Same community. Higher standards

TrustedHousesitters has always worked because people show up for each other. You trust someone with your pets, your home, your routines, your travel plans. That human side is what makes this community special, and it’s something we’ll always protect.

As our community grows, we’ve heard from more members who would like to see increased clarity, more consistency and stronger support systems.

Over the years, we’ve seen recurring conversations around cancellations, clearer expectations on both sides, easier ways to raise concerns and stronger baseline standards across TrustedHousesitters.

So over the coming months, you’ll start to see a series of improvements designed to raise the standard of trust across TrustedHousesitters. Not by removing the human side, but by supporting it better.

We wanted to share an early look at the thinking behind this work, so you have a clearer idea of what’s coming and why.

1. Helping members make more informed choices

Right now, members do a lot of the work themselves. You read carefully through reviews and use your own judgement to decide whether it feels like the right fit.

That judgement will always matter. But we think we can do more to support this process.

One example of this support is a beta feature we’ll be testing soon, which will help show relevant sitter experience when they apply for a sit. The aim is to make it quicker and easier for owners to understand whether someone may be a strong fit for their sit.

2. Making expectations clearer on both sides

When plans fall through at the last minute, the impact can be huge for travel, pets, accommodation, cost and stress. We think there should be clearer expectations, and more shared responsibility, across both sides of the community.

That’s why we’re looking at improvements such as cancellation deterrents, with the aim of making the experience feel fairer, clearer and more dependable for everyone involved.

3. Giving members clearer routes when something doesn’t feel right

Today, if something doesn’t feel right, members need to proactively contact Membership Services. For some, that can feel unclear, or like there isn’t an obvious next step. We want to make that easier.

We’re working on a clearer way for logged-in members to report a concerning profile or listing directly in the product, without needing to search for the right route into Membership Services.

We’re also adding one simple question at the end of the review flow: whether you would recommend the sitter or sit. Your answer will only be seen by TrustedHousesitters. It won’t be shared with the other member. We’ll use this alongside other signals to help us spot patterns, understand concerns and keep standards high across the platform.

4. Strengthening systems behind the scenes

Some trust improvements are visible. Others happen quietly in the background. We’re continuing to strengthen the foundations that help keep TrustedHousesitters secure, reliable and running smoothly.

One upcoming example is an update to the devices we support. Most members won’t be affected, and if we believe you may be impacted by a future app update, we’ll contact you directly. If you are affected, the app will still work for now, but it won’t receive future updates.

You can read more here: How to check if your mobile device supports app updates

Raising standards isn’t a one-off launch. It’s an ongoing effort to make TrustedHousesitters feel clearer, fairer, more consistent and more supportive as the community continues to grow.

Hi @Jenny :slightly_smiling_face:

Thank you for sharing this early overview. The tone of this feels thoughtful and balanced, and I really appreciate the acknowledgment that the “human side” of TrustedHousesitters is what makes the community special in the first place.

A lot of the areas mentioned here - clearer expectations, more consistency, easier reporting pathways and stronger trust signals - have been recurring discussion points in the forum for quite a while, so it’s encouraging to see THS actively engaging with those concerns.

I especially like the approach of supporting better decision-making rather than trying to replace human judgement entirely. Anything that helps members make more informed choices, while still preserving the personal and relationship-based nature of sits, feels like a positive direction.

The additional “would you recommend this sit/sitter” question also sounds sensible if used carefully and constructively behind the scenes to identify patterns and improve standards over time.

Overall, this reads as a measured attempt to strengthen trust without losing the community feel that drew many of us here in the first place. I’ll be interested to see how these changes develop over the coming months.

:paw_prints: :heart:

This simply reads to me like “We are handing more over to the bots”.

But the spin is a delight!

Please do NOT use AI to create a shortcut here. I despise when sites or applications try to guess what I will find most relevant or useful (it’s usually wrong), and think this will lead to members relying on AI slop rather than their own thorough read of a profile and doing the work pre-confirmation. Members SHOULD be doing this work themselves!

OTOH, what would help members make more informed choices would be knowing how many times the other member has cancelled a confirmed sit. No reasons or judgment necessary - just a note, similar to how Airbnb does it.

What I find quite concerning with all these new things, before ALL the new changes and implementations, things ran relatively smoothly and straightforward. Of course there will always be problems but when things were just “simple”, for me anyway, researching a listing, applying, accepting and reviewing was a relatively straightforward process - for both homeowners and sitters. It has now become at times stressful, time consuming (moreso) and overly difficult to navigate the system and processes, and we are paying extra for the privilege of what should be inclusive.

I understand we have to move forward in life but I honestly believe the old adage - if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I still do not understand what was wrong with how things originally were, it all just worked.

