Back to top

Warmshowers, 90% ghosts ?

31 posts / 0 new
Last post
WS Member WS Member's picture
Warmshowers, 90% ghosts ?


Once again, I arrived in a big town, and I sent a few mails to find a host.
And once again I got only one answer, "sorry I am not at home".

I travel a lot, but I don't use a lot warmshowers. For me it is a way to meet people, and I am a bit wild, I mostly prefer to be alone in the wide. For me it is not a way to save money, as I generally offer a dinner when I am hosted.

I get the luck to leave in a turistic town, and so when I am at home, I can receive a lot of guests, which I find always good time.

But infortunatly, it seems most of the members of Warmshowers don't like to receive guests.
At the start, I was choosing a host, by looking some affinities, some links. I got such a few answers, that I decide to send requests to a lot of members. Well I barely get an answer time to time, and generally curiosly the answer is "sorry I just move today".

In the end I don't consider anymore Warmshowers as a real oportunity to meet people, and less to be hosted. Well I continue to try time to time, and yes I get a few good meetings. And I would continue to receive guests, because I like it.

In the end, my purpose is more to indicate a bug in the managing of members, but infortunatly I don't see a way to resolve it. May be one of you would be wiser ?

Regards Pierre

WS Member WS Member's picture
Guest + Host = Ghost

There are more difficult to implement solutions like filtered host searches that are more of a long term project but there is something simple that could be done in the short term that has no down side that I am aware of:

A second remedy that could be accomplished in the short term would be to sort list searches by last login, length of time as member or even just random sorting - any of these would be preferable to sorting by distance from an arbitrary city centre, which only results in a tendency to push the very members who signed up with no intention of hosting (see above) to the top of searches.

Responsiveness to hosting requests:
2014 78.3%
2015 69.1%
2016 56.5%

77,577 Warmshowers members, 48,224 of them hosting right now.
Sure, it may look nice but it is ultimately dishonest and counterproductive.

I'll try asking again which of the two following scenarios does WS currently consider preferable:

A) New members are signed up as unavailable to host by default.
B) New members are signed up as available to host by default.

How many more tens of thousands of members erroneously marked as available to host do we need to absorb before this is taken seriously?

WS Member WS Member's picture
Warmshowers, 90% ghosts ?

thank's for the answer.
The problem doesn't concern only new members.
Members who are members since years no give any answer, or stopped giving answers since a long while.

I suppose a part are disapointed, an other found the idea nice but then doesn't really want to act, a part suscribed long time ago and aren't travellers anymore, a part forget to tell they are presently travelling, a part are too busy to answer, and a part is using Warmshowers only as guests.

Some years ago, each year each member received a mail, and if he didn't answer he wasn't anymore a member.

other filter may be to check the requests without answer : under 50% for exemple the member may receive the mail above.
other one may be to check the last activitie of each member. after one year of inactivity, the member would receive the mail above.
That's already the 2 filters I use to choose a host, and now a guest also. I make an exception for the members who live in the middle of nowhere, as they have poor oportunities to be host.

May be the first step would be to change all members unaivalable automatically each year, and each member has to change it if he would like to receive guests. Also he would have to indicate in his profile why he is presently anavailable if he plan to be a guest.

Regards Pierre

WS Member WS Member's picture
I'm not talking about only

I'm not talking about only new members, signing up members as available to host by default has always been the policy on WS. We know from other hospex sites that sign up members as unavailable that the vast majority (70-80%) are not hosting at any time and that a majority of members have never hosted. So from the surge of new members in 2013 to present we have seen roughly 60,000 new members sign up - how many of them had no intention of hosting? And how many didn't change their availability status? The answer to the first question would be around 40,000 and the answer to the second question we can only guess but I'm pretty sure it would be in the tens of thousands. We have 48,000 members 'available to host' now - so we are talking about a significant proportion of that number being members not interested in hosting.

