I’m a sitter who’s been using THS for the past few years, and have really enjoyed it. I’ve only ever had positive experiences with THS, and have always thought it’s a great, enjoyable and reliable program. However, lately I have been finding that there are more and more listings that appear to lack understanding that THS is an exchange program designed for both owners and sitters to share the benefit of the deal.
All sits are different, and all pet needs are different. However, I am seeing a large number of listings lately that place highly restrictive and unfair needs and expectations on sitters, such as providing round-the-clock care, never leaving pets for more than a few short hours at a time, or completing exhaustive lists of time-consuming, unpaid chores. Of course sitters should provide quality, reliable pet and home care and complete their responsibilities, but there needs to be a balance and clear understanding of what are acceptable owner expectations.
Sitters should benefit from this program through not just enjoyable experiences with caring for pets, but also by gaining “a unique travel experience” and free place to stay, as according to what THS advertises. It’s an exchange. I am seeing many listings that only describe the owner’s needs and expectations, and provide little to no detail about tourist attractions in the local area, and what’s attractive and appealing about their sit. How can a sitter gain a ‘unique travel experience’ if many listings here ask them to barely ever leave the house?
It would be great if THS ensures owners must list what their sit offers, including tourist or cultural attractions in the local area, and ensures owners needs and expectations honor the service objectives and intentions.
I have seen similar unrealistic expectations listed however I just skip passed such listings. There is little benefit for THS member services to use their resources monitoring these type of applications as they will not get many sitters applying for them anyway.
That’s very true, It’s just that I am only finding sit after sit like this, and have barely applied to any so far this year with THS. This platform didn’t used to appear like this when I joined a few years ago! I hope they can help owners better understand the program
Agree, needs to be a win~win.
Some homeowners need to be reminded of this. Personally, We are retired professionals who were lucky enough to be able to retire early. We are not cheap help and at times feel like the homeowner looks at us as beneath them. We are not !
As far as sits with too many demands and requests that the pet never be left alone, we just pass by those… those are definitely not a win ~ win
@Nagy26 Agree. I’ve been on THS about 8 months and I’ve encountered two recent sits in which the balance of exchange was definitely off-kilter. People can say to just pass these sits up, however, the what made them poor sits wasn’t actually listed nor discussed prior. What was clear is that the HO’s were very new to THS and truly approached it as a full-time free pet sitting service.
@Junior I’m with you 100% with passing on sits where the requirements are too much. We haven’t felt that any of the HO that we’ve sat for ever viewed us a “beneath them”. I’m not sure if you’re talking about just listings or experience. Hopefully just the listings.
Dan
I agree. I’ve only been a member for not quite 2 years and even in that time I’ve seen a change in listings. This should be a mutual exchange and I think THS does have a responsibility to it’s members. It’s easy to say just scroll by listings and those of us who are experienced do so. However, people who are new, young, or inexperienced may not know better and should not be exploited as free labor. I strongly feel that THS does have obligations.
I recently saw a sit where the dog could not be left along at all. The sitter was even expected to take the dog to the grocery store (in a state where it is not legal to do so). A sit that is clearly exploitative should not be allowed. They wouldn’t even be able to hire a paid sitter for that sit because it would be in violation of labor laws (no breaks ever).
I don’t think saying to scroll by listings is sufficient. There should be some minimum standards that HOs should be made aware of by THS. Sitters are an equal part of this relationship and should be treated with respect. Some hosts do seem to think that their membership fee is paying for unlimited pet care and their fee is all they have to provide. They don’t seem to understand that they are actually paying to connect with potential sitters to work out a mutually beneficial exchange and that they have obligations on their side too.
The vast majority of my sits have been absolutely wonderful (just 2 that were bad), but I am concerned about the direction things are heading. If these sits are allowed to be listed, they can become the new normal.
Agree 100%, but know that THS won’t police it. It’s not in their interest as they want to have as many users as possible. We as sitters will have to be very careful when we choose. I have been in situations twice where I was treated as an unpaid servant and definitely not an equal. That was 2 times out of about 40 though, so it’s an exception. However, if there is the slightest doubt about a sit, I no longer apply for it.
