I guess that is OK if she clearly states it in the posting? 
It appears some sitters are fine with it as she already has one applicant.
@Synchronicity More of a concern for me would be that it’s a 2-month sit and the laundry is also in the basement. That tells me there isn’t secure separation/privacy between the two living areas. That’s a hard no for me for so many reasons.
I have cared for an Airbnb unit on a sit (only cleaning) but not on site and I chose not to take money for it, even though they offered it. It was a 3-week sit and they provided a vehicle (in Hawaii) so I felt it was a win-win situation.
That’s a great point @Snowbird There’s no real secure boundary with the laundry for both units located in the basement.
Ohh, Hawaii…I would probably sign up for Airbnb duty for that 
And yes, access to a vehicle is so helpful and very much appreciated! Worth it in your case for sure.
“You’ll be happy to know that we approve all of the listings before they go onto the platform for sitters to apply to. Every day, we have a team that takes the time to read through the listing…”
blatant lies
(edited to remove a listing which has only one photo which isn’t of the pets or property, as it’s against our Community Guidelines to share links to other people’s listings)
Hi @RedLassie
I’ve just added a moderation note as I had to remove the link, but I hope that my note still makes it clear what the issue was with the listing!
I’ve also replied to your DM about it. 
it also has Christmas sit in title, but dates are 12th July onwards
added for those who now cannot see the sit
so obviously no checks were made by THS at all
Interesting …
So I forwarded a listing to support.trustedhousesitters.com May 31st. The listing indicated (twice) that the sitter would be cohabitating with the HO’s roommate while caring for the 3 cats. Clear violation of third party rules, right?
What I received (21 hours later because the responder doesn’t work Saturdays or Sundays) was an email thanking me. Then the email stated that in order to look into this, they would need me to verify my account by answering 3 out of 10 questions (2 from section A, 1 from section B). This is a new one for me. Makes me feel as if I am the one guilty of breaking the rules.
Yes, that seems a completely unnecessary step.
Ridiculous! Not only can’t they check listings themselves, they want to waste time asking you questions instead of simply investigating the listing. Even if you weren’t a member it’s still a valid report. #timewastersextraordinaire
Just seen a listing in Dallas Texas with 14 x boa constrictors!!!
Gross. Did you go looking for that or did it pop up as a ‘sit we think you’d like’?
At the very least it discourages members from reporting listings. I wonder why members even bother. Sitters are free to not apply to a listing if there are things about it that are undesirable or even go against the terms of the site. It’s not us to us to be the pet sitting police.
You mean take an apathetic approach? No, not for me. Regardless, the listing is gone (for the moment).
On a side note, I admit to being leery of brand-new forum accounts as of late.
It must have been removed. I don’t see any sits in Dallas with reptiles now.
I looked too!
Members who choose not to report listings that may be breaking the rules aren’t apathetic. They choose not to get involved, it’s not their responsibility. No clue what this has to do with being a new forum member.
Longer term forum members may get the meaning.
Are you thinking someone is back? 
I looked for the snake listing too 
I like snakes. Are constrictors not allowed here?
“ 5.2.11. not have any inherently dangerous pets (such as venomous snakes or constrictors..”
Looks like listing has been taken down 
Huh?! Why not constrictors? I gather they are specifically referring to boas and pythons because species like rat and king snakes are also constrictors and are not dangerous. Well, neither are boas and pythons, depending on the induvidual snake. Bad policy.