It seems that many of us. Homeowners are unhappy with the 5-applicant limit before they pause the sit - Many of us have complained about this, yet THS refuses to provide a rationale for doing so. Their singular response has been - “we do this because it pushes people to interview sitters quickly”. This is nonsense because homeowners are well aware that the best sitters book up quickly, so we are very motivated to interview and secure great sitters before they book up.
We try to be kind and respond to applicants with a reason for declining them, but find it a nuisance to constantly write notes and decline sitters who refuse to read the requirement in the post - or do and feel that it should not apply to them, and then have to request the sit to be unpaused to keep it visible.
A suggestion for THS - If they are going to limit our inbox - then they should at least provide the ability to filter out unsuitable applicants (using common parameters).
This should be very easy. For example, if I only want to accept applications from sitters with 10 reviews or 20 reviews, AND since the number of reviews each sitter has accrued is already tallied by the software that THS uses - then they could simply provide filter boxes (5+, 10+. 15+. 2-+ sits), that one can check when they post the sit, and prevent applications that do not match this qualification from getting into the HO inbox.
It’s sort of how other sites work (take, for example, dating sites where you can filter out suiters by location, age, religion, etc).
THS - You have the technology and you have the data so what say you??
I’m so happy that you are of the homeowners that actually move forward and act in a timely manner. As we speak I have several unanswered applications in my mailbox. The oldest ones 3 months ago - not a word from the host (although read). It has been reported before that the 5 appl has resulted in more action. It is also part of the model that sitters - also new ones - pay fees and has expectations as customers to get value for money.
I’m sure hosts would like sitters with 20, 50, 100 + reviews. But that would be counterproductive to the model where everybody needs there to be plenty of members and those members would need as sitters to get sits they want to do to continue to put money not only in membership, but in quite costly travel to look after the pets of a stranger online for free.
Reviews are important. I myself read them thoroughly to see if it is a home and a host I want to sit for. Some have beautiful homes but an offputting attitude, and I self-select out by not applying. Some are lovely with a modest home. I want reviews, but from the listings I’ve seen the reviews rarely offer new information for more than 5+ reviews. Ofc provided the reviews are honest and factual.
If THS would get rid of the 5 applicant maximum this would not be an issue, however THS refuses to let more than 5 sitters their their hat I to the proverbial ring… so here we are.
I wouldn’t worry about the model being disrupted because there are varying degrees of quality when it comes to both homeowners and sitters and enough to go around.
Top sitters only consider the best homeowners just as top homeowners only consider the best sitters.
Both sitters and homeowners invest time and energy to earn their reputations. So it is reasonable for the sitters with the strongest track record to have priority.
I’m sure you would prefer a sit with 15 fabulous reviews over 5 no? And if you were limited to applying to only 5 sits at a time, I imagine you would select for the best ones you can find.
I find your comments interesting @CAadventurer. I’d regard myself as a top sitter with 150+ 5* THS reviews but I certainly don’t “only consider the best homeowners”. Afterall, how do you judge who qualifies as a best homeowner? The number and quality of reviews they have? In my experience, those who do have many reviews are often the owners who have not updated their listing, do not always have internal photos or have not completed their Amenities list but rest on their laurels of the reviews they have and their outdated listing without providing the now required information. Hence, I rarely give them a second look.
And despite all of my experience, “top homeowners “ do not always accept me as their sitter. There are definitely other factors that come into consideration for homeowners and sitters when making their decisions.
You make a good point. Top or best sitter/homeowner are of course subjective, because we are app looking for different qualities. That said, quite often there are many sitters who possess the qualities a particular homeowner is seeking in a sitter. Similarly there are many sits which have a winning combination of features and duties which a particular sitter is seeking. This is where experience and reviews can help narrow them down. It is also where an introductory email can be helpful…but this requires sitters to be given the time to do this
The problem stems from the 5 applicant limit which THS has set, which causes sits to be paused upon reaching 5 applicants. This results in sitters feel rushed to submit an application before their desired sit is paused.
So this policy limits the time they have to compose an introduction that allows them to put their best foot forward.