The yearly purge still happens as far as I know but you are only sent a email if you haven't signed in for a year or more on that date. Those other methods of purging or changing to unavailable members who haven't signed in/have a response rate below x% etc have all been discussed here. I'm not particularly opposed to them but they are ultimately band aids (consider someone who signed in the day after the purge in 2016 - if they never sign in again it will take two years to remove them from the system) when we are erroneously marking thousands and thousands of new members as hosts every year. It would ultimately be more productive to cut it off at the source.

Even your last proposal has its merits considering the numbers of fake hosts we have absorbed in the last few years - perhaps as a one-off staggered quarterly over a year, but I think we are descending into the realm of fantasy with this.

WS Member WS Member's picture

We hear everyone loud and clear. As a Board member, host, and cyclist, I agree that there is a problem with Ghost Hosts.

I also act as Registrar and review all new members on a daily basis. Today we have 84. Yesterday we had 95. I would say that about less than 30% of all new members mark themselves as available. I have even sent welcome messages to those talking about hosting and what they offer, but are marked unavailable until 2050. Often, I do not get a reply. So, no one understands this problem more than I do.

I have designed a new template for membership/profile. It requires more than 15 words ("I like to bike. I like coffee and I have no allergies and no pets"). It will take longer to complete, but hopefully the extra thought may weed out some non-motivated members. It will also have separate narrative fields for "hosting" "touring experience/plans" and "other". This still needs to be approved by the Board and then we have to get the technology piece in place. We are all volunteers, so this is not going to happen over night. Lily Tomlin/Ernestine once said, "The phone company is an intricate matrix of billions and billions of circuits, and every one of them is guarantied to break down". Unfortunately, we do not have the resources of the phone company, so fixing our bugs does take time. Please be patient, and in the meantime, get outside and enjoy your ride :-)

WS Member WS Member's picture
Except that new members don't

Except that new members don't have to mark anything to be available, they have to intervene to mark themselves as unavailable:

And this is not a bug, it is a feature that goes against all common sense.

Why are we rewarding those who do the bare minimum necessary to register with hosting status and top billing on list searches?

WS Member WS Member's picture
Warmshowers, 90% ghosts ?

well I didn't want to make any fight or less to complain against the managing of WS with that post, but just tell to all readers of the forum "here there is something wrong, and please these who would not host should indicate it".
Also as I am mostly on the road, I didn't notice the problem is so big, and that WS is becoming a monster, a fantasy, out of the capacities of a volunteer managing, too big to keep his soul.

Regards Pierre

WS Member WS Member's picture
ghost and stars

please excuse my english. it isnt good. how would it be when we have categories of hosts? if you have 1-5 guests ever, 5-10, 11 or more times a guest. then can see how engaged is a member or is he generally engaged for warmshowers. I think many people want to save their many and don't want to give anything. they give no answer, they offer nothing in their profile - no bed, no shower, no food ... at all points you read no - it doesn't make sense as a host.
I don't understand what they want at warmshowers. I think they want to be a guest but not a host. perhaps my thoughts are not diplomatic.

WS Member WS Member's picture
Warmshowers, 90% ghosts ?


The problem is not so simple. Some members lives where no cyclist goes, and by that way they never have a guest. But they are very good hosts in fact, I can tell nice experiences I had, in Australia.
In fact as the volunteers who manage WS explained me, the real fact is that suddenly the number of members increased like foolish. 30.000 new members by year, about.

I meditate the news, and I propose that anyone who would like to be member of WS should pay each year a suscription, 20$ by year. It is not a lot, but I hope enough to stop these ghost suscribers.

Anyway, my opinion is that if we don't do it now, WS would quickly become managed by a private company, who would pay his office by advertising, selling the datas of the members, and eventually ask for a fee for each lodging. That's happened to Couch Surfing, or Blablacar. because it would be too difficult and too expensive for volunteers to manage 100.000 members.

It seems to me there were already a talk about that a few months ago, but I was on the road.

