WhatsApp only works between WhatsApp participants. Many businesses and lots of older folks aren’t in that group.
We use a Google Voice account for travel when our everyday phone numbers are disabled to avoid ridiculous international roaming charges.
THIS! 
2 Likes
You absolutely have a point that this is a way the site is approaching the issue. But there is another way to approach the issue.
Uber started out (at least for most drivers) as an “extra” gig that someone could do with a resource they had “a car.” It wasn’t necessarily meant to be fall time job. As it grew some people discovered they could do this as a full time job and it made sense for them.
People use these opportunities in different ways.
THS requires all members to have at least one set of "resources.”
Sitters should have a love for pets, willingness to care for them, and ideally actual skills in doing so. That is a niche for travellers but it’s by no means a small one. Many people love aniimals and have cared for pets in their lives.
Hosts need to own or rent a place that is clean, tidy and habitable. That place needs to meet other criteria to conform with the terms like no roommates. This isn’t going to be all homeowners by any means as most would rather have someone they know, someone local or board the pets when they are away. So again it’s a niche, but a large one.
If you look back at the beginning of Uber or Airnbn or any of the sites in the sharing economy, there are probably a lot of people participating now who couldn’t have imagined this becaoming a big part of their lives.
1 Like
The difference with something like Uber is, most people must earn money and, if they drive for such, they’re held accountable. They’re tracked and rated for every ride, even starting before making any pickup. If drivers end up not performing well, they can be booted and cut off from earnings. And with risks to life and limb, as well as property, ride sharing platforms are quick to act if a driver performs poorly.
With THS, we all hear about bad sitters and hosts, and usually they’re able to cheat the system and get away with it, often repeatedly. Accountability is nearly nonexistent.
Even in the worst case, if someone is actually booted from THS (seems rare), those kind of people won’t care much, since they’re cheaters anyway — they weren’t ever willing to live up to a fair trade. And so what? It doesn’t affect their livelihood — sitting for free isn’t a necessity.
With sitting requiring trading off labor and time voluntarily, there simply are relatively few willing to do what it takes. If that weren’t the case, we wouldn’t hear about so many hosts and sitters who fall short.
2 Likes
@Maggie8K Maggie8KI think the review system (if reviewers are willing to be honest) does create some sort of self Selection. Those with poor, or patchy reviews eventually won’t get sits/sitters.
1 Like
Yes, it works only as honestly and accurately as reviewers are willing to be. Unfortunately, a number of people don’t review that way.
1 Like
Something I’ve noticed on the Forum is that some members will either avoid leaving a review or they’ll skirt around the challenges to be polite. As you know we have the blind review system in place, but do you think there’s another way that members could feel empowered to be honest - anything that THS could do to support that?
It seems that not all members are aware that reviews are blind so perhaps the messaging could be changed to raise awareness.
7 Likes
I can pass that to the team, @Silversitters. I’m also looking at creating a pinned post for the Forum aimed at new THS members, and I could add that to the post!
2 Likes
Let’s all remember the purpose of the reviews. Isn’t the purpose to protect and inform members? Some people seem to think it’s to gain bragging rights or burnish their egos or prove their self worth. PROTECT AND INFORM. What if every step of the review process were focused on that and only that? Will asking this question protect and inform future members? Will my answer to the question do the same?
It would also help if THS would do a better job of delineating between when THS is asking for a review of the company Trusted HouseSitters, versus when it is asking for reviews of the sit/sitter. The emails are blurry and unclear, especially to infrequent users, and I’ve seen some wonky reviews as a result.
Having said that, a big concern for me as a member is always that future homeowners will see that I left a negative review for a prior owner, worry that I’ll do the same for them, and thus not select me for a sit. I’m sad to say this does make me err on the side of silence, even when there are legitimate issues.
I do the same to homeowners - I check the reviews they’ve left for prior sitters, and if they’re picky or lukewarm, I won’t apply. It is simply too risky that they’ll do the same to me. The pervasive “group think” that a five star review is the only target and anything less is “failure” is also a problem - if everything is a five star, nothing is a five star.
Some random thoughts, all of which are problematic too for various reasons:
- Analyze! In the modern age it is so easy to analyze data. Which sitters and homeowners get the most “repeat” sits? A repeat sit is pretty much the gold standard of a good review - everyone knows what they’re getting into, and they choose to do it again. Then look at the reviews for other, non-repeats from those same members. What are the characteristics of those reviews? Do they consistently leave more nuanced reviews than others - like do they sometimes (gasp) dock stars? If so, for which categories?
- Analyze culturally. Do reviewers from one country typically leave different types/’tones’ of reviews than those from another? Do reviewers tend to leave positive reviews for those from their own culture, and negative reviews for those from another? If so, I’d take their negative reviews with a grain of salt - these might be more of a cultural misunderstanding than an actual problem with the member (slippers and truffle mayo, anyone?)
- Have a simple, anonymous checkbox asking, “Would you do this sit (or use this sitter) again?” After a sitter or homeowner or sitter has a meaningful number of reviews - maybe ten - an anonymous statistic could be shown saying, “90% of sitters (homeowners) say they’d repeat this sit” or something like that. Until that point, it would just say that there are not yet ten reviews.
- Have an anonymous question at the end that says, “Is there something you’d like THS to be aware of that you’re not comfortable sharing directly?” THS could use this for context for future disputes etc.
- Have a private question at the end that says, “Is there something you’d like the sitter (homeowner) to be aware of that you’re not comfortable sharing publicly?” Once the member has at least three of those, the feedback would be sent to the member as “food for thought”. Note that these could be positive things!
