Same with me. I work things out with homeowners as there will often be a one or two day overlap. Homeowners and I all consent to situation because it best supports us all. The reason THS did this isn’t because of pet wellbeing, but because it means that they’ll be able to continue to grow their base AKA make more money. By not letting full-time sitters apply for sits that overlap by a day or two, they’re increasing the number of ‘available sits.’ They are a business and so this is how they’re making more money—it makes a worse product for serious sitters, but a better product for the casual sitter, which is where they make their money.
Is it possible that THS being a for-profit organization took a look at the books and realized that their leaving money on the table?
I’m curious to know the # of couple sitters that do this full-time. Now, the only way to overlap sits is to have your other half create a new account, which means paying for another membership.
Easy money.
And, I’ll also echo an earlier post. Let’s have transparency. Let’s see the actual numbers of canceled sits due to overlapping. Let’s also see the number of sits successfully covered due to overlapping.
3 Likes
It also assumes all sits are via THS. Sitters that sit via other platforms or privately can still overlap sits.
But that is no never mind to THS. The concern/reason for no overlapping via THS is to rid themselves of any liability.
4 Likes
the question I have now is… if we travel as a couple and add a link of our profile with more reviews into our new one. Is that okay? Do we have any problem of making it?
We would be able to be 100% clarified of each people would be in each house with no troubles.
More money for the platform hurray… 
1 Like
This is NOT good news - it decreases the value THS has offered me in sitting going forward. My partner and I sit as full time as possible and now with not being able to overlap sits - it will cost us more by having to pay for hotels or to sign up on other housesitting sites to find sits. Super inconvenient that you’ve decided to punish the majority for the sins of the few. We have never had a problem in managing any overlap and as stated have had homeowners adjust the dates on us regularly. I hope you listen to us and find another way to deal with those who are not handling their responsibilities professionally.
2 Likes
The difference between other sites is that THS has the majority of the opportunities, at least in the city I’m seeking them. I haven’t found another that matches them.
The cost of joining other sites or an additional THS membership is not much compared to the cost of a hotel . Especially if you use a promo code like the RAF to join .
1 Like
@Luna2000 If you are planning to set up a new profile don’t forget to use your membership code to get the extra months/discount price.
And in your shoes I would absolutely promote the original profile & reviews in the new profile. Maybe you can even directly add the link to your main profile somewhere in the body of the new profile. I am definitely not in favour of couples having to buy a second membership when we’ve never needed two before! But if you overlap frequently you may find buying a second membership (the cheapest one) worthwhile. You know what hotels/airbnbs cost- just one or two nights and the cost of basic membership is covered and then you’d have ongoing flexibility.
Do what you need to do to make it work for you! The intrepid, and determined, sitter is always going to find ways sround the increasingly unhelpful new rules THS insists on implementing!
Of course it’s okay, THS won’t mind at all. You and your partner will be doing the exact same amount of sitting, with the exact same overlap, giving the exact same care and attention to the pets where you split up on overlapping days.
The only thing that will be different is that THS now get double the membership fees.
THS won’t mind at all, it isn’t about the care of the pets at all, obviously, as in your situation you will just be forced to pay them double and do everything exactly as you have been doing. /s
2 Likes
I explained this to my partner yesterday when I said we couldn’t overlap on the same account anymore. But suddenly if we purchase another sitter account, the issue magically goes away!!
1 Like
Hello everyone,
We want to thank you for all of your feedback and questions 
As you know the Forum Team has been busy collecting all of your helpful feedback. It seems we have come to a natural point where we have collected all of the feedback and answered as many questions as possible, with the thread now a more generalised discussion on overlapping sits.
If you think of anything else that has not been covered on the thread then please tag us or send us a DM and we will be happy to help!
As there have been a few ongoing questions about this, in regards to couples purchasing a secondary membership if you feel like this is something you want to do please feel free to discuss it with the Membership Services team as they will know more about this.
To further reassure you as previously mentioned on the thread this change was not brought in just due to sitters that sit as a couple, it was for solo sitters as well.
