I would never adjust the price. You expose yourself to a bad review if anything goes wrong, and Rover's protections don't apply because of it. There are some stories floating around about Rover not standing behind sitters who may have (inadvertantly) contributed to a problem like that.

Before accepting the request, I would require the dog owner to create profiles for each dog, and book each dog. If that was a deal-breaker for them (if they went with someone else) I would flag the conversation so Rover is aware of a problem brewing.

I've reported 2-3 conversations that concerned me like that. Rover seems very happy to have that "heads up" awareness.

(There are other threads where it's been discussed that Rover could put more emphasis on the owner's profile. It often seems like the weak link in the process, often many empty profiles, no info, etc.).

FYI: Doesn't any other reason than "not available" ding your metrics? I have archived that owner's plans have changed, or that an owner is not a good fit (for a very good reason) and my metrics seem to take a hit. The only time they don't is when I say "not available."

I agree with Elizabeth. I don't even do meet/greets unless the owner wants it. (Even then, it's just for them to meet me, the place their dog will stay. I don't do doggy intros at that time.).

I feel like face-to-face intros set the dog up for failure. It triggers more tension than my gradual intro when the dog is dropped off. The owner's presence (and especially holding the leash) can cause reactions. I think such meetings do more harm than good.

I do something similar to E. I put my dog (and any guests) in a crate when a new dog is dropped off. I walk the new dog around the backyard on-leash, then inside the house on leash. I'll put the new dog behind a kitchen gate, and bring mine out (on leash) to get some of the new dog's smells left around the house. A brief greeting at the gate. Then my dog goes out back to smell what the new dog left behind. The new dog comes to the house side of the kitchen gate. My dog comes to the kitchen side of the gate.

Everyone drags leashes during this period. I "rotate" across the gate every 20 minutes. It usually takes a 1-2 hours before I let them mingle. It depends on the energy. We'll sit at the gate and socialize a little. (One dog who didn't get along with dogs took 24 hours. But, it was well worth it. She got along very well after that training and her owner was very, very pleased to see that their dog could get along. I gave the owner instructions about how to establish more leadership, enforce expected boundaries toward other dogs. He says they've made great progress. In that dog's case, a meet-greet could have made it impossible to integrate her. It could have triggered a reaction that would have been harder to overcome.).

I think it's all about projecting that you're the leader, you sort things out, the dogs don't have that status. It can be nerve-wracking. But, it's all attitude. You can't let them sense that you're nervous. You have to project being "above it all" and simply enforce the boundaries. (Or, that's what works best for me. If I "hope" dogs get along, I think they sense a weakness and will have more struggle to assert something between themselves.).

Rover's logo (color) has changed slightly. It's become more blue like DogVacay's logo/theme:

OLD:

NEW:

This is an example of why I wasn't glad to hear about the merger. There are real improvements sitters have been asking for (for a very long time). I keep seeing minor changes which are often regressive. (Ex. the photo thumbnails were changed for no apparent reason a few months ago. The result was that the portrait-oriented thumbnails were generated too small -- then re-enlarged when displayed as tiles (which makes them extremely blurry). I have no idea why Rover would spend resources on something so pointless as well as regressive when there are meaningful things that could be done (like making the calendar a true calendar).

I think "color changes" (and similar drains on Rover's limited development resources) will set us back even further (as a priority). I didn't see the point of it when DogVacay seemed to be swirling the drain, not a formidable competitor. I think if Rover focused on on their partnership with the sitter (providing more of what sitters have been asking for), they could have just taken DV's business.

This color change is what I was expecting. Oh well. Hopefully I'm wrong and we'll see all kinds of great things happening sometime.

I wish Rover would poll sitters about pain points, opportunities for improvement, etc. I think that would reveal great information, and also signal that Rover is including sitter input (a partnership, not just a one-way responsibility upon the sitter -- which it often appears to be.).

Can you edit your question to add a link to the sitter's profile? Also, are you trying to book using a browser or the Rover app? (I've noticed a difference in the past.).

See: https://www.rover.com/community/quest...

A vet is the safest choice, if you're not sure.

Sounds like an allergic reaction. I boarded a dog who would have outbreaks when he walked through, laid upon bermuda grass. The owner gave me Benadryl (dyphenhydramine). He also had some Citirizine (both antihistamines). You can google about giving those to dogs and learn about the possible side-effects (or dangers, if any), and the dosage. (Obviously, the safest choice is to see a vet. But, being aware of the DIY treatments can help you talk to your vet about how different treatments compare.).

See a similar topic here: https://www.rover.com/community/quest...

It's normal (or, not rare). It often happens after a vet inserts a breathing tube, irritating the esophogus (or something). My dog did it after being spayed. It went away for a couple months. Comes back occasionally. It may be a permanent injury (from that surgical procedure; it was the county pound. They do things fast. Just the reality of the place.). Or, it could be an allergy, just like I have a dry cough some days, an irritated throat.