Regards Pierre

WS Member WS Member's picture
That seems to be the standard

That seems to be the standard boilerplate response for any problem on WS nowadays (there are even some cases where it is true). In this case it does not resist the most cursory analysis - Couchsurfing functioned fine with 3, 4, 5+ million members before that harvest of user data and its B corp status made a deal with venture capital irresistible and thus it was stolen from its members. So it's clearly not member numbers alone that are making it so hard to find genuine hosts (and the rather glib response you received seems to suggest that we still don't have anyone on the board who considers it a matter of sufficient importance to familiarise themselves with the history and functioning of other hospex sites despite repeated assurances to the contrary).

Fritz was closer to the mark pointing out that most new members sign up looking to be hosted, but again this is a phenomenon common to all hospex sites so it can not alone explain the problem. If you however have a huge influx of members signing up mostly to be guests AND require them to intervene to NOT be signed up as hosts AND require them to intervene to NOT be listed at zero kilometres from the centre of the town they live in AND sort list searches by distance from city centre then you are going to have a major problem finding hosts in populated areas.

This problem has been known about and discussed on the forums since 2013 and yet we still have nothing to show for it. Of course nobody expects WS to have come up with the kind of search algorithm that Couchsurfing has (or had), but nothing? The most promising development I have seen to combat this problem came from a young member working independently who saw the problem and took it upon himself to study the API and attempt to make the map search more useful. WS has been asleep at the wheel for years on this issue and unfortunately I have seen nothing in the recent discussions that would give me cause to think anything has changed.

If WS wanted to simply stem the flow of members they could just revert to the system that was in place when I signed up that required each new member to personally contact the registrar and tell them something about themselves. Of course this would take up enormous amounts of time and make signing up more laborious for everyone and to what end? The problem is we have tens of thousands of members erroneously marked as hosts and we are apparently content to take on many thousands more. Let's stop marking them as hosts and let's stop pushing their profiles to the top of list searches by sorting by something more useful than distance from an arbitrary city centre. These are simple measures that could be put in place (and have an impact) tomorrow and at least provide some improvement while the more difficult tasks of custom filters and sorting are undertaken.

I'll keep asking 'til I get an answer; why are we rewarding those who do the bare minimum necessary to register with hosting status and top billing on list searches?

WS Member WS Member's picture

Very interesting post. We have this problem all the time. It's very frustrating.

WS Member WS Member's picture
what we have learned for us


From this discussion and our experiences i have learned something:

When we start a request for hosting:
1. At first I look by a request how is his responsiveness.
2. Has he/she ever any guests and how the feedback are.

When we became a request for hosting:
1. If somebody ask us, if we will host theme, I will look if there themselve ever had guests.
2a If he have no guests and he/she ist a relatively new members there get a chance-
2b. if she/he is for many years a member and have no guests in this time, but was for many times a guest, then I will probably reject the inquiry. I think I will explain my reaction and then I look for the answer. Perhaps when we get a discussion and can learn of this.
2c. Perhaps he are living in the wilderness, then it must think about it. But when their are in a city, normally he normaly must have requests in a long time.

When it is usefull, I´m agree with fee for every year.
Perhaps only a fee, when you have no guests.

I think, we must have some "must rules" like this:
When somebody has no offer in his profile, then he/she can´t be a member. I think, then he/she has no will, he/she don´t want to host somebody. Then he/she is wrong her.

I`m curios how other members think about my opion or ideas.

Regards Fritz

WS Member WS Member's picture
I have given this some

I have given this some thought from time to time.
If you check my profile you'll see I only hosted so far, not been able to go on longer than one week trips myself so far, but I think a lot of the people who sign up are "seasonal" users, they sign up, hope to get shelter once or twice and maybe host once, then they'll probably be done with touring in general, not sure if they just sort of forget about this site and ignores it or not, but that's how it was for us with Couchsurfing (until I finally just got arsed to remove myself).

Personally we just love the company at our place from time to time, and we do our utmost to keep both the reply rate and page up to date.

I don't know if there is a "easy solution" coming from a corporate world, I would go out with a notice for inactive users and set the profile to a inactive state after X days/weeks with user action required to make it active again, or something along that line.

