I am a house owner and we had only one pet sitter couple that couldn’t have been more nicer and responsible. We were hindered in traveling due to bad health but hope that will approve soon. We live countryside and tried to make our sitter as comfortable as possible which I see as just ‘normal’ since they keep and ‘eye’ on our pets. For us it’s just the way it should be that a sitter feels ‘at home’ in our place and takes joy of interacting and caring with our pets. It seems a lot changed since we had sitter…
The THS vibe has definitely changed. It is now much more Transactional than Trusted.
I preferred the original ethos of mutual trust, respect, and exchange. Once again, the forces of greed and monetization result in the ______ of something good. (Thanks to Cory Doctorow for that brilliant term.)
I’m glad to be an old-timer with 73 house-sitting reviews going back to 2014 and I’ve enjoyed every single housesit, but I get less enthusiastic about the website and its communications with every passing month…
(Edited in line with Posting Guidelines)
Interesting approach. I’d never thought of travel as a string of ‘appointments’ ..that’s usually for dentists and hairdressers.
If that’s the case, I assume you’re the concierge taking reservations? 
No. We’re unpaid remember?
The use of ”interview” on its own doesn’t bother me. I do screen for tone, though, and “interview” might be combined in such uses.
Ultimately, we’re all trying to screen out bad matches, whether as hosts or sitters, and we all have different sensibilities and life experiences to draw from. The key thing is, if something is working for you, great. And if not, then maybe try alternatives that are working for others.
About change: That’s inevitable in life, whether we like it or not.
With consumer services and products, more competition is always better. Unfortunately, THS is ahead of the competition.
Some people might love THS, while others hold their nose and use it, because competition is weak. Meanwhile, some folks leave.
That’s typical of membership businesses. Only THS knows whether their churn rate is reasonable or otherwise. That’s a significant measure of such business — too high of a churn rate means higher customer acquisition costs (which cut into profits), which then in turn can make the company less valuable to investors.
Exactly 
nothing more than travelers exchanging favours
Long time experienced sitters who quit take experience and knowledge that isn’t being replaced with new members, even if the churn rate might be acceptable.
That’s a given for such services. But everyone new can learn. We all did.
My wife thinks paid sits are the future. My daughter is on a site that pays and finds you clients, rhyming with Dover lol.
I’m doing a repeat sit but this time for a month. That would cost the Home Owner a lot of money. We just whatsapped, agreeing to do this between ourselves as we both have loads of reviews .. now that is the future for me!No additional booking fees here I come!
Kennels around here cost £30 a night per animal.
On the flipside, a sitter would pay 100-200 (insert currency) a night for lodging. That could be a big bill if you’re not traveling locally.
Also, if you are traveling for a sit, you are paying a lot more than the HO when considering travel costs (i.e., car/train/plain, maybe rental car, train/airport parking…). So, HOs really should be more appreciative of the costs they save and the expenses incurred by the sitter.
Isn’t that also a given? 
If there are many new members and the majority are HOs, would the loss of experienced sitters be damaging? If the ratio of HOs to sitters has increased and there are fewer sitters with experience might that lead to more unsatisfactory sits? Do new HOs prefer experienced sitters? It seems obvious that they would, but maybe I’m wrong.
In response to your comment about the departure of experienced folks — companies don’t usually factor that into churn rates.
I guess that’s because THS’s business model is different to many other organisations. Or are there comparators that you know of?
It’s because that’s not efficient to model out financially.
Why’s it not efficient? Maybe it’s too difficult to do with any accuracy. Are THS using the same model as say Netflix, one new subscriber is a like for like replacement for another who leaves?
@Cat-ophile I disagree about owners should be more appreciative considering the costs incurred by sitters. We choose to apply for these sits knowing there will be expenses. If sitters are concerned about the cost to them then perhaps they need to apply to sits that won’t cost them an arm and a leg. I choose to rent a car in the UK when I sit there, often for 3 months as I enjoy rural sits. My decision, my financial outlay. I don’t expect hosts to contribute to this at all.
Agreed, a HO should never be burdened by the travel costs a sitter willingly and gladly accepts. I just think they should be aware that it’s not a “free vacation” by any means. I’ve spent over $2,000 for a sit and it was money well spent.
Some sitters enjoy spending the time with various animals and doing the chores required to keep them happy and healthy.
It would be one thing to say “this is a lot more work than all my prior sits and not worth my trouble.” Calling it free slave labor is over the top. No one is being forced to do anything they don’t want to do.