Also, the person who just cancelled on still shows on the first page of results, so either you are not credible or the rest of the Rover sitter population is just that much worse, which is actually quite possible based on my experiences.

How does opening reviews to clients who were cancelled on be difficult to manage and unfair to sitters?? All it does is increase transparency. Who is this more unfair to, the sitter who cancelled or the client who was cancelled on? Sure, reasons can be valid, so? It still indicates a track record.

Sitter cancellations is one of the most important pieces of information when selecting a provider, yet this is withheld. There is absolutely no reason this isn't indicated, other than Rover doesn't want people to turn away from their service.

Just happened to me. I've quickly found out that people here are extremely unreliable and fake. I doubt most of them even provide the actual care and compassion that they advertise.

I agree. This is my first time using Rover and my experience so far has been worse than negative. I spent nearly 10 hours already searching and speaking with people already and my impression is that they are just extremely unreliable and treat you as a transaction. I think 90% of "available" sitters actually weren't, and the ones that were always agreed to something that they didn't end up committing to. I felt this way before I finally found someone, who, after speaking with her over a call, booking with her, and feeling relieved to have finally ended this process, cancelled a couple days later. She used a blanket reason and didn't sound sorry at all.

The truth is, Rover could easily add some feature to their site that allows users to review the sitter or indicate cancellations, but they don't because they don't want to lose any potential business and turn customers away. Just think about how unreliable their providers must be that they feel they need to hide this information. You are correct that this is a common sense element of any business but I've realized Rover is no better than other online provider sites that care about their profits and not about best practices and the very users that put money in their pockets. They want to encourage people to book and in the event a sitter initiated booking takes place, they just pass that inconvenience on to the clients. Rover could care less about them.

This also encourage sitters to cancel appointments that are not in their best interest. If they find a better offer, more dogs, or simply would rather go on vacation because they were unable to maximize their earnings, they will just book now, cancel later. Rover claims sitter initiated cancellations impacts their placement in search results, yet the person who just cancelled on me still appears on first page of results. Yikes.