I still prefer your original post
Jeez I missed it and probably all the comments around it will disappear too 
Staying on thread, I can usually wait, I don’t have a scatter gun approach and at the moment only apply for something I really really want so I am prepared to wait and see.
was similar to Ricardo Tete.
@systaran and @anon52083843 and I couldn’t resist googling flaneur when I first saw it here. AI says:
A flâneur is a 19th-century French term for a leisurely, observant urban wanderer who explores city streets without a specific destination, acting as a “passionate spectator” of modern life.
I had originally misread it as Flaneller, but also Googled FLANEUR this week
FLANNELLING
-
the use of bland fluent talk to avoid addressing a difficult subject or situation directly:
“no amount of well-intentioned flannelling by politicians can prevent an economy from sliding into recession”
That’s me to a tee, add urbane and you’d have my LinkedIn profile.
Ohh that’s me too
Flaneuse is the feminine, I think.
Deleted - sorry, wrong post. 
@anon52083843 if I’m not mistaken, you mentioned you will be leaving THS when your membership is due, but I do hope you stick around the Forum. We need the laughs! 
That rarely comes up for me. Once for a London sit, the host told me during our video chat that they had someone else to talk with, but then they must’ve decided otherwise, because they messaged me soon after that they wanted me to sit.
I had another experience when a newbie THS couple said they liked me, but would interview everyone else they’d scheduled out of politeness. They ended up disappointed when I told them I was no longer available. I don’t bother with such hosts. To me, that’s a misguided sense of courtesy, because wasting anyone’s time (not just mine) is impolite. If so, I don’t trust such folks’ judgment, so we’re by default bad matches.
Early on, I applied late for another sit and the host told me they were already in discussions with another sitter. That ended up not working out and I did the sit for them.
Many homeowners may make multiple appointments because sometimes sitters tell them they can’t talk till Friday due to scheduling. And then the homeowner doesn’t want to wait till Friday so if you can meet Tuesday they’ll chat with you. And maybe they think that you are great, but it doesn’t seem fair to cancel on Friday.
Let them figure it out. If you get another offer while you are “waiting” take the offer you get. But there is no harm in waiting.
If they think sitter 1 is a good fit, why wouldn’t it be fair to cancel on video chatting with sitter 2? If it were me, I wouldn’t want someone wasting my time out of “politeness“ or “fairness.”
Along similar lines, I once had video chats scheduled with two hosts for sits in the same city, with overlapping timing. Once host 1 offered me the sit and I accepted, I canceled with host 2. Otherwise, I’d be uselessly taking their time.
When hiring professionally, once I decide on someone, I don’t waste other candidates’ time by interviewing them anyway. We just tell them we’ve filled the job.
I think there are so many homeowners and they are all approaching this differently. Some may figure out over time what works best. But sometimes reading these forums it looks like no matter what the intentions of the homeowner are, sitters take things as a personal affront. From a homeowner point of view it rarely is. I hear sitters complaining about the “B-list.” But I don’t think most homeowners have a B-list. Either someone is suitable to sit for them or not but if 2 or 3 people who apply are all suitable, only one of them can get the sit and different homeowners are going to have different ways of figuring that out which may or may not feel fair to the people who don’t get the sit.
My POV is, very little is personal, since we really don’t know each other when we’re just figuring out potential matches. And it’s not at all surprising that we won’t match with everyone. Just easier to move on quickly, IMO. Of course, that’s at each person’s discretion.
For me, sitting is optional and part time, turning sporadic, and there are so many people who need sitters (whether on THS or beyond) so it’s easy to be selective.
I get that people move at different speeds, have different approaches, etc. But I (and many other folks) don’t need to match with tons of hosts. Most of us don’t sit much.
FWIW, I would feel resentful if I was ‘interviewed’ despite not really having a chance at the sit. It would 100% feel like a waste of my time. And any ‘please do apply again’ comments would be disregarded.
I am frequently curious/puzzled by sits that have just 1 or 2 applicants but remain low applications for weeks on end…. are those 2 applicants still waiting to be chosen?
If it’s a sit we’re really keen on, we might be willing to wait—but we’ll still be actively applying for other sits that interest us. That means we may no longer be available by the time a host makes their decision.
From our perspective, if a host likes our application, profile, and reviews, it’s best to move quickly. Otherwise, there’s always a chance we’ll get booked elsewhere.Most hosts we’ve partnered with seem to understand this instinctively—if a well-reviewed sitter is available for your dates, it’s wise to secure them before someone else does.
In fact, most of our sits have been confirmed within hours of applying, often including a video call.
We have come across a couple of hosts who after talking with us mentioned they had more sitters to chat with . In both cases, we were later offered the sit—but one of them ended up being our only four-star review. In hindsight, it felt like no sitter was ever going to fully meet their expectations.
Did you read their reviews to their previous sitters?
Yes we did - at the time we applied they had had a few sitters, they had given their previous sitters five stars .
They’ve now had more sitters after us who they also gave only four stars and all these are very experienced sitters-