Feedback on new ‘5 applications and freeze’ system?

Is it just me, or is the new 5 applications per sit process adversely affecting you?
I now open up saved search sits’ alerts to find at least a quarter already ‘reviewing’!! And I open them really quickly …. regularly within a few seconds of receiving them ( I need to get a life I know!).
How can that be happening so frequently? Time zone differences don’t help.
I wish the process was 10 sits and freeze…… I may stand a chance then.


Yes, everyone hates it. I think it has ruined THS and I haven’t decided if I will renew my membership beyond this year. I can’t apply for sits in popular destinations because they are already reviewing within minutes. I get notifications daily for sits that are already paused.


Ooh! Are we poking the badger again?
Let’s see what happens to this thread…


Most members hate it, but TH thinks it’s a wonderful idea. This post will get closed pretty soon.


Doesn’t anyone else remember that the 5 sit limit was initiated because sitters complained so much about hosts not responding in a timely fashion? Now HO inbox is manageable so they can read through apps and respond faster. The phrase “you reap what you sow” comes to mind. It is what it is folks, can we let this one die?


So many other (better!) ways to address that issue though… THS picked one of the worst options :frowning:


Everyone hates it. I too feel like it limits my ability to apply for sits I am interested in.

Now the only applicants that Hosts get to see are the fastest ones, not the best ones.

Thank you for bringing this up again. THS says they value community input, so let’s continue to provide some on this topic.


I have even seen on other forums that the major change to the application numbers before freezing had such an impact on a sitters ability to apply for sits that it could easily warrant a class action. (An opinion from a lawyer un the field in the UK). Time will tell if that eventuates. I’ve heard murmurings.


But the HOs who were poor communicators & slow responders haven’t changed and now HOs are not getting the choice of applicants they pay for AND those that know their inbox has to be reactivated after declining are having to do more work to get more applicants…and finally, it seems the majority of HOs don’t know about how to manage their applications.
Also THS didn’t change to this because of pressure from members, they changed in order to increase revenue.


An interesting point @Timshazz. I can certainly see how HO’s who were existing members at the time of the change, when they previously had the ability to attract as many sitters as possible, have seen a reduction in the value of the service they pay for. However, I doubt it would stand up to scrutiny as THS would argue that HO’s still have that option, just in blocks of 5 that they have to “work” to manage.

1 Like

I think the thrust of the legal opinion was from the sitters perspective of not having the same opportunity to apply for sits. I saw it originally posted on Trust Pilot. Not sure it survived the usual cull. (I just checked. Its still there. 29th July) But actively being discussed on other platforms and forums.


I realize one goal was to increase opportunities for new sitters, thus keeping them engaged and renewing their memberships. But honestly, no matter the reason, they are not listening. If they are, it’s not happening here in the forum. So can’t people just give it a rest, or at least search the forum first before posting a complaint as if it’s news?

If you want to change the system send a message directly to the CEO. Every day. Twice a day. Refuse to renew and let them know why. Answer the surveys. But nothing anyone says here is going to help, as proven by the thread going back two years (or more?) on this exact topic. Sorry for venting but I’m over it :joy:


@Shafofo , I’m not sure that’s entirely true, Was an official reason ever shared? This may also be untrue but I was told that the reason it was originally initiated was to give newer, less experienced sitters a better chance of getting some of the ‘better’ sits. I can understand the thinking behind this but the ‘5’ they chose as a maximum is far too strict. All they needed to do, having seen the upset it caused, was to raise the number to 10 and I think most members would have been happy to accept the new rule graciously. Trustedhousesitter’s big mistake has been to dig their heels in and completely ignore the feedback from the members who actually use the site.


Agreed, just change it to 10 and I think the whole subject would be moot. And I don’t remember anything officially announced as a reason, I just remember the conversations in the forum that seemed to lead to the change. I suppose I could be wrong. Sorry, I’m just so tired of the constant complaints on this topic filling the forum and getting no one anywhere. I like to read new complaints! :crazy_face:


The limit itself does not really bother me, but maybe it could a bit higher.

The main problem is poor communication. It says “Reviewing” but that is not necessarily true. It should says something like “Automatically blocked for more applications”.

The change that I would like to see in the sitter interface is to make it clear that there is no hurry. What one needs to do quickly is to click “Apply now” and tick the dates, and keep the window open. After that one can read the listing, the references, look at travel, decide, and compose an application. It may be number 6 or 7, but it should reach the HO.

THS could explain this in the box where it now says “Tell them why you are perfect for their sit.”

This would solve several problems, for example the problem for HOs that they get many rushed applications that may not meet the requirements, applications that take up some of the five slots.


@pietkuip i agree with a better explanation being useful. But it does nothing to help those of us applying to desirable sits in different timezones. The rule puts international sitters at a disadvantage as the sit is past 5 before we wake up. And sorry, i won’t let up on this one.


That’s what Ben said in one of his comments, yes. He said they were attempting to give inexperienced sitters a better shot at getting desirable sits by making speed of application the bigger factor for applications, not experience.

The 5-and-autopause rule continues to be a topic of conversation because it continues to negatively affect sitters every day.


HI jtdunn,
I absolutley hate it. I also it was brought in extremely sneakily, as I would not have known if I had not clicked into the forums and read it here. An owner I sat for recently had not idea that any more than five was blocked and had wondered why so few applicants. The ones who had replied were not suitable, or just making queries and not serious etc. I had not seen the sit advertised, as may have actually applied. The owner had reached out and contacted me and a couple of others. It really is not fair. It should be down to the home owner to impose there own limits if they wish to. The majority of people who do not read the forums are completely in the dark regarding this rule.


Interesting that owners are in the dark about it.
Once the 5 limit is reached we can’t even contact them to say we’d be interested if they go for a second 5 applications.
It’s sooooo frustrating!


Aside from the fact that free members see search results that include unavailable maxed-out listings, only to have them disappear once they pay for a subscription—an egregious bait-and-switch tactic—my biggest issue with the 5-applicant rule is THS’ steadfast refusal to modify the policy to accommodate for time zone differences.

Since there are many cities which have a low number of listings, any new listing hits the 5-applicant limit and disappears within a matter of minutes, giving someone on the other side of the world zero opportunity to see the listing when it’s open.

A fair solution would be to revise the policy so that every new listing stays open for 10 hours, THEN closes if it’s received five or more applicants. At least then, you would have the chance to apply if you made it a habit to check listings before bed and upon waking up (unless you sleep longer than 10 hours…).

Even better would be a 24-hour window, but that seems like wishful thinking. Heck, I’d even take five hours at this point—something! anything! that improves the current, completely broken, system.