Agree and hope that they are aware that a competitor will come along who actually LISTENS to their paying customers.
Just wanted to share excerpts from correspondence I’ve been having with THS about this issue. I hope that my points are as comprehensive as possible, and that if you upon perusing this agree with the issues I have raised, please message them individually!
"1. Have there been several reported instances of sitters leaving pets unattended?
2. Is there a significantly higher rate of sitters canceling sits than homeowners?
Regarding #1, this unfortunately could happen at any time during any sit and for any sort of reason, so while the answer would be helpful in understanding THS’s reasoning, I’m afraid the new rule doesn’t (and can’t) prevent or even significantly mitigate unreliable people from being unreliable. Enabling HOs to leave a comment in reviews about the sitter cancelling would likely halt this practice more than anything. Nobody likes a public wrist slap.
My partner and I sometimes do two sits at once (either due to logistics, to the HO only wanting one sitter, or to maintain our sanity–ha!); we have never concealed this in an application and any HO that takes one of us on has, I trust, read through reviews and desires the “product” they’re getting.
I would hope that sitters like us are valuable to your site: we truly believe in the exchange and symbiosis, we tell everyone we know about it, and we seem to leave HOs quite happy (not to mention the pets!). For us, it doesn’t make sense to have two separate accounts, because we do most sits together, and any time we don’t, we’re clear and coordinated about it. Separate profiles would make our review history disjointed and require an extra expenditure that, as “lifestyle” unpaid sitters, we’d really prefer not to pay. It’s not just about the money: I truly believe that separating our profiles would not serve the purpose of THS in any way (other than its profits), plus it would create extra work for the HO to look at reviews on two pages.
The central question here is (I hope): How do you truly best protect the wellbeing of pets? To me, you ensure HOs have the best odds of finding the best-suited sitter. If I can’t apply to sits that I’m perfectly capable of accomplishing, then perhaps the HO will be choosing from a selection of five (perhaps more, perhaps fewer) that do not fit the bill as well as me. I know that sometimes HOs struggle to find a suitable sitter at all, so why would THS assume that limiting applicants even further than the already-existing five-limit rule would benefit the pet in any way?
I often see HO postings that linger for weeks and months with one or zero applications. One way to ensure better care for pets is to implement changes that would actually boost applications and ensure pet care for all who seek it:
-
Enable buttons by which sitters could anonymously request more info in specific sections of listings (e.g. more photos of the home or pets, more explanation in a certain sections). Sometimes an HO has multiple pets, and under the Responsibilities section only puts “feed pets, take out for bathroom, etc.” I don’t want to click “apply now” or even begin a dialogue before discerning whether I’m interested at all; I just want the HOs to add more info. This would likely help them and viewers.
-
Allow more than five applications so that HOs can have a stronger selection from which to choose (a pet and home is sooo important—imagine telling someone they can only interview five nannies for their child?).
-
Allow sitters more specification in search functions to prevent “search overwhelm” and foster the right connections with options such as specifying pet quantity, noting if the dog needs to be leash-walked, or noting if a cat is indoor/outdoor (e.g., we love sitting pups, but sometimes more than 1-2 is a stretch on our resources. Generally this means we avoid searching any dogsits at all because it’s too much sifting).
-
Allow HOs who are having trouble finding sitters to offer assistance with travel expenses or a daily stipend. Many times I have been available for a sit that I see persisting without applicants over the span of months, but I can’t budget getting there. The cost of financial aid for an awesome sitter would be less (but worth much more!) than ending up having to board the pet.
There are always closer sits for me, but there are not always local sitters for the HO. Can we agree that boarding a pet is often the worst possible outcome for the animal, but also for the site and its members. How many HOs don’t get applicants because the travel cost is too unreasonable? How many would be willing to pay this [likely lesser cost] instead of boarding? How much better would this be for the pet!?
I hope you understand why I believe you’re putting a band-aid in the wrong location and saying that a wound might arise there someday because it’s happened before. There are many more pressing and fruitful ways that THS could ensure better care for pets and better symbiosis between members, and limiting sitters is simply not it.
A couple more salient points to consider:
– Many homeowners post approximate/flexible dates not only because their dates are simply flexible, but also because they want to have the freedom to choose the right sitter based on the sitter’s available dates.
– Many homeowners offer the option of a friend/neighbor taking care of their pets for the first/final days if it means enabling a favored housesitter’s ability to be there for the rest of the time.
Hopefully this demonstrates that this decision is not in the best interest of homeowners or sitters. If there is true concern, how about surveying homeowners about what they would prefer rather than drawing a preemptive conclusion for them?"
Edited to meet posting guidelines