Nor with the intention of couples buying a second account so they can overlap sits, but rather to prevent all overlapping sits due to the risk to pet welfare. If you have any more questions about this please direct them to Membership Services as they can assist you on an individual basis.
I also wanted to share a previous comment for those that might have missed it as these enhancements were made with help from your feedback on this thread:
1 Like
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
5 Likes
Hi Carla. I have a question - has TH considered (or would they please) doing a similar thing when hosts send sit invitations to sitters who are already booked? You’ve left this loophole open where a sitter could get an invitation that’s more appealing than the sit they currently have scheduled, giving them the option to cancel it and then accept the invitation. Not something I would do but am trying to give you more reasons than just the inconvenience of sitters having to reply to invitations sent for dates already booked! This happens quite often - it’s evident that many hosts don’t bother to look at calendars, why not make it impossible for them to send invites just as you’ve made it impossible for sitters not to send applications?
Tricia
Hello @Islander - I am happy to announce that yes this is one of the things that the Product team are currently working on
Combined member suggestion: Put the links in the application. Have an application prepared in your docs so you can cut and paste it and get it in very quickly. As a HO, I read the application note first, then look at the profile, read the reviews, and finally check the feedback the sitter has left.
great, thanks!
2 Likes
Hi Carla, please, please, help a woman out here! I know you’re not an automaton and I could really use some humanity in the responses here: To state that the “top priority is the well-being of our furry friends. … that’s something we simply can’t compromise on” without directly addressing any of the below issues just rings of politics–something I’m sure we all get enough of outside this site. For at least one or two of the below points, please explain how the logic behind the decision actually outweighs the logic presented in the points below:
-
Many homeowners post approximate/flexible dates because they want the freedom to choose the right sitter based on the sitter’s available dates. The new rule is a huge impediment to that.
-
How do you truly best protect the wellbeing of pets? You ensure HOs have the best odds of finding the best-suited sitter. If said sitters can’t apply to sits they’re perfectly capable of attending (because there are two of them OR because the HO is flexible), then the HO will be choosing from a limited selection. HOs often struggle to find a suitable sitter at all, so why would THS assume that limiting applicants even further overall benefits the pet?
-
If there is true concern for the pets, how about surveying their owners on if this is a core issue rather than drawing a preemptive conclusion?
-
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.
-
Can we agree that boarding a pet is often the worst possible outcome for the animal, and also for the site and its members? HO postings often linger for months with zero to very few applicants. One way to ensure better care for pets is to implement changes that would actually boost applications and ensure in-home pet care.
-
Finally, regarding the overall premise that this move will somehow prevent people from ditching or canceling, this unfortunately could continue to happen at any time during any sit and for any sort of reason. The new rule doesn’t (and can’t) prevent unreliable people from being unreliable. In fact, given that a rep told me he doesn’t have the numbers on how often this even happens, it would seem that THS has created an issue where there may not even be one (otherwise, please show us numbers, survey results, anything—we’re not unreasonable people!). Enabling a certain profile flag or HOs to leave a comment in reviews about the sitter canceling would likely halt this practice more than anything.
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.
2 Likes
Hello @meggoose
Thank you for reaching out and I am happy to assist as much as I can. The section you quoted is from the Product team update that I recently shared on the forum. Please feel free to have a look at some of the update posts further up the thread as it should give you some more information.
In the meantime to help you further, you might have missed this post on the thread, which contains some helpful information about the forum team and what we can do to help on these types of threads:
Here is also the link to the new product category which explains how the forum team passes on feedback and how the category works. If you have any questions please feel free to DM me.
Thank you for your feedback, I have passed it on 
1 Like
Thank you for your message. Yes I was already considering getting a 2nd membership due to this new restriction. Not as easy as if they’d not locked things down, though. If we have 2 memberships then I’ll need to coordinate with my partner so we don’t both apply to the same sit going forward. It’ll just be confusing and klunky. I’d suggest they create a couple’s membership level - that’d solve things probably - a slightly higher fee to have one membership for 2 people and let us do overlaps.
1 Like