WS Member WS Member's picture
same argument in another forum

Dear All,

I've seen same argument in another discussion at:
so I copy also here my answer from there:

"in some cases I didn't answer for a simple reason: in my profile I've explained clearly that it's necessary to advise us min 4 days before and we prefer at week end, for a simple reason that I travel a lot for job reasons.
In only one case I haven't answered (last month) but for a very hard situation for a bereavement in family and I apologized with the cyclist as soon I've seen the message.
So it's really important to send an answer to the requestor, able or not-able to host, but it's even really very important to follow the information by the warmoshowers in his profile.
The profile is the point where it's possible to take all the information, as example from Sept 2014 to July 2015 I've had at my house one girl from Thailand with AFS, and I've immediately blocked my availability but, despite that some cyclists ask me to go here and they were offended by this!"

My first suggestion is to invite the warmshowers to read better and before the information on the site profile before to ask hospitality.

What we can do on the web site? for me it's not a solution to put a kind of "mark" on the map or other; my second suggestion is to send to all the members a standard messagge to invite them to decide if stay in activity and continue to stay into the map available for the warmshowers or cancel their profile or remain like a sympathizer/friend of this organization.

Enjoy your week end,

WS Member WS Member's picture

hi guys,
as you may see, I do host, even though I don't get many requests here and I visit other members on my trips, whenever possible.
las year in England I got no responses or "sorry,can't host you "ones for almost the whole trip but once.

ahh you may say, just what all the others report...
yes, true, but I didn't get angry, it is just human to forget about checking emails, changing mail addresses, forgetting of being a member and so on.. For me, I have been a passive member for the first two years here,.. why? I am a woman on her own, I liked the idea of WS but wasn't sure of inviting foreigners, mostly man into my home, staying at other peoples places I didn't know...
It took me a while to trust In the good thing in humans and I started to be an active member and now I love it, it just took some time �
I really appreciate your efforts to reduce the ghosts, but I think to a certain amount, we will just have to live with them

leaving no feedback is a bad thing for new members

WS Member WS Member's picture
too many Members ( Thumbs Up to the Posts above !)

There are just too many members , especially for a volunteer organisation. ( That is clear even from the un-moderated nature of many Threads here). The WS has pursued a growth strategy, and hasn't been able to manage the results.

The Registration process needs several modifications, but there is no energy left in the volunteer labour force ( apparently) to accomplish it.

BTW : I thought we *did* have a paid ( ie professional) staff , but I haven't heard much about it lately ....

WS Member at_nyc's picture
As others mentioned, there're

As others mentioned, there're legitimate reason for not responding. Namely, people who live in popular locations getting too many requests. And, there're other offending behaviors from the guests too.

I, for example, get quite a few request from people who're not even coming by bike! "Oh I'm a cyclist but I'm taking the Greyhound on this trip". Should I waste my time to respond???

I don't know who develop the site software. But we shouldn't need to do this black and white solution of defaulting a new member as available or unavailable for hosting. How about making them available, but if they don't respond for 3 consecutive request, make them unavailable? And sent them an e-mail that they're no longer 'available''?

That way, if a host is truly unresponsive, they become unavailable so they don't clutter up the available host list. But if they're simply getting bombarded by request they don't have time to respond, they can still logon and change their status back to "available" every so often.

Ultimately, we need to get back to guest only need to sent out limited number of request, rather than a vicious cycling of bombarding hosts with gazzilion requests, which lead to many hsots not responding...

Making the host list more meaningful would be a good start.

Unregistered anon_user's picture
Well just to respond: my

Well just to respond: my account is set to to not accepting guests. I've been a member since about 2012 with only the intention of hosting as I find it too much against my idea of touring to be a guest. ( I don't like having to be somewhere at a certain time). My problem, and the reason I'm not accepting any guests for the time being is that I have a cat who is sick (and peeing all over the house) and the fact that I have chemotherapy and a very low immune system, at this point. It is hard work just to get out of my chair, on most days. But I sure do miss you crazy bikers! Soon, I hope.

Unregistered anon_user's picture
Very sorry to read this. I

Very sorry to read this. I wish you all the best. I really hope the therapy will be successful, as it is in many cases, and I wish you a prosperous 2017.