I would interpret that as BB being dominant. Dogs will be more dominant when they feel the human isn't a strong, assertive leader who sets the boundaries. To some extent it's good to let them sort things out. But, it's also good to be a strong, assertive leader -- showing them that you sort things out.

It's hard to say how to "fix" this. You could make it worse if you try to demote BB. It could get worse if you do nothing. It would require someone seeing how they are together, with you, how you are with them. It's probably more about you. And, a professional trainer would be the best solution. They could get a feel for things and make suggestions.

""" Will they keep both sites operating separately or will they merge them somehow? """ Hopefully dogvacay's URL will "redirect" to Rover. If Rover maintains two different websites, that will add to the work of sitters (maintaining two profiles).

Sounds like allergy.

It's my very strong belief that we overvaccinate dogs. If you google for Dr. Ron Schultz, he's a veterinary immunologist who has been saying this for decades. Basically, annual vaccines are a revenue source. Some vets are very defensive on this topic. Some will admit it. Some will say it's a "lessor of two evils" dilemma (dog owners won't bring dogs in for annual checkups without the "magical" booster requirement). I think that latter excuse has merit. But, it also involves a conflict of interest. The vet makes money on the "magic" stuff, and also when the dog owner returns after some years for allergy treatments (after the immune system is battered by unnecessary immunizations).

If it's your dog, try to find a naturopathic/holistic vet. Look for one who's really into it, lives/breathes it. Not just someone trying to tap into that market. I never believed in this stuff. But, I've seen two very serious skin problems completely resolved using natural practices (when traditional vets said my dog would be on lifetime allergy medicines, antibiotics, etc.). An alternative-practice vet will also be able to give you a different perspective on the industry practice of overvaccinating. They'll over titer testing (which is more normal in other countries). They'll recommend raw/fresh feeding. I supplement kibble with raw/fresh. (I did raw/fresh entirely for awhile 20 years ago. It's a lot of work. I think supplementing works almost as well, with much less effort.).

Good luck.

I usually don't take requests when profiles aren't filled in. I figure it is an indication of the dog owner's enthusiasm/passion for their dog's experience. I agree that it's common and understandable for new profiles. But, I often pass on new profiles too.

This is one of those things I wish Rover would focus more on (toward the dog owner, not the sitter). We get a lot of helpful "how to be a better sitter" communications. It would really be helpful if Rover communicated with owners about the value of completing their profile, maybe a "101" badge for dog owners. Sometimes it feels an awful lot like Craigslist on Rover. The sitters are held to a higher standard than that. But, the owners often seem to be held to Craigslist standards (or, at least the sitter's visibility into owner history, reviews they've left, sitters they've used, and, as mentioned: the "optional" nature of the profile's information -- with no suggestion to the owner that it could influence their acceptance by a sitter.).

I was disappointed to see the news. DogVacay has been circling the drain for some time. Their service wasn't that great. They implemented some things badly (they perform processing which degrades photos after uploading them).

I'm not real thrilled about DogVacay employees "contributing" to Rover.

Somewhat different topic, but perhaps more relevant now: I wish Rover would survey sitters to ask them what they believe Rover's priorities should be. I always get the impression Rover isn't listening. They implement changes to the website which seem trivial (and often are regressive, introducing bugs, degredations). They prioritize grooming sitters to strive for perfection, but seem to do zero to groom dog owners to be better participants (completed profiles, do's and dont's of dropoff/pickup). A "101" class (badge) for owners would be nice. That would certainly help me know how passionate a potential client is about the experience.

I think I've encountered owners who have unpublished photos from past sitters. The problem is sitters we have ZERO visibility into an owner's prior activities on Rover. Rover just keeps pushing more expectations (goodies, metrics, et al) on sitters. It does not feel equal.

As a sitter for almost a year, it seems like Rover is a one-way street. Sitters are measured on little things, given fluff email "helps" (about common-sense things, how to keep a dog secure). But, as far as I can tell, owners are not held to any standards at all.

We can't see how many sitters a dog owner has had (if they "hop"). We can't see their reviews (if they're hard to please). I receive many requests from owners who haven't completed their profiles. With so little valid info available to me, I "read between the lines" and decline owners if I don't get a good "vibe" from the profile. I have to make assumptions about the owner.

I get many owners who bring their dogs to my door without a leash. (That's potential trouble with my neighbors). One owner used me to change his dog's food. Some get excited and foment anxiety when they pickup their dogs (leading to separation anxiety they next time). You'd think these would be nice "fluff" topics for owners (considering all the similar emails sitters are given to help them be better).

It feels like everything revolves around the sitter being held to high standards. Rover makes changes to its website, usually for the worse (like the profile-thumbnails. The portrait thumbnails are blurry now after a seemingly pointless change Rover made to the "tiles." The portrait thumbnails are generated at a small size Rover never uses, then re-enlarged to the size Rover uses -- resulting in poor quality.). If that was a sitter, their "metrics" would go down. But, it's not, so it's a low priority for Rover.