HO's automatically rejecting first 5 applicants

Just curious: How do you know how many candidates they’ve rejected?

1 Like

Someone wrote recently on the forum that they had collected 70 applications!

1 Like

Just kept an eye on the listing and calculated the number of times it went from reviewing to being open again.

You are so wrong! I get people saying they can’t do my dates but “ please keep me in mind for the future” all the time. Or applying with zero references when my ad states I will not consider sitters with out references( from bad experience this is necessary). People seem to think they are entitled to sits and wasting other’s time. It is a two way street - there needs to be honor on both sides.


Exactly this. I’m not having someone with no reviews come for 1-2 months. My home, my choice. There is nothing rude about it. I also send personal notes to each applicant. We all have to start somewhere getting reviews. But, longer sits require proven experience.


Why is it rude to want to find the best applicant for a sit? This is the only work around for a policy many are opposed to.


Holy cow. Might need to go with a professional sitter instead.

1 Like

Let’s all try to remember to keep our responses kind and courteous.

1 Like

Im not sure but if you meet the sitter first. Or you zoom etc then really how would you know about suitability? I think it sounds a shame really. You may actually miss a golden opportunity thats all ok

It’s not rude in itself. It’s how you do it. A polite explanatory message to each person takes almost no time or effort and makes the difference between an understandable precaution and cavalier treatment of potential sitters, who also have lives to plan.

1 Like

This. I more often have two or even three sitters who would be great. I can totally see declining ones who weren’t and unpausing, but declining ones that look great, thinking you can just circle back? That seems odd.


I try not to take things like this personally, but as a homeowner who has occassionally declined people – with a note explaining that I might circle back but need to see more applicants — it’s hard to read that I don’t “deserve” a sitter because I didn’t just “pick” someone immediately from the first five applicants. The five limit is no more fair to homeowners than to sitters.

Nobody “deservies” a sit because they were up at 2:00 AM when the sit came up and clicked quickly.

Homeowners deserve to have a pool of good applicants not only so they can make a choice, but because often that one ideal person doesn’t wind up doing the sit either because they took another sit or for some other reason, so it’s great to move on quickly.


And I get this, but why would you decline someone you’d possibly circle back to instead of declining those you wouldn’t circle back to? I mean, if the person’s a strong candidate, why decline instead of just saying, “Thanks for your application, it looks great, in the next few days we’ll be going through the applications we’ve received!” Decline the no-hopers and unpause to allow further applications, but why would you decline someone who looks promising just to open up five additional slots instead of four?


Because people have lives, and schedules, and conflicts? Sitters apply for multiple sits at once and not everything always syncs up perfectly?

If I need additional applicants, I will decline all the ones I have in the queue so I can get another “batch.” I always send a personal message and explain what is going on.

1 Like

I’m trying to look for the short version to explain this. I’ve had scenarios where I’ve been waiting on the great candidates and things haven’t worked out. Sometimes there have been two or three people I’ve been in contact with but none of them wound up taking the sit. Sometimes the two or three new application thing has been very slow as they’ll be a glut of inappropriate sitters. It just moves faster if I can unpause and get as many applications as I can rather than a trickle. But I also don’t see how this disadvantages a sitter if it’s explained. And it is. I wound up choosing a sitter who was among the first five for a recent sit and had been declined with an explanation that his was the only application out of that intial batch I’d be circling back to and could we set up a video chat. He wasn’t able to do the chat for two days, so I was relieved to be able to look at other candidates and have them in the loop in case it didn’t work.

Declining and circling back doesn’t waste anyone’s time as long as the homeowner is transparent. It’s just a workaround to deal with the five application system. Ultimately, it advantages sitters, since once they apply, then can write again if they can’t get an application in on time the next time.


+1 to this…

Combined member here and I genuinely feel this is a “have your cake and eat it, too” situation.

On the one hand, HS complain about not being seen due to 5 app rule. So when HOs find a hack that actually creates more opps to more HS, HS complain about being overlooked in the first five?

In the current system, being declined with a note for context that potentially overrides the decline or says we’d like to see a few more candidates before finalising and this should take no more than x days, is the only hack I can think of that would allow for more applicants to be able to participate.

So I guess my question is which is more important to you? And this question is for everyone, not just directed at OP.

I write this keeping in mind that on either side, I would still expect a decision to be made in a timely manner and usually, as an HO, I’m making a decision in a matter of days, not weeks.


I’d say the host the OP referred to just lacked diplomacy, because many folks wouldn’t appreciate a blunt version of: We’re trying to see if we can find anyone better than you.

In return, I wonder how the host would react if the sitter replied along the lines of: I’ll be looking for a sit that’s better than yours, meanwhile.

Both cases often are happening, but can be better expressed.

My POV is, if there’s a clear potential fit, then it would be remiss of the host to not just pursue that one quickly. But if all applicants seem iffy or not a great match, it makes sense to keep looking. And even if you express diplomatically that you’re still considering candidates, you risk losing sitters who have good reviews and are in demand. Maybe that’s fine with you as a host, shrug.

From my perspective as a sitter, if a host seems rude, self-absorbed or such (all subjective), I move on. To me, so many sits, why bother with such folks. YMMV.

I’m not bothered by hosts who are talking with other folks. I just want it to happen quickly, not in dragged out fashion. Hosts have a right to take as long as they want, but I don’t have to support that. I also have the right — as all sitters do — to move at what pace I please.


So many people have made these types of suggestions. THS is NOT changing the policy.

We are also owners and sitters. We never decline potentially good sitters in the hope of getting a bigger pool. That’s outrageous! If they’re good, then they are good. Owners need to act and not mess around. If they do, they will just potentially miss out on the great sitters. Their loss! As sitters, if we received a decline saying “we will circle back to you” we would withdraw our application as we would not be circling back to that HO! No way, too flakey for us!


If a host were to decline us because they want to see more applications I would withdraw our application immediately and move on. We want to be consciously chosen and if a host does not have an immediate ‘yes’ for us and a desire to connect further then I know we are not the right sitters for them. Their loss! We know our worth! :blush: