“Invisible” blank sitter reviews are a problem

THS News & Feedback
1

(Writing this on behalf of a past Host who’s just had some really negative experiences, despite carefully choosing sitters with all 5-star reviews.)

In the phone app, Hosts’ profiles list past sits, along with dates & the name of the sitter (& a hyperlink to the sitter’s profile), even if the sitter didn’t leave a review.

Sitter profiles show nothing if the Host declines to review them; it’s as if the sit never happened, insofar as anyone reading their sit history on the app can tell.

Yes — in a perfect world, members would always leave (fair & accurate) reviews for one another. But for various reasons that’s not always done. Sometimes it’s just forgetfulness or missed deadlines, but personal safety concerns or fear of retaliatory reviews are two less-benign possibilities.

In this particular case, the sitter knew they deserved a significant markdown & “suggested” to the Host via text that neither of them leave a review for the other, ‘as it could really impact their ability to get sits if [the issue] were listed in their review history.’ The sitter had upwards of 30 recent, closely-spaced 5-star reviews — almost 0 dings on sub-categories, although I noted that the text of many of those reviews was brief & short on detail. There were, however, some gaps. Maybe those were legitimate, but based on his behavior with this host it looked very possible that they knew how to game the review system, & this wasn’t the first time they’d suggested a mutual ‘non-review pact.’ (Certain reviews showed hints of some past concerns, but you’d have to be exceptionally thorough & very good at reading the signs to cotton to it.)

Generally speaking, I personally find the idea of non-review suggestions manipulative & mildly threatening, except in rare cases. That said, they are going to happen on occasion. But most people realize that a series of blank reviews is something that might be worth taking note of and asking about. Unfortunately, that’s not possible when viewing the profile of a Sitter — only that of a Host.

I strongly feel this needs to change: blank Sitter reviews should not be undetectable.

To be clear: Whether a sitter deserves to be passed over for a blank review or not isn’t my point here. The issue is that Hosts are being deprived of information that could help them balance their decision about who to entrust their beloved pets & valuable homes to. In some cases, it seems like certain bad actors are using this loophole to game the system. This leaves their past hosts in an unenviable position, & future potential Hosts in a vulnerable one.

Even as a Sitter, I would personally rather answer questions about a missing review, than hear about a pet that was endangered because of a loophole in the site’s technology.

2

I agree that it’s unfair and one sided but I don’t think it’s a

It has been repeatedly discussed in the forum. A vast majority of members, including sitters, would like this to change but it seems THS isn’t interested.

3

Thanks, @Newpetlover . I hadn’t read anything about it being intended functionality, but will look around now. I guess it’s just semantics but I’d still call it a loophole in the technology. Whether intentional or a programming glitch, people are able to use a hole in the platform functionality to misrepresent their reputation, and in some of those cases the repercussions are more serious than just being unfair to one side or the other.

Insofar as THS’ apathy, I guess I’m also a hopeless dreamer. I’d like to think “someone up there” can anticipate what it’s going to do to the platform as more negative home-/pet-owner experiences inevitably hit the news — particularly if fixing something as simple as this might help prevent some of them from occurring.

4

I think it is just one of the many examples how HOs and sitters are ‘handled’ differently by THS.

5

Of course. I meant the system is unfair but people but sitters using this to get away from assuming responsibility for shortcomings is just unacceptable.

In this case, it’s the hosts who take the worst part, not only because there’s always a register of all sits but also because they can access information which sitters can dig into. We can trace blank sits, hosts can’t.

6

Completely agree. It should be the same for hosts and sitters to see non-reviews.

I also think it should be a ‘stat’ like number or percentage of sits not reviewed for hosts and sitters.

7

Some sitters on this forum are so strange. When I suggested something in order to make sitters more respected, so many sitters jumped out to disagree.

And now sitters want to make sitters’ lives even harder.

8

Maybe there’s a better way to look at it:

It’s not about “sitters vs hosts;” it’s about what’s best & safest for the animals we all care for.

