I follow your line of reasoning, but that has not been my experience. The rest of the house may be spotless but the tub/shower is moldy and they haven’t cleared the hair in the shower drain… 
It seems some are paranoid that we’ll figure out where they live based on the city name and photos. PLEASE give us a major intersection nearby!
I wouldn’t be surprise if this has been requested before, but I’m not finding anything in search…
I was just trying to save a search for a period when I know I’ll be in Europe, but I want to specifically save non-Schengen locations (not all of Europe), as I’ll be at my limit for Schengen days.
I would love if I could multi-select Romania & Serbia & Bulgaria & Cyprus & Turkey & Egypt etc in the location field and save it as a single search that I’ll get alerted by. The only other two options are to either save a search covering the whole region (and get alerted by every Schengen opportunity, which is irrelevant to me) or save separate searches for each country (which gets the job done… just a bit tedious/annoying)
We’re the same as we’d love to be able to save non Schengen with a Turkish passport. Romania & Bulgaria are now in Schengen too since the start of 2025. We’d also like Cyprus as two distinctive country saves for north and south as they have different entry rules. There are some great Serbian house sits, we have just been to Belgrade, great destination!. #needslookingat
I would love it if I could save my search parameters particularly the accessible by public transport.
Having to enter this to every country or city search is frustrating.
Somehow include both people when couples sit. Background d for BOTH should be performed if they are a regular part of the sitter team!
Better use of the calendar. Sitters should be able to update it on their availability or lack of, not just blocked off for other sits. Otherwise, it makes it worthless to try to “find a sitter” since many might not be available even if their calendar shows they are.
An application for a GOLD, Silver, Bronze STAR rating from a THS panel. For both sitters and homeowners there should be a minimum number of sits/reviews of at least 10 or more. And the evaluation should consider the reviews as well as the star ratings. (One less than great review might not affect the Gold rating as it “could” be an inappropriate comment, or there could be a way to petition like 25 great ones and 1 issue/ or after a c certain number of great reviews the less than great would not be considered…)
I would like to see an option in the US for sits based on area, such as West coast sits, east coast, Midwest sits. That way if I’m sitting on the west coast in Washington state and I want to find sits in that area instead of searching each individual states. If I’m in Washington I could see sits in California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon. It would bring up all the states that are considered West Coast. When I sit in a state I try to stay in that area of the country .
My reply is overall, not just to your post, but I don’t want to scroll ALL the way back up to the top to reply to the main topic.
I would love it if we could exclude things we’ll never be interested in. I have never, ever sat for a dog, nor will I ever. I know nothing about dogs. I will always, always be interested in cat sits. It drives me insane when THS has those popups: “Sits we think you’ll like” - and they’re all DOGS. In today’s high-tech world, that demonstrates pure laziness in terms of coding and basic analytics. What possible data point could have made THS think I’d want to sit a dog?
And ditto to everyone else for Schengen / non Schengen or at least multi-country / multi-state searches. Technically that would be an easy thing to do. My suspicion is they don’t do it because there are so few non-UK sits that having a search for that would make it obvious.
I’m not sure how I feel about this idea. My hope is that sitters and homeowners are on a level playing field — after all, this isn’t the Olympics. The purpose of the platform is to connect a diversity of sitters with a diversity of pets and places. As long as everyone is safe and happy, I’m not sure what’s gained by ranking members and creating hierarchies, especially when so much of it would be subjective.
For example, I strongly prefer not to do sits where the host asks me to arrive the night before and stay in their home with them — while other sitters feel that’s essential. Both perspectives are valid. Which one would be “Bronze”? Which would be “Gold”?
It’s also worth remembering that star ratings don’t measure a person’s worth as a human being — they’re about whether a particular sit is a good fit. A home where no meat is allowed might be a dream sit for one person and a dealbreaker for another. How would a strictly vegan sit rank in the “Sitter Olympics”?
I think it’s helpful to ask:
-
What problem would a Gold/Silver/Bronze system actually solve?
-
What problems might it create?
I may be missing some benefits, but I do worry that introducing rankings could shift our culture away from mutual support and toward competition or posturing. For me, the sits themselves — the pets, the places, the experiences — are the reward.
Great points! I knew it wasn’t workable, but I like Airbnb’s SUPER HOSTS or sites “well loved by travelers”. You make good point in that we prefer non-resorty resorts which others may find boring, and detest pool-view units, where some love them. BUT… I think the current 5star rating is meaningless. Just about every sitter is a 5 star and I’ve heard stories from several fantastic sitters about highly ranked homeowners that were pure horrors, and yet these sitters were also insecure about writing their real experiences. How can that be helpful?
Thinking further, THS asks on only 5 evaluators that may or may not really be important to me- like organized and reliable and the reviews generally receive 4or5 stars, but don’t tell the story of the sit. Maybe they should change the evaluation to a sliding bar with word descriptions like unacceptable, satisfactory, good, very good, superior so we can select any of the words or even between satisfactory and good. I also suggest a much more lengthy list of “evaluators” that are important to sitters or homeowners (with N/A possible on each), and even provide “CLICK to add another” so we could review things that might be particular to this sit. These “scores” would NOT be averaged or complied in any way! So someone contemplating this sitter or home would hopefully be able to look for the evals on the things most important to them, ignoring stuff they don’t care about.
THEN, the reviewer would be asked to provide an overall score ( from 1-10) of the sit. As a former math teacher, I would demonstrate how averaging blurs meaningful data. So more helpful than an average score, THS could show a bar graph or list with the percentage of overall score at each standard like below. (Think Amazon reviews chart) From my example, I can easily see this appears to be a really good sitter who had a bad experience with one sit…and I can read the reviews for it to make sure that one thing they screwed up on isn’t critical to me.)
