A new system to hold guests accountable

[Sybe]

When you welcome guests to stay in your space, it’s essential that they respect your home, follow your house rules, communicate promptly if issues arise, and avoid creating a mess. So, we’re introducing ground rules for guests – a new set of enforceable standards that all guests must follow.

If a guest breaks ground rules, they get a warning the first time. If the issues persist, they'll be suspended and, if necessary, permanently removed from Airbnb.

You’ll still be able to write any additional house rules for guests to follow. And if a guest violates any of your house rules, we’ll support you if you need to cancel the reservation early. 

Read more about it on the Resource Center.

[Huma0]

@JoandJoe0 

I did not know that, but it doesn't surprise me. I could never find out exactly what Airbnb meant by 'recommended by other hosts', as the wording on this was extremely vague in any articles that mentioned it.

Some hosts, however, believed it mean that other hosts had selected 'would host again' for that guest, and that would explain why Airbnb has removed it from the review process, as that would make the question redundant.

On the other hand, other hosts believed that the question 'Would you host this guest again' bore no relation to whether or not they could book with future hosts, only whether or not they could IB with you. So what does that mean? Does it mean that we can no longer prevent a problematic guest from re-booking with us if we use IB, unless we block them (meaning we have to report them as 'being offensive').

[Emilie]

Hi @Michael1186  & @Huma0,

We've shared more details on Airbnb's update to instant book settings in this post, which I thought you might be interested in! If you have any more comments or questions on this after, you can let us know in the discussion:

https://community.withairbnb.com/t5/Airbnb-updates/Details-on-Airbnb-s-update-to-instant-book-settin...

Thanks!

Emilie

[Huma0]

@Emilie 

There is an awful lot here that is problematic, as I've already mentioned in other posts.

For starters, changing the IB booking settings without informing hosts in advance is shameful and unethical quite frankly. A lot of hosts only used IB because those settings were available. In fact, Airbnb have used those settings as a tool to convince hosts to do so. How can they just snatch it away without a word of warning? Why must it take hosts here on the CC to inform others? I wonder how many hosts are still out there blissfully unaware of this, like sitting ducks...

As for the verification process is worded in such a vague way as to be almost meaningless.

"Some Hosts only take bookings from guests with verified identity." However, it then goes on to say "This may include a confirmed government ID," and then specifies as an example "where there are restrictions on the building where the listing is located," and later that the host themselves needs to request ID from the guest in those circumstances. So, what does that mean? Does it mean that Airbnb only requires government ID when there restrictions in the building? Or does it mean they do not confirm government ID as part of this verification process at all? That's what it's sounding like to me.

Also, the next bit lists "what we may ask you for". What does that mean? In theory, Airbnb could ask for none of that and still claim the guest is verified.

First on the list is "Legal name, address and/or other personal information". There is no mention of asking for any proof of legal name or address, and what exactly does other personal information mean?

While a photo of government ID and possibly also a selfie alongside that are mentioned, again it's something that Airbnb 'may' ask guests for, and if the guest can't provide a selfie that matches the ID, guess what? They can provide some alternative form of verification instead. What would that alternative be, I wonder? Other personal information? A legal name/address without any documentation?

There is literally nothing stated in this article that reassures me that it's worth the paper it's written on, as it seems to be deliberately worded to be as clear as mud, nor that this 'multi-step identity verification process' has any meaning whatsoever.

The whole thing reads like a list of loopholes that gets Airbnb out of verifying anything, while at the same, the company is making a huge song and dance about how they are expanding the verification process in order to lure in new, unsuspecting hosts. 

[Huma0]

@Emilie 

And to add to that, the new 'good track record' filter specifies that guests will not be able to IB with the filter on if they broke policies/house rules recently.

What exactly does 'recently' mean? Seems to me yet another vague explanation, lacking essential detail, in order to provide a loophole for Airbnb to not protect hosts while they are claiming to do the opposite. 

[Pippi1]

I am not comfortable if guest IDs have not been verified and only found this out through reading this thread. I have deleted Instant Book for safety. I may lose bookings but it is unacceptable that unverified people can book instantly. Any thoughts?