results are inaccurate on the web site. When filtering for dates, as my example shows, I see 20 listings for France. When I click it show one is looking for sitters. But actually several are but the dates are not shown until you click on the listings. The app is not giving me much better results.
- I’ve messaged support help desk too.
Ann Marie
Searching as a member. Does anyone see this? Feedback requested.
I’m looking for a sit using Anywhere.
I put in dates May 7 - Oct 31 2023 Anywhere.
I scroll down to countries and see France 20,
click on that and then see only 1 and some without dates that are in fact looking for sitters. This is the web site.
Also happening if I pick another country.
In the past it has been accurate.
Ann Marie B.
1 Like
@ExploreDreamDiscover I did your same search and saw 20 next to France in the list but when I clicked on France it says up the top there is currently 1 house sit in France but when I clicked on several listings showing under that they all need sitters. I also only got 1 sit showing in France on the map. So there is definitely serious discrepancies in the system.
Interestly THS are still calling it a house sit rather than pet sit, despite them being adamant to now call all home owners the stupid new pet parent title.
1 Like
@Crookie thanks for checking it out and replying. There is apparently a bug and it make searching for sits very difficult. It’s been happening for a while.
Replying to @ExploreDreamDiscover, the OP:
cc @Ben-ProductManager FYI
I tried your test just now 08:45h CET.
(It made me realise that I never use the “anywhere” drop-down, I just leave it blank).
Anyway, I had very similar results. I scrolled down to the footer to select France (20) but the results actually only showed me 4 sits. One was within your dates & the other three had no dates shown but if selected the sits are actually live but not within your dates.
Then, below the 4 there are the “not currently looking for a sitter” listings, which run to 2 pages for me making 16 listings. Well, that’s just not possible at all is it? France is a top THS country, there just cannot be only 16 HOs who aren’t looking for a sitter at the moment. It explains the result of 20 (16+4) but neither of those are accurate; 4 isn’t correct, it should be 1 and 16 just can’t be right, for reasons expounded above. Perhaps the 16 are not looking for a sitter but their last listings were between your dates and they have been filled/withdrawn/whatever?
And just to expand the search parameters, I selected France without dates & got “There are currently 72 house sits in France” (so why does your search return 4? It should be either 1 or 72 - where do those random additional 3 fit in?)
In the footer, the result is broken down into 13 regions but with a total that adds up to more than 1350 (I didn’t even count those with double figures, just the big numbers).
From these results I extrapolate that:
- Numbers in the footers always reflect the total number of sits of active HO members in the selected country (or whatever search parameters is used) made up of those “not currently looking for a sitter” automatically included + those live sits defined by whatever search parameters have been used.
- The search function is imperfectly programmed to return the actual details searched for + some additional inclusions which are very hard to detect without masses of evidential searches. To establish these one would need to know things such as what connects those 3 extra listings that ExploreDreamDiscover gets in their results.
And
PS: I have to say that I’m sympathetic to the programming difficulties in a lot of this debate & mentioned before just how complicated a search system is. Searching for things in a database can be very simple but with the types and quantities of variables in something like THS it is exponentially difficult. The greatest challenge must be the geography; one person’s “France” is another person’s “that’s Martinique, Guadeloupe and the sort of area around the border with Germany and maybe Spain too please”. Fluidity is no bad thing.
2 Likes
@Saltrams thanks for testing it out and providing feedback. Up until a few weeks ago, the way I search produced consistent numbers.
Edit to add feedback I received from the help desk.
“As of today, I was able to view results using your account. My suggestion is to delete the filters you have entered, refresh the page and try again. I hope this hasn’t disheartened you too much, as we approve many new listings every single day, meaning that opportunities appear as often as they disappear.”
Help desk
A post was merged into an existing topic: Conclusion Of Pausing Application Test - Updated Post