WS Member WS Member's picture
Warmshowers, 90% ghosts ?

Since beginning to "seriously" host WS guests, I've been able to host 2 couples (one couple had 2 small children) and 2 men. All good experiences. But I've had No positive responses requests as a guest myself for a upcoming trip to London.....

WS Member WS Member's picture
Room for improvements but we'll never be able to address totally

Hi to all,

I've read the discussions with interest (as there have been similar discussions in the past). There is certainly room for improvement from software perspective (website and app options and triggers), but I agree with Paul that we'll never be able to address this 'problem' totally as ultimately it comes back to whether the potential host will respond to the request or not...

My statement is that -if you are marked as available- you should always respond to each request, even if you get multiple requests per week or even per day, which does happen in popular areas or if you are the only host in a certain area with a lot of cyclists passing by. I know that some of those who are in such situation wouldn't agree, but a "Sorry, I'm unable to host" reply (whatever the reason may be for that) is not too much asked if you choose to mark yourself available...

I've been looking at the problem and the suggestions that were done by those who took the time to reply and -as product manager in the software industry- I certainly believe some improvements would help both the hosts who are willing to host, but just get too many requests and the problem for the searching guests that Pierre addresses...

- Clearly we're talking about 'marked as available' guests only.

- Users who have been inactive for a year or more are cleaned up yearly, at least that is the intention I believe. It would be even better to do this twice a year.
- Additional filter options while searching will certainly help guests to increase the chance for a successful request, but -even without adding them as filter options- as Fritz (Hi Fritz! (I stayed with him)) mentioned as well 'responsiveness', profile information, feedback given and the 'last active' state are in general one of the first things you check when searching for a host. And as Pierre said: this will be somewhat different in more remote areas.

Ken (who lives in a pretty popular area himself; nice shirt by the way!)
- Triggers to set up a decent profile definitely help; it helps the hosts to judge and with that it helps the guest. You effort for the network as such including the review of the new profiles is highly appreciated, but it does not help to address the unresponsiveness of the hosts that this topic is about.
- In terms of Unavailable or Available as default: Since we do not/can't and won't block new uses who intend to only benefit from and not give back to the network I think Unavailable as default is fine. Those who sign up to be only host are rare I guess. I can only judge though if I would go through the current registration process to see and understand in which order and in what way we require information from our new users.
- It would be good if we would ask for a reason when someone marks him/herself as unavailable which is then also visible on their profile...
- We could also send out reminders for providing feedback as booking sites do (potential problem is: you won't know whether a guest indeed stayed with a host, but linking this to an 'accept request yes/no' field upon accepting the request could help).

- If x days in advance would be a field in the profile instead of written information we could use that. If at the same time in the request selecting a date is a required field (and we could do something similar in the search results when zoomed in an area) we could use that information to prevent a request from being send (and similar while searching by not showing those available hosts).

- An option to mark a host as unavailable after x consecutive times no response is interesting. We could both relate that to the previous described feature or see whether the host indeed responded to the request or if we don't have this information by asking the user who sent the request with a simple yes/no whether the request was answered.

Other ways to help hosts, especially those who get many requests per week and have problems replying to all of them:
- It would improve if we do something in the area of fair distribution, for instance by reading the number of requests in popular areas and use this information to show available hosts in the results or not. This way we strive for better distribution.
- Another improvement would be a field in the profile something as 'max x requests per week'.
- Similarly the option to set yourself as 'only available to host in the weekend', more specific: being able to select the week days you are generally available or unavailable, combined again with picking a date while searching and/or upon sending request would help.
- To address host's needs who have problems with users not giving back to the network, we could consider an option 'only host users who have hosted themselves' (for instance driven by looking at feedback provided for host).
- From that perspective I'd also like to see a split in feedback for host, guest and other...

Regards, Martin

WS Member WS Member's picture
Martin, thanks for your

Martin, thanks for your thoughts.