If THS would stop limiting applications to 5 we would all be able to share more information. BUT they simply refuse to stop limiting our inboxes and so that leaves reviews (which isn’t impacted by a rushed application) as the best available method to find the most optimal sitter for ones home.
So if THS won’t do change their policy, another possible solution (though not as beneficial as not limiting applications) would be to allow a filter so that the sit can remain unpaused king enough for qualified sitters to get their application in.
I tend to agree with facilitating everyone’s searching task and transparency, so I think that filter you suggest could be a good idea.
I don’t necessarily agree with your reasoning, though
Not really. As @temba, has pointed out, there are many factors to be considered. I can’t think of two equally desirable sits with the only difference of amount of excellent reviews. Even if I made the effort of picturing such a situation, I still don’t think it would make a difference to me. I don’t have a problem sitting for new owners if their listing is appealing and, in our conversation, I find they are nice and reasonable people who are honest about their pets and home.
But, again, if that filter is useful for someone, I am OK with it. It can do no harm.
Number of reviews would certainly be an easy way of filtering, but one potential downside would undoubtedly be people applying for sits that they don’t really want to do in order to boost their reviews. Is that likely to result in first-rate animal care? Probably not.
Any home owners lucky enough to be inundated with applicants can simply decline those that are unsuitable with a brief, polite copy + paste message, and open their listing up again for new applications.
Listings often specify who they’re looking for anyway, which is perfectly acceptable, as the reason behind that requirement is usually explained. However, personally I’d be annoyed to be ‘filtered out’ and unable to even apply for sits based purely on the number of THS reviews I have.
Why? Firstly, because I’ve paid to join a site where I at least have the opportunity to apply to every listing, and I very much enjoy browsing those listings and wondering where to go next. If that became limited in some way, well, the whole thing kind of loses its appeal. And secondly because I have a wealth of relevant experience beyond that which a home owner would see if they only looked at my THS reviews. Quantity doesn’t necessarily equate to quality.
I agree that a means of filtering applicants might make the experience more streamlined for home owners, but the whole THS model needs to appeal to sitters in order for it to work. The idea of being filtered out and unable to even put forward an application for certain listings just doesn’t work for me.
I can say that the 5 applicant rule doesn’t push home owners to interview sitters rapidly. This has happened before however, currently, I’ve been monitoring a sit I applied for 3 weeks ago. It was read by the owner and quickly went into ‘reviewing applications’ state. However, to date, I haven’t received a reply. I’m just leaving it there out of interest to see how long it takes for a response!
You may well be one of the majority of owners who reply quickly but there are plenty who don’t.
I would think that you could quickly go through the applications and decline those who don’t fit which would open it up to more.
For me it is not a numbers game. That is why I said that reviews over 5+ rarely has offered me new information in comparison to the first five.
I would prefer some reviews as it would give an impression. But actually I think the tone of the listing really is much more important to me. The tone and attitude I believe gives more information on the fellow member and is more telling on how the actual sit might be. And many first timers - hosts or sitters - would put more effort in (but ofc - while others are clueless. That is why listing, tone and attitude is important).
@CAadventurer If you only want to receive applications from sitters who have 10-20 five star reviews, then state this clearly in the introduction to your listing. It’s easy enough to add your own screening criteria!
I’d suggest, however, simply specifying 10+, otherwise you’ll be discounting sitters with more that 20 excellent reviews .
Remember that sitters can filter through homeowners based on their desired location - everyone is fine with that. But for the sake of argument, following your logic, doesn’t this prevent homeowners (who also pay to join THS) from getting equal exposure? Their homes and pets might also have as much or more to offer, yet searching by location filters them out.
If sitters want to filter by location or pet, that is their right to do so, so why would you be opposed to homeowners having the opportunity to set up a filter based on whatever criteria are important to them? With the vast number of sits and sitters available, everyone is bound to find a match, as the saying goes. For every pot, there is a lid.
So if you had to choose between two sits that you find equally attractive, one having no reviews and the other having 15 fabulous reviews… which would you choose?
You are assuming that reviews are the only factor taken into consideration when choosing a sitter. Many other things can swing the decision. Experience with breed? Current location? etc
We were once told the reason we were chosen was because I was a vegetarian, another time because I can sign BSL, another time because our application made the home host laugh.
