Duration of sit

Hi there!

When I search for sits and set the filter ‘sit duration’ for two weeks+ or 1 month+ I still get shown sits with a duration of a few days.
That is a first world problem, but still pretty annoying.:sweat_smile:

Can it be fixed?

1 Like

It’s just in case you change your mind whilst searching.
I’m looking for sits after 4th February but they still sneak in January sits in my search. They know how unpredictable some of us are and I’ll suddenly forget all my commitments that I have lined up between now and then!
Seriously, there are a few glitches in the system at the moment and I think we live with them till they sort it out. It’s the holidays and I suppose their “glitch master” is off on a pet sit.

1 Like

If the home host has more than one set of dates listed those dates are added together for filter recognition - So, if a sitter has a 3-day sit and a separate 4-day sit listed it will show if the sitter does a search for 7 days+ listings


Hi @TravelingOutsideTheBox
We apologize for the inconvenience. There is a known bug in the duration filter, so this is not working as it should. The tech team will be addressing this early in the new year.


The duration search seems to be broken, it always has been inaccurate for me when searching and a sit crossed two months, however, now it’s showing sits such as 3 days when searching for 2 weeks plus. These are firm dates not dates in which the end is flexible.

Why is this bug not being fixed immediately? How can THS exist if sitters and HO can’t find each other? The only way it “works” now is to search a large area (California) with no filter because location, duration and pet type filters are all inaccurate. This takes forever and with the 5 application limit on top of that, it’s impossible to find sits before they are filled. Not to mention all the listings popping up with no dates at all, just mixed in with search results. This is really unacceptable, the app is pointless except for sits I have already booked.

1 Like

This should now be fixed. Many Thanks, Ben