With regards to distribution of requests, I think this could be greatly alleviated by how default list searches a presented. I have previously written about giving priority in list searches to a randomly ordered subset of hosts that fall within fairly generous default filters (last login <1 month, >50% response rate after 5 requests) before listing the rest of the hosts sorted by last login. This would give a good selection of hosts who we could loosely describe as active without always having the same members at the top of the list in populated areas. As it is, of the two searches that produce lists, one is ordered by the amount of time since signing up and the other by distance from the city centre (in this case not only are the same members appearing at the top and receiving the bulk of the requests they are often the least invested members as doing the bare minimum to get through the hoops of signing up will produce a profile marked as available to host and at zero km from the member's city centre).

There is talk of implementing a feature to automatically make hosts unavailable after their response rate falls below a given % see:

As for making the task for hosts in popular areas a bit easier we could consider response templates (you can save multiple generic messages then select them from a menu and they are automatically formatted with the name of the member requesting to be hosted etc).

I'm not sure about an option to only allow requests from those who have hosted themselves, I know there are a lot of hosts who already impose this policy on their own (and they are free to do so) but I wouldn't like to see it officially encouraged (see below).

As for feedback, this metadata still exists, its just been hidden from view since the last Drupal upgrade (you can click on view for each reference and see the date and see if it was given by a guest or host) see:

However the idea that being a guest is taking and necessitates some act of giving (hosting) as compensation is what has given us the folly of signing up new members as available to host by default which has had catastrophic consequences on the site. I thought WS was about helping bicycle tourers find hosts, if that is the case then the site is failing its members, it has never been more difficult to find hosts.

Perhaps its time to try another idea - let those who want to host host, let those who want to be hosted be guests, and let those who wish to do both do both. How about we trust that there will always be people who will host because they want to, because they enjoy it? This is how it has worked in every other hospex community I have been involved in. The hosts are out there, but we're never going to find them when they are hidden in a sea of fake hosts, products of an ill thought out sign up policy.

I'll keep asking because I have never had a response - why are we rewarding those who do the bare minimum necessary to register with hosting status and top billing on list searches?

WS Member WS Member's picture

As for the feedback: What I was trying to say is that we should split out the feedback across different tabs or something...

Marking new users as 'Available' only makes the problem that we have unresponsive hosts worse I believe...

The idea here was to bring the number of non-responsive hosts down. I believe there are for sure various options, but again: ultimately it is up to the individuals to just respond as expected even if there are multiple requests. Default answers could help, but in those cases do not make the difference I believe...

By introducing fair distribution in search results (sometimes not being shown) I believe we could prevent hosts to become 'overwhelmed' by the numerous requests which could lead to unresponsiveness. Showing high performers first in search results is kind of the opposite. It could work having better response, but it could also lead to them being 'burning out' and then we're back to the problem. Also it is not fair for those low on the lost who would love to host...

WS Member WS Member's picture
I agree entirely, the policy

I agree entirely, the policy of available to host by default for new members is counterproductive, that has been precisely my point here and on dozens of other threads over the last 5 or 6 years. My comment about templates was just in response to what you said about making it easier for hosts who get many requests, I don't think its a big deal but other sites have it, certainly I've seen a number of hosts complain here about dealing with what seem to me to be not huge amounts of requests. When I received around 1000 requests a year on CS I certainly had 2 or 3 default responses on a browser clipboard addon to make like easier.

As for you other point, I don't think I would call a sub-group defined by having a log in date with the last month and a response rate of over 50% high performers, they are fairly generous parameters, and the order is randomised. Many hosts in areas sufficiently populated for redistribution to be a viable solution would still fit inside those cut-offs (especially considering that the response % would only apply after 5 requests, this allows new members marked as available to go straight into the filtered group) - and for those that don't, they will still be listed afterwards (even they could be randomised too). This also provides a good incentive for hosts who wish to receive guests to log in once in a while and respond to as many requests as possible to stay within the prioritised group.

What I've found being in a densely populated area both here and on CS pre 2012 when a different search algorithm was in place is that the majority of requests tend to go to the first three or four hosts listed. Unfortunately on WS, as I mentioned in my previous post, the two list sorting mechanisms mean that the lists here are fairly static and those requests go the same three or four people on each of the two searches (except for when another member signs up without any effort or attention and goes straight to the top of the list to be the new target of streams of futile requests).