- Have a “lookback” once any member has “five plus”, whether five plus sits or five plus sitters. Ask them to select their top sit (or sitter) from those past five and why, and have a special recognition for those members. (The problem here is that many members will not do at least five. But if there are less than five, some members will feel resentful - you only had three sitters to choose from and you picked him?!?!? )
- Focus on the positive with a “These are a few of my favorite things” section. You get what you focus on. Have a specific section like, “What is one thing from this sit that really stands out for you as something you appreciate?” If the member doesn’t fill it out, it won’t show on the review. But if they do - well future members are sure to get more of that. If I see that a past HO said, “I really appreciated that the sitter sent videos instead of just photos” - well then I’m going to send videos too.
- Randomize the appearance of reviews when a profile is shown. It seems that the most recent is always the first to show up - which means that if your most recent sit was a problematic one, it outweighs the others. If prior reviews are consistently randomized in how they appear on the screen, there would be a tad less worry, for me at least, about selecting a homeowner that writes less that glowing reviews.
The lack of anonymity in the reviews is seriously problematic. As I’ve noted elsewhere, it puts some sitters at legal risk; there is no way for them to obscure the fact that they were in a certain country sitting at a certain time. At the very least, both parties should be notified, in BIG TYPE, of the risk they are taking by documenting on a public website that they undertook a sit in violation of the law.
Overall, I think the review system works pretty well. Is it perfect? No. But I’d be hard-pressed to come up with a better system. Overall it has worked quite well for me - for example, on my current sit I proactively addressed concerns from a previous sitter’s review with the homeowners prior to accepting.
1 Like
Not necessarily. I beg to differ
Again, this does not necessary is true. Many sitters, myself included, rarely do repeat sits. Not because they lack invitations to do the repeat but simply because they have no interest in visiting the same location again
3 Likes
Well - how do you differ? What is the purpose of reviews from your perspective?
And I agree regarding repeat sits - I rarely do them. I’m not saying that only sits that have repeats are excellent. I’m just saying that if people do do repeat sits, that is the best kind of review - it shows they were willing to go back.
1 Like
@KittySitter we rarely do repeat sits as we travel the world and enjoy variety. But on the rare occasions we do a repeat sit we mention it in the review and the hosts do the same. Repeats definitely do look good and give an extra boost to the sit /sitter. If I see a sit where at least one sitter has returned I feel more confident that sit will work out well.
I do not agree that the “purpose of reviews is to PROTECT & INFORM members.” That sounds a little too altruistic for me! For me (and the hubby), as sitters, we rely on great reviews to boost our profile, to get great sits more easily, and ofcourse because we deserve to receive one after a job well done! This may sound selfish- so be it- but In lieu of payment this is our main takeaway from the sit. When I write a review of the sit it is to present our experience of the sit, positive (& negative). I don’t actually think about protecting and informing others. Our reviews tend to be quite long so quite possibly they do give useful info to others but that is not my focus.
Regarding your list of points to consider & analyse most seem rather complex and impratical! But one point I definitely disagree with is randomly mixing up reviews. Most sitters, if they get a poor review, want- as fast as possible-to get that review buried under more great reviews. I would not want our one 4* review popping up again randomly at the top of the list! 
3 Likes
That is fascinating! It never occurred to me that anyone would see the review itself as a form of reward.
I see it as “inform and protect” because that’s how I use reviews. For example a recent review noted the sitter was never reimbursed for pet supplies despite repeated promises from the owner. I was informed about that and protected from letting it happen to me - I didn’t apply to the sit.
In another case I was informed through a review that the steps on the property were unusually steep. I protected my knees by not applying to that sit.
If the review system is really just a reward system, then it can just be private; there is no need to make it visible to everyone else. I always assumed the reason I was writing reviews was so other sitters would know if the sit was safe, comfortable, and aligned to the listing. Never once did I think about rewarding the homeowner for a good sit via the review - I assumed their reward was a healthy, happy pet.
For me the only reward I want from the sit is a clean, safe place to stay and some kitty love! This morning I woke up with a cat making biscuits on my arm. Lying there in a strange bed in a strange town, I thought, This is the best possible life. How lucky am I? 
Nothing the owners could put in a review would ever fill my heart as much as those biscuits.
4 Likes
I also consider the role of my review to be informative for future sitters.
4 Likes
@KittySitter I understand more where you are coming from and I think I need to clarify my comment a little!
Right now, for example, we are in a gorgeous Villa in the south of France with a cute doggy and a beautiful pool. Everything about this sit is 5* including the host. Our reviews of this sit will reflect all of this so it will, in that sense, ‘inform and protect’ future sitters. (They will have a great time!) But I do not see my review of hosts, in general, as a reward to them. I speak about our experience- positive and negative and readers can make of that what they will. Our thanks & appreciation to the host is offered privately via flowers and a card we leave for most, as well as happy pets and a clean Home. And for this sit, a Welcome Home meal we will share with our host when she returns.
We too study past reviews carefully, looking out for Red flags, before deciding to apply or not. We ourselves had to write a poor review last year for a sit with a lot of undisclosed building work etc. If I’d read that from a previous sitter I would not have applied. Sometimes its hard to be really honest about negatives if there were also positives but its good to make the effort to transport a realistic experience of a sit.
As a sitter I do expect a review and preferably a 5* super duper one! It feels like a small thing to expect after giving so much love and care into making a great sit. We always give 100%. Its also an opportunity for the host to publicly acknowledge that effort. Reviews are the currency of THS. Both sides expect one and both parties hope for a fair and honest review of their part in the exchange.
5 Likes
But… We’re not working!
But you are. It doesn’t matter that you are not getting paid, it is still considered work (in most countries) because you are doing it in exchange for accommodation which is a form of payment. You are taking a job that a local person would be paid to do.
Which is why I only ever travel to visit friends.
1 Like
So well said @Lokstar. I totally agree.
2 Likes