RANK Percent of Responders Actual Number of replies
10 50% 16
9 25% 8
8 22% 7
7 0%
6 0%
5 0%
4 0%
3 3% 1
Total number of Reviews received: 32
I love your math teacher brain!
As a frequent user of THS, I sometimes forget that many members use this site only once or twice per year. For them, it’s just a fun way to have a more “localish” vacation or a way to take care of cats when they love cats but a family member is allergic, or - all kinds of reasons. It is a hobby, not a profession.
Those of us active on the Forum tend to view the whole thing more as a lifestyle, and as a result we sometimes take ourselves way too seriously! (Guilty as charged, here) The platform is a mutual exchange, not a business. If people are incredibly risk-averse and want professional-level sitters, they can hire professionals; let the money do the talking. Top-tier sitters with top-tier service can get top-tier pay. Top-tier homeowners can get top dollar renting out AirBnBs. That’s not what THS is.
We’re engaging with what are, essentially, strangers, and it’s reasonable to be a little looser in criteria and evaluations. If the perfect location or top-drawer amenities are essential to me, I’ll book a hotel. I use THS for “good enough” locations and assume I’ll have to be flexible in my usual standards, amenity-wise.
I view THS sits a little like visiting my cousin’s houses. I don’t love all of their living arrangements - what is up with that scratchy toilet paper, Bob?!?! - and frankly some of my cousins get on my nerves. But I still appreciate their humanity, and their quirks, and I realize it makes me a better human to stretch my comfort zone a little and maintain ties and connections with people who don’t 100% see eye-to-eye with me all of the time. Yet I love them, and I think they love me. The world can use a lot more love.
As long as the reviews keep me safe and informed, that’s really all I need. I don’t need to be a “Platinum” sitter, nor do I need to find a “Diamond and Gold Encrusted” homeowner I’d rather have the one that’s made of dented aluminum, but who adores their pets and wants me to adore them too.
I would like to see the same star ratings in the listing thumbnails for hosts that we see for sitters
@SteveS - Greece is always popular because there are fewer listing opportunities, resulting in less competition for the home hosts.
You bring up a good point. THS is, at root, a matchmaker. That’s it. Just like when a romantic matchmaker sets up a date between two parties, those two parties still have to decide whether it works for them - and the opinions of others don’t matter at all.
While I do check the reviews for all the sits I apply for, what I generally trust is my gut. Where I find reviews most helpful is when they highlight red flags - the host that didn’t reimburse a sitter, or left a dirty bathroom, or didn’t trim the cat’s nails before departure (please, hosts, remember that adorable little fluffy is more likely to scratch a stranger no matter how sweet she is with you) There was one sit I was about to apply for when I read a review that said, “There was a security incident” - without any more details. I didn’t know what that meant and I wasn’t going to find out.
I would 100% apply for your sit, review-free, if you didn’t have dogs! I love dogs but have no experience with them. But I sure would love to meet your bunnies!
Not really, not that much. In fact, not at all, at least not to me. What matters to me is the vibe I get from the application and from the chat. I’ve sat for quite a few new hosts without any reviews lately, and all of the sits were a success. Truth be told I even enjoyed being the first sitter “guiding” hosts how to be a host.
Same here.
If I am drawn to a Sit and the host is new, with no previous sitter reviews, I will pay extra close attention to the listing. Is the listing detailed enough and the tone friendly? Are there pictures of all relevant parts of the house & garden? Does the home look clean, tidy and welcoming? With a decent size, nicely made bed? (Messy beds, cluttered and/or dirty rooms & raised up toilet seats are a turn of to most.) Are the responsibilities reasonable and manageable? If Yes to everything I would apply. The video call would then seal (or break!) The Deal! We’ve sat for lots of first timers and most have been lovely sits. Everybody needs someone (sitter or host) to give them their first break!
Lazy hosts who don’t make an effort to present themselves well in their listing will soon learn they’ll have to up their game If they want to attract quality sitters! 
This post has gotten EXTREMELY long, @Jenny, so forgive me if this information is already in here and I missed it. One thing I would value is a post / blog / explanation from the THS developers on how they prioritize feature requests. I worked in product development for a long time and understand the tradeoffs involved. For example, sometimes users will request features that on the surface seem reasonable but that which violate an obscure regulation in a particular country where the company does business - that feature will never happen.
Transparency into how things are prioritized and why would be helpful to this community. For example, the request to have a multi-country and/or Schengen search has been around for an eternity and it seems pretty clear that request will never be granted. If we could better understand why, that might put the matter to rest. Every time I do a search and can’t select “Schengen”, the thought crosses my mind: “Maybe I should find another platform”. If I understood why the Schengen search seems to be - impossible - it would increase the chances that I’ll remain a member.
Understanding general guidelines could also be helpful. For example, I often see requests for features that are, at root, vengeful and unfair. Like requests for sitters to be able to contact each other behind the homeowner’s backs. If we know that guiding principles for development include privacy, fairness, and transparency - with examples of each - then we on the Forum can focus our energies on brainstorming and requesting features that might actually make the cut.
Now, with the launch of the “duo sitter” feature, might be a good time to address that. What criteria were used to prioritize duo sitters over Schengen searches?
Nearly 700 posts on here 
Is anyone from TH wading through for suggestions?
How about adding a category for “plants” as well as the types of pets on sit listings. Suggested by the above poster on another thread.
No .
Member services don’t read the forum