For example, I am now more hesitant about multi pet sits. However, these can work too, but there seems more of a tendency to ask very much from a sitter. For example, I looked after 3 dogs and one needed more medical care than had been discussed (still a lovely sit but I didn’t appreciate the lack of information beforehand). Other sits with 4+ animals included extra animals, extra chores, etc that had not been agreed on or discussed…
Having said that, I did some sits with 6 or more pets that went great. Most recently, with 7 cats and I really enjoyed that. Yes, there was more work to do than with one or two animals, but I got a great experience out of it, and the owners were lovely to me. It was a real exchange.
Some of the listings are so ridiculous that at least they give me a good laugh!
I agree if HO’s keep putting extra conditions on the exchange people will continue to pass on them. Which I don’t want us to do because we are here for the exchange.
I’ve been on THS for a number of years and high need listings have always been around (my all time favourites were one which had a long itemised daily schedule as part of the listing which started with “1. put diapers on pooch as soon as you wake him up” and another one which specifically asked for a qualified vet but said they would settle for an experienced vet nurse in a pinch). I do think the low application label is a bit of a name and shame list now of (mostly) meh houses in meh areas with either poor descriptions or high need requirements (likely dogs) and uninspiring dates. Obviously there are a few exceptions on the list. As the list is the first thing you see when you do a search it does make for depressing reading unless you just scroll past it or change the order. The more interesing sits are still around but they go very quickly and because of the 5 limit most people will never see them - it used to be that you’d see them but probably wouldn’t bother applying if you there were already 7 or 10 applications showing.
I would rather not have THS policing the listings to ensure some subjective level of “fair”. One of the nicest sits I ever had was a sweet older dog who could never be left alone due to a traumatic experience as a puppy. The host loaned me a car since doggo was fine being left in the car while I went food shopping. The home was a 10 min walk from town with many pet friendly shops, pubs and cafes, and a 2 min walk to the beach. I spent 3 amazing and magical weeks with that sweet gal. For someone else, the exchange would be unfair. For me it was heaven.
I had a similar experience on my first sit. Ted was an 85 lb Pitt Bull/German Shorthair Pointer that they had rescued 6 months previously. He destroyed carpets if left alone. He was great in the car, however and the temperatures were low enough that it wasn’t an issue. They HO gave me their BMW to drive and the dog and I had a wonderful 2 weeks. BTW he was the best behaved dog on or off leash, that I’ve ever sat for.
The owners were up front and I accepted the assignment knowing he would be my constant companion. They were also right on about what a well-behaved sweetie he was.
My sweet doggo was also very gentle, good on the leash, and social with all the folks we met on our daily walk thru town. It was a privilege to have her as my companion. Sadly she passed away a few months ago. I will never forget my time with her.
@B1anca You do make some good points, but I need to question something you wrote.
What research have you done among THS’s tens-of-thousands of homes to justify this conclusion about sits labeled as “low applications”?
You know… EVERY home, regardless of its attributes or responsibilities for the sitter, will be “low applications” until it isn’t anymore (in other words, until they get three or more applications).
So I am wondering: Is it accurate for anyone to conclude that a home that is currently low applications – one that isn’t snatched up within an hour, a day or several days – is somehow deficient or overly-demanding? Do we, as the THS community, really believe that a low application sit should now be on a “name and shame list?”
When THS initiated the “low applications” label, it was to encourage sitters to try a sit in a less-competitive area. In no way was it meant to demean these sits or suggest any other negative characterization.
I’m not sure either of these comments are correct. The low applications label only appears on listings that have two or fewer applications (including those with zero applications) after a certain amount of time, possibly 24 hours but I’m not 100% sure about the time span.
I wouldn’t have called the low applications label a ‘name and shame list’ but when some listings reach 5 applications in < 5 mins, it’s obvious that those with the label are much less desirable.
I’m in Scotland and sometimes it’s about location here. The oldest ‘low applications’ listing is in an area that not many people would know. But quite often it’s about the responsibilities of the sit. The next oldest ‘low applications’ sits all have more than four pets, including dogs, to look after. It may not have been intended as a negative label but it’s easy to see why it’s being interpreted as such.
Personally, I think it’s a bit meaningless to say ‘low applications’ when there’s a maximum of 5 applications - 5 is also quite low! I had a sitter for my cat in 2018 (through another site) and had more than 15 applications in a few days.
