Now that I think of it, in fact, reviews for sitters are used as adjectives that seem to describe sitters, so the category is clean and tidy, while reviews for HOs, which incorporated categories much later, say “cleanliness”, which is in fact more adequate.
It seems they were created by different people and no one checks consistency. It’s weird nobody thought that “communication”is a category as important for sitters as it is for HOs and the same goes for reliability
If I had to remove one category to allow for communication to be included, it would be self-sufficient @Newpetlover. It is far more important and should be listed for both sitter and host.
“Self sufficient” is bad also because it leads to some sitters not asking when they should be asking, in fear of not being seen as self-sufficient. Also it sounds like we are rating teenagers on their first job.
I completely agree with @temba and @anon42303101.
Self sufficient is a very subjective, risky concept, as was proven in a discussion in an older thread.
Apart from the risk of not asking relevant questions during the sit, giving HOs the chance to make their choice in unexpected circumstances, the ability of being self sufficient is greatly dependent on how accurate the WG is and how well HO communicates.
In the end, some sitters end up being rated down because the HO is too vague or inconsistent in their communication.
I have never been rated down but I haven’t shied away asking HOs for clarification during a sit. Sometimes the WG is not updated and I can’t find a medicine or a specific food I am supposed to give.
This category (and the rest of sitters’) was probably implemented by someone who had in mind a HO who wanted to be away from everything and forget about their home and pets during their holidays and didn’t even want to be contacted with updates. But that doesn’t represent the HOs I’ve known. They didn’t even think communication was worth being assessed and HOs didn’t need categories.
When they included categories for HOs, they just left sitters’ as they were. And now it seems “communication” is a one way road.
I see it a bit differently. To me, a host is a partner, and I want them to see me the same way. We’re in this together. That’s why I always make it a point to discuss any issues (or the good stuff) with my hosts. It’s not because I’m not capable or self-sufficient; I truly believe there’s nothing I can’t handle, it’s just because I believe that’s the right way to do things.
For that very same reason, I could never partner with someone who just wants to ‘set and forget’ their pets while they’re on vacation.
Thank you!
As a host, ‘self-sufficient’ means being a good problem-solver, which includes knowing when to pass along information and/or when to ask questions. It doesn’t mean keep everything to oneself and move forward without communication.
I do desperately wish there was a Communication rating for sitters, though, and maybe this is the one I’d sacrifice.
My experience is that all hosts like it when I ask questions, no matter how silly they are, and even when they are follow ups to WG cleared information. I haven’t met a host who does not appreciate a question. At the same time, I do understand sitters who are guided by the review categories to think that self sufficiency means as few questions as possible. Most hosts do not even care about so much self-sufficiency, but it is the program.
While that, I am extremely self sufficient, I rather figure it out and dont get in contact, because wording etc stresses me unnecessarily. So I do prefer hosts who leave and forget that they even have a pet and home. This almost never happens, partly because of the social pressure to ask for pictures “because you love your pets”. I do love my mom but I dont ask her to send me a daily selfie.
Maybe I should start to evaluate hosts based on self-sufficiency and co-dependency to their pets…
That’s how hosts have treated “self-sufficient” when giving me reviews.
So far, I’ve not had any unreasonable hosts. (I try to weed those out and avoid sitting for them in the first place.)
On sits, I’ve never hesitated to ask Qs when I thought necessary. And I do that without ever worrying that a host will be annoyed.
Lucky you. 
I was docked a star for … get this, I’m not even joking… ‘self-sufficiency’, for asking a question about the safety of letting her cat roam the fourth floor unprotected balcony. Apparently, I made her anxious.
Yeah, I have heard of such before, and I have also seen such reviews. The fear is real! But I guess most hosts will read that and think “that sounds like a good sitter”, so it might work in your favor.
Hosts don’t like silly questions which I define as “questions that don’t need to be asked because the answer can be found with a bit of intelligence, common sense and/or a bit of research.”
You only think they like it. They’re probably shaking their heads, and saying to each other “can you believe she had to ask us this?” and maybe debating docking a star in the appropriate category.
Please define OCD clean?
It’s difficult to define because cleanliness is a subjective concept.
I am using the term in a casual, colloquial way, in the same way I have seen it used by some people referring to themselves in the forum. Perhaps I should edit it and use a suitable synonym. Nitpicky?
An example that comes to mind is someone that would notice if a cushion is slightly out of the original place, washing up liquid slightly out of angle… and rate someone down for it.
I hope that helps to clarify my point.
I get where you’re coming from and believe there’s no ill intended
I’d just like to point out that OCD is a severe chronic, and potentially
debilitating mental health condition, not just a quirk or personality trait.
OCD is ranked in the top 10 most disabling illnesses worldwide
To some people it could seem a little insensitive
I completely understand. I will edit my post.
Thanks for that
Much appreciated 
Two more examples:
There’s an honest, negative, factual review that did not impact the reviewer and another review that complained about facts that work against the reviewer.