Our current sit told us they chose us because our sit before this was a few minutes drive away so us arriving bang on time was guaranteed
I have done exactly and still returned home from work several days in a row to find my sit paused and only one or two out of the five applications filling my inbox would actually have the number of reviews required which I clearly stated in the post.
Perhaps they either didn’t read the posting carefully or disregarded my stated requirement, but nonetheless I have sent a polite response to every applicant with an explanation of why their application was declined. You would think that would be the end of it. Well not always. After being declined, some feel the need to reply to the response again asking if they could provide references (which are not reviews), some admit that they didn’t read through the post because they wanted to get their foot in the door before the inbox filled up. I have had one or two argue that having a minimum requirement is not fair, or that experienced sitters should not have an advantage over them. I don’t know why some people feel that arguing could be a productive means to their desired end…but it is what it is.
I guess that if the 5 applicant rule was withdrawn, you’d simply receive more of the same?
Just decline, decline, decline, and unpause your listing.
Sitters can still view your listing, even when it shows as ‘reviewing’ and this can actually then work in everyone’s favour, since sitters can then favourite the listing and receive a notification when it again becomes available, or else quickly check in our favourites list if the dates have been re-released. HOs can check out whether anyone new has saved their listing as a favourite and potentially make contact.
Honestly? The one that suits me. I really don’t base my decision on reviews but on my personal checklist. Which dog I find more interesting, whose routine fits my daily schedule better, whether the infrastructure is more convenient, where I can walk the dog more easily and for longer, how attractive the hiking trails are. How clean a house appears to me, how nicely a listing is written.
On the other hand, I don’t take sits that don’t have a 5-star rating. But whether they have 30 five-star reviews or none at all doesn’t matter to me initially. I’ve never given a first-time sitter less than five stars because I’ve always found them fantastic.
Wouldn’t it be easier to use Rover and just look for sitters who have 20+ reviews? You can review all the profiles and pick exactly the right person. Honestly speaking, if I ever came across a pet parent in THS who states that they were looking for applications with 10-20 5 star reviews, I would never apply no matter how desirable the location was.
Your logic makes perfect sense, but it doesn’t take into account the psychology behind sitting through THS. THS needs to appeal to sitters in order for it to work successfully. For me, a large part of that appeal is the feeling that the world is my oyster. It’s what makes me willing to give my time and energy to ensure the welfare of your animals and home. In reality, the world isn’t my oyster, because even with no formal filtering process in place, my application will be declined by a proportion of the home owners that I apply to. And that’s fine – the main thing is that I had the opportunity to apply, even if someone else was better suited. THS works successfully for me because it offers such a wide choice of listings, and that feeling of being able to escape the daily grind for a few weeks, and embark on an adventure. Formally limit that choice in any way and the whole thing begins to lose appeal.
THS works almost entirely on the basis that the sitter is the active party – able to search for and apply to listings of their choice. And since most have a good idea of what they’re looking for, it makes sense to be able to filter search results. Reverse searches on THS, where home owners invite a sitter of their choice, seem to have a low success rate. Other websites, usually involving payment for pet care and house-sitting, work in the opposite way, with the home owner as the active party choosing and reaching out to potential sitters. In that scenario, it makes sense for home owners to be able to filter search results.
So yes, it might be fairer for both parties to be able to filter searches, but with only a limited choice of listings available to them, would sitters still be willing to offer their services?
Irrelevant to me whether a host has loads of reviews. I can suss out whether even new hosts / sits will be good — have done several such sits and expect to do more.
One of my recent ones was for first-timers. Turned out terrifically. Beautiful home in San Francisco, within blocks of loads of great restaurants and shops. Three quirky, fun cats.
Invited me to eat or use whatever I liked from their robust pantry and other goods. Offered to pick me up and drop me off at the airport. They also have a regular cleaner and gardener. Neighbors are nice, too.
Then they brought me gifts home from their travels and took me to dinner before I left. They also offered to pay my round trip airfare to return late this month. They have two homes and travel a lot otherwise as well. I’m happy to repeat sit for them.
I have 20+ five-star reviews, but I don’t need hosts to have loads of experience.
.