I am very glad for the question that will be reported directly to THS and that there is at least some acknowledgement of a very obvious problem. However, I really fear that by having the system “do more” and encouraging individuals to not have to rely so much on their own reading ability and judgement, the process and result will be worse. This has been my experience with THS and other online “gig” systems and services, the more the machine takes on, the less human judgement, the worse the results.

I also think that while it’s interesting to see this announcement on the forum, the fact that I still haven’t seen any public announcements from THS beyond the usual corpororate drivel regarding a recent high profile event and any kind of serious pledge to right the ship, I have little faith in these coming “improvements”. It’s like bailing out the Titanic with a teaspoon.

A possible “cancellation deterrent”, when THS has just made it easier for anyone to cancel for any reason at any time (I’m paraphrasing). Somewhat ironic.

And “deterrent”? Not wishing to second guess…but…holding back the booking fee from the party cancelling ? Or charging a fee to cancel?

I thought the same. I mean seriously, the updated cancelation policy is completely opposite of what this topic is suggesting THS is going to be all about.

It’s like a husband promising his wife he’s going to quit drinking and then he goes into the living room and makes himself a gin and tonic.

As a sitter, I am not in favour of being confirmed for a sit based on an AI algorithm. The success of our sits has always come from the personal connection we establish with hosts through our application and profile, allowing both parties to build genuine rapport and trust.

@Silversitters completely agree. I don’t want any part of being recommended (or not) by an AI algorithm.

Super curious as to what the cancellation deterrent will be and how they will implement it in a way that doesn’t hurt good members who need to cancel for legit reasons (which I believe is most cancellations).

This sounds like discrimination to me. What chance do new sitters have against more experienced ones being recommended?

I, too, do not favour being recommended by an AI algorithm. This is a people business where so much relies on communication between hosts and sitters.

I can see the posts on the forum in the near future. A host will complain about the sitter and say, but they were so recommended by AI.

This seems to read like the service is geared more towards home owners than pet sitters. It’s one more nail in the coffin for me when deciding whether to use TH again as an unpaid pet sitter.

This is not a service. It’s a matching site. If homeowners don’t use the matching site because they don’t trust the sitters, there is no matching site. If sitters don’t use the matching site because of something in the algorythyms that deter them and homowners can’t find matches there is no matching site.

This site grew because it attracted people – homeowners and sitters who understand the exchange and how to match. Maybe this was because the right people organically found their way here. This does not seem to be case any longer.

Alarm bells have been going off for years but especially recently. “Improvements” that do more to distance people make this worse. THS’s advertising toward a stated goal of being bigger than Rover and knocki out paid “services” make things worse.

Hi
I know (or I think) this is all done with the best intentions but it’s a hard no from me and definitely a reason to cancel/not renew my membership because of the micromanaging THS is doing
In combination with the newsletter I just received in the mail (is that new?)
Never got one before ľ’m very interested to hear what you think of it and especially the extremely cringe worthy video that came with it
I’m 64 and don’t want to be treated like a child with half a brain
6 more months to go…

OMG! I just watched the video in the latest Trusted Times email. How much further down the gutter can the advertising go. Might attract a much younger clientele but certainly not an older group who one would think would be a vast majority of homeowners, and sitters. Definitely targeting a certain age bracket who must be the current highest membership. It’s neither funny, cute or smart, it’s crass. It’s supposed to be a wholesome, caring petsitting business, not a matchmaking or dating site. I am definitely no prude, far from it! But I have no words left to express my disgust. This is what your booking fee is contributing towards, their new advertising agency that obviously has zero idea of the whole concept.

Just watched it too. Embarrassing.

Oh thigh-slapping sexual innuendo. How very classy and original. It’s supposedly someone’s offbeat take on “Same community. Higher standards”

I have a feeling this will be in many ways, a ‘be careful what you wish for’ scenario, especially in regards to the ‘cancellation deterrents.’ While it is true that many may cancel sits for flimsy reasons, there are many, many legitimate reasons for sits to be cancelled on both ends that don’t involve dire emergencies and such.

Also, there are a number of scenarios where’punitive’ actions taken in this regard could lead to a number of issues, such as feeling pressure to continue on with a host or sitter with whom they feel uncomfortable because of things that may happen as time goes on post-confirmation, to not cancel a sit where the scope of responsibilities has changed since confirming,etc…

I think less involvement from THS in the process the better for the most part. As a matching platform at the core, there are lots of things out of their control, and for which they are ultimately not responsible. So I think they should just leave that all stuff alone for the most part and play the role the site plays best–a platform to introduce people.

For people who don’t understand that, and have unrealistic and unreasonable expectations from the service, they can decide not to be members.