And of course, any host feeling overwhelmed by requests can simply set themselves to unavailable and remove themselves from host searches for however much time they need. I think that is a decision for each individual host to take not some algorithm behind the scenes.

WS Member WS Member's picture
hosting issues?

We have always had good experiences with guests. I have a couple of issues (non-issues really though!)
The WS web site shows message responsiveness is confusing as when an email pops into your inbox and you reply through your email, WS site doesn't show that you have responded, so your stats may be incorrect.
We live in a very popular tourist area. In the months from November to April we get heaps (and I mean up to 3 a day) requests. We turn down most as we are busy and working, it can be expensive as we like to offer a meal and bed, so food and laundry costs build up and frankly we can't be as social and chatty as much as we'd like to be if we host too many!
Therefore we have decided that one guest night every 2 weeks is enough - a rough rule of thumb.
We choose guests on their profile..including how long they have been members, whether they have given feedback and received feedback. Most of our guests this year have said 'oh yes I'm bad at giving feedback', but neither have any of their hosts given feedback. I am thinking of sending replies saying 'sorry we can't host you, why have you not got any feedback?'

WS Member WS Member's picture
that´s very good

What do you have written is exact as we think. Especially in the second paragraph. We ever give feedback and we demand our guest to do it too. I think it the minimum of courtesy to write a feedback, when a host has hosted you with bed and meal.

WS Member WS Member's picture
guests not read the rules by host - 2nd

Dear All,

sorry if I repeat the content of my last reply on this topic but, again, a guest contacted me the same day as he needs assistance in a working day and I was out of Italy. In my profile it's clear the rule: warn me at least 2/3 days before and only during week end due to business travels.

I'm available but the guests must read the rules of each host.

Have a nice Sunday,

WS Member WS Member's picture
As someone who made it a

As someone who made it a prerequisite for CS members to demonstrate to me beyond any doubt that they had actually read my profile, my experience (over a sample size of around 3500-4000 requests) is that the default position of hosts should be to assume that guests will do no such thing,

WS Member WS Member's picture
There just needs to be more

There just needs to be more data give about the feedback dates, time, last one, etc... all this information is there it's just not presented in a searchable way.

EG: Feedback.. I've got 43.. but I've been with warmshowers 8 years, but I could easily go dark and looks like a good prospect. What would be more usefully is how many feedback I've givens AND received in the past 12 months. People could then see easily and quick if' I'm been active this year.

Currently FEEDBACK RECEIVED / MONTH is what I look at to if a host is ACTIVE. There is 10 (maximum) on the front page of their profile... this give you a good idea how active they are... if they over 1 per month then it's worth contacting them, IMO. Ofcourse even 0.5 is useful if there is nothing better.

WS Member WS Member's picture
Hmm, so I'd be out of the

Hmm, so I'd be out of the game since I live in a less popular area. I only get 2-3 requests a year . I try to host as much as possible but I still have a work to go to and sometimes I have private plans besides cycling.
what makes me angry if people stay for three nights and don't give any feedback at all. But meeting everyone's needs and wishes would not be possible on this page either... finding a good compromise for a good thing that is still for free is what we need here.

WS Member WS Member's picture
sure... so you it at 3 times

sure... so you it at 3 times a year, you're still active in the past 12 months...

obviously if you're in an area with less often hosted location the number you select would reduce to meet requirements.

would be best based of feedback GIVEN and RECEIVED... ie recepricated that would let you know if some is likely to give you feedback and you can make a decisions to host them. this simple metric would almost force people to write feedback afterwards, for both hosts and guests.

out of the 45 people i've hosted, i've not received feed from only 2 people.

i DO talk to all of them about the importance of leaving feedback as a guest, to get more acceptances.
i DO follow up with them after about 3 weeks if i've not received any feedback, and request, when they have time to leave me some.

I guess I'm lucky.

Topic locked