A bad sitter who endangers their charge and then manipulates the host & this platform to ensure they can go on doing more of the same should be concerning to all of us.

9

I have two missing reviews, one is that the host forced her way back home early against my will just because she"have a home, and just wanted to go home", which caused me to leave early and cost money. The other one the cat had loose stools and poop outside the litter tray, and the stench spread across the whole house instantly. In both cases, if I leave them a factual review, it would prompt them to leave me a review as well, they would anticipate what’s in my review and were unlikely to leave me a great review, which would hurt my profile and the it wasn’t even my fault. We didn’t discuss about leaving reviews at all, just chose not to do it. How does that endanger animals? it would only endanger me if they have left me a review or like you wished showing missing reviews.

10

If I saw 2 missing reviews amongst 25+ 5 star reviews, I likely wouldn’t even register it. As noted, people get busy & occasionally forget to review before the deadline (hence a blank review that I personally have.)

If I saw 4-5 missing reviews out of 25, I’d check to see if you’d left reviews for those hosts, then I’d ask you about it during our call, and you’d tell me about your unfortunate experiences.

I’d be hard put to classify a blank review as “endangering” under any circumstance, and will point out again that they’re already visible on Hosts’ profiles. It only seems reasonable that Hosts should have the same right as Sitters to make informed decisions about who they want to book a sit with.

11

I thought the “blank” review got posted after two weeks if the other side didn’t respond..

12

Yes, reviews get posted/closed after 2 weeks.

On a host’s profile, if no review text was left then the sit is displayed as a “blank” review. The dates show, the sitter’s name shows & that sitter’s profile is clickable:

IMG_3375
IMG_33751238×1339 74.7 KB

On a sitter’s profile, nothing at all is listed; no one will ever see that the sit even took place.

That’s the issue.

Modified to add:

You can’t respond to a review someone didn’t leave. But there’s no time limit on responses to reviews, so that doesn’t impact when reviews get closed & posted, if that makes sense.

13

Hey there,

Earlier today, I shared this message that outlines, in the coming weeks, we’ll make it clearer where an owner has declined the opportunity to leave a review - screenshot in the linked post :slight_smile:

Here’s a snippet…
“You told us that seeing whether a sitter repeatedly goes unreviewed can help you decide if they’re the right fit. So, we’re making that a little clearer.”

14

will these implementation be retrospective or start from the day it’s been implemented? and if retrospective, will it go as far as 10-15 years in the past?

15

Hi @Nadia111

Good question!

Yes, it’ll apply retrospectively from the time that account was created. :+1:

16

Hi, @Mark_B ;

I’m looking at the screenshots & have read the post & the blog, but I don’t see where the number of ‘sits vs missing reviews’ is made more obvious. In fact, it looks like the “summarization of experience” that hosts now see by default shows a subset of our reviews that the app has determined is most relevant to the host’s listing — which is pretty much the opposite of a fuller picture (?).

Perhaps I’m missing something? I was looking at this example that you posted:

IMG_3378
IMG_33781002×2034 138 KB

It notes a number of reviews. It doesn’t mention the number of sits completed…?

17

In the example below, a message would be automatically applied to share that a sit has been completed but there’s no review.

If a pattern emerges, that may be useful to understand if they’ll be a good match for a sit.

No review provided
No review provided520×1040 92.3 KB

18

Sorry, Mark, but I’m still confused. Per the blog post, isn’t this now a subset of the sitter’s reviews being shown to the host?

I understood the host would then have to decide to click through from the ‘application view’ to the sitter’s full profile to see their extended list of sits/reviews…is that where the entire set of sits will now be listed?

Edited to add:

OK, I think I see. But it’s really confusing…due to the automated text that’s provided, it’s almost like the fact that they completed a sit is an endorsement of their experience.

I don’t suppose you have an example with more than one review showing?

19

Not currently. The messaging around blank/missing reviews is still a few weeks away, if I get a more expansive view, I’ll be sure to share it. :slight_smile:

20

Thanks for the update & taking the time to respond.