I wasn’t aware that was the case - I surmised that both parties needed to review within two weeks.
About your irony - well done! Fooled me 
If I fooled you, it wasn’t well done. Communication failure fixed through communication!
But I am really curious, what commercial reasons could justify this inequality?
Damn, stop fixing things, that confuses me
Commercial reasons - they know exactly how many sitters and how many HOs they have, and where those HOs are located. The sitter’s location is arbitrary, so…could be anything.
They also know exactly who did review whom when, and who didn’t.
So, (I mean I certainly exaggerated, I don’t know all the commercial reasons) - if you have a lack of sitters and a lot of hosts, you don’t want to scare the HOs, because you’ll lose them as customers. So don’t show them misses.
Don’t forget, the HOs are absolutely necessary for the business to succeed. The sitters can come and go, there will always be people wanting to travel and not minding or wanting to care for pets. But it’s not the easiest thing to get HOs to sign up and put their trust into a completely “rando” person.
That said, I don’t really understand THS’s decisions in many things. Instead of helping the HOs to understand, gain trust, and protect them, they aid in giving them false trust by hiding crucial information.
But then, this is from the perspective of all of us, who aren’t new to the game and know what to look for (and what we would like to be able to see but can’t). A newbie wouldn’t even figure that there can be reviews missing and why that could be relevant.
I don’t understand it either. I would think that the interests of the HO and of the company would align here. THS cannot want owners to suffer poor experiences, if for no other reason than that it is not good for business. THS should want to give owners the information that can be used to avoid the very small proportion of sitters that have strings of unsatisfactory sits.
Exactly!
I am totally dumb business-wise but, in my naïf logic, I would think having a happy, stable and expanding community of both HOs and sitters would be good for business .When I say expanding, I refer to spreading the word of good experiences not THS advertising strategies, which could be, as we say in Spanish, “bread for today, hunger for tomorrow”
I agree that the whole process starts when a HO posts a listing but both parts are necessary for business, what’s more, matches (good matches) are essential for business. A huge pool of HOs and sitters not finding their match wouldn’t make sense.
But not at any cost and if there are so many sitters, why not let the owners filter them better?
They will be scared away if they have bad experiences, even more if they think relevant information has been hidden by THS.
Had a sit in Spain and halfway through the sit the HO membership expired that meant they couldn’t leave feedback for us after the sit
Agree 100%. Showing no reviews should be visible for both. That’s transparency. In both cases there can be explanations and a side to it. Or it can be a mystery. I don’t think either sitters or hosts should “judge” based on what isn’t there, but it’s fine to mention it in in a chat either to ask about what if anything happened OR to get out ahead of something that happened.
That shouldn’t have happened. I’ve always understood that if membership was discontinued then both sides would get notified by THS and the sit would be cancelled if payment is not reestablished.
Perhaps I’m wrong- if anyone can clarify that would be helpful.
I’m sorry you didn’t get your review as a result. That’s disappointing.
sit was halfway through a month long so couldn’t or wouldn’t of cancelled the sit .Just disappointed that the sitter can still leave feedback but not the HO ( Maybe needs looking into
We have had that situation and the HO was messaged before it started and told they had to renew for them to be allowed to proceed with the sit through THS. (in our case we went ahead outside of the platform) but weird it didn’t tell them. Maybe flag it to support? #reviewsaregold
@alancolecliffe
From a THS standpoint the sit was cancelled since one part wasn’t a member for the duration of the sit - so you wouldn’t have been covered by THS insurance or supported by THS member services if anything had gone wrong - so THS should have flagged this up to you at the time so that you were aware and could decide if you were happy to go ahead with this as a private arrangement outside of THS . You also would have lost all access to the WG at the time the hosts membership expired .
Hosts can still leave you and external reference- which has no time limit on it - you just send them a link by e-mail .