NP… let me know.
1 Like
I agree. this overlapping sits is provomg diofficult. One sit I had the owner contacted me. I was unable to do the full two weeks. However they were happy to have friends do the last two days. As it stands I would have been unable to apply. And frequently home owners add an extra day on at the front, in order for you to say overnight beforehand if you wish. They may not be leaving until lunchtime the next day though, so happy for you to come the next morning instead. Ah#gain if still on a sit on this first day ypu are unable to apply. And there are cases where home owner is flexible on dates but you cannot send a message to query.
It would be helpful in you could contact a home owner with a query message, without applying for the sit first.
Which would defeat the limit-of-five. Or of a limit at any number.
It would be useful if owners could opt in to receive messages from sitters . Owners in popular locations would not need to opt in as they receive sufficient applications. However owners that are finding it difficult to get a sitter and have some flexibility with dates could choose to opt in .
6 Likes
Yet another idea for a feature that THS could charge an extra fee for!
3 Likes
Here in the US…THS only charges fees for the three memberships. We aren’t assessed fees for anything else.
Does THS assess fees, other than membership, anywhere else?
@visit. Yes! Many members have suggested to THS that they allow members to “opt-in” to allowing messages from other members. The default would be not to allow this, so members who don’t want this functionality would not need to do it. This would solve many problems and actually enhance the community. I have had to apply to sits, just to ask basic questions like “Do you have secure, off street parking available?” and then withdraw if the answer is no. Messaging would also allow sitters to ask if the dates are flexible. If alternative dates could work, a private invite could be sent to the sitter to apply.
4 Likes
@TravelMan Not at this time, but they sent out a survey a little while back asking if we would be willing to pay more for various functionalities and membership variations. Unfortunately, they have become very profit-driven….
3 Likes
Well…it is worth what the market is willing to pay for I guess…Thanks for the warning!
Honestly absolutely agree this dictatorial restriction ruling of THS overlapping is outrageous, THS obvious naïve or not caring that sit circumstances change constantly often at short notice or whilst on sit, whereby urgent instant decision applies… Likewise as your now situation of Owner flexibility availability timeframe THS ruling restricts sitters from applying for sit consideration. I have voiced my opinion umpteen times regards to this THS ruling only to be ‘Flagged Off’/Ignored’ ‘Shoved under carpet’, never a reply by THS let alone a solution!! Such service absolutely unacceptable by THS… THS should better vet their members prior to membership acceptance, rather than discrimination of loyal, genuine, supportive paying pet caring members, I find deterioration in THS web-site unacceptable over the latter 2 to 3 years. THS has greedily become a ‘Money grabbing machine’ rather than a caring Home Owner, Sitter, Pets caring service which THS intention was I believe to be??? A major restructure of THS required, paying members never consulted for their opinion prior to any changes, THS ruthlessly apply absurd regulations so inconsiderate of their valued paying memberships, without us paying members THS would not exist. Hence my sit application volume decreased immensely with THS as too many ‘Ifs/Buts’/dictatorial restriction ruling, with no consideration, respect, courtesy, certainly no loyalty for paying members. Any enlightment on this issue appreciated… Good luck re your concern, I sure agree THS restrictions unrealistic… Also restriction of paying members contact unavailability, surely a trail of contacts being transparent… Good Luck
I have time tomorrow to spend at the computer, I will attempt going through the other forms, direct those members to read this and then perhaps someone can be responsible for drafting an open letter. Perhaps we should send an email as suggested AND send a certified letter…I would be happy to do that (the certified mail part) if no one else would like!
To all,
Also…perhaps THS would respond to Google reviews…agree or disagree???
Clearly, this is an example (the ability to NOT “overbook”) of one situation that should be reversed, the only ones that disagree seem to be the people making the decisions…and they need members otherwise they won’t have a job.
I don’t support this letter. Actually, I find back-to-back sits already a bit stressful, I cannot imagine wanting to juggle overlapping sits.
I am now on my way to a sit in the Netherlands that starts on Friday. I will have a face-to-face conversation tomorrow with a prospective sit, walk the dog together, have dinner, spend the night. The train is running well now, I am quite confident that I will catch the ferry to Germany around noon.
But I have a buffer for in case I would miss that ferry, and I like to have it that way. So yes, I spend some money on hotels etc.
6 Likes
I think the main reason this change was made, was because some sitters had confirmed sits, then a better one came along, and they would go for that one, and let the first HO down. How would you solve this problem? I don’t do back to back sits, so this doesn’t really bother me.
1 Like
Hi @mikeh
Just a quick note to let you know that I’ve moved your post over to our dedicated discussion post for Overlapping Sits, as there’s a lot of interesting information in the replies, and it’s good to keep everything related to Overlapping Sits together.
Jenny 
Hello @pietkuip
Thank you for chiming in. To be fair, I have no interest in overlapping sits. I am single and I work full time remote, the logistics would not work. I, like you, give myself a buffer and spend the night in hotels/AirBnBs if far away from home.
However, just because you nor I care to overlap, it doesn’t mean it isn’t a good thing for the community. As you can tell, many members on here are married and sit together…and do this full time it seems.
For them to overlap, the benefits to them are FAR more than you and I. I am in support of what benefits the community the most, not necessarily my own interests so therefore, I am happy to support members that had this benefit before…BUT was taken away from them!
I agree with you and the way you sit as I do the same…but I also think members that can manage their schedule effectively and have a track record doing so should not be penalized for possibly and most likely, very rare (IF ANY AT ALL…so far THS can’t confirm any animals were hurt!!!) “instances” that happen. So therefore, although this change has absolutely zero impact on you or I, it seems to have done harm and I am in favor of seeing this reversed.
Thank you for commenting!
3 Likes
@TravelMan - I totally agree with you and appreciate the big picture, good of the whole community thoughts.
One of my biggest big picture concerns with this policy is that some sits are going unfilled, which is likely leading to frustrated pet owners dropping their membership. That’s a bummer for them and ultimately not good for sitters who will have fewer sits to consider.
4 Likes
Unless sitters are really doing parallel sits (which is a problem), I don’t think the policy has much effect on that. The nomad sitters are sitting practically full-time anyway.
@pietkuip - There have been quite a few posts from sitters looking for ways to contact pet owners for sits that say the dates are flexible but where the sitter can’t apply or contact due to having another sit with a slight overlap. Sitters have often mentioned that these are sits that have been open for a while with no or low applications.
Same for sits that appear to have a one or two day overlap but that may not really be the case when dates and details are finalized.
4 Likes
Sitters cannot sit for more than 365 days per year. So this policy cannot have had a significant effect on the number of nights that owners have found sitters.
(Unless couples are sitting much more than that. In that case it is only fair that both of them pay for membership.)
2 Likes
If both people who sit as a couple should pay for membership, would it not logically follow that pet parents who want a couple to sit should also pay double, since they will receive double the input for their pets and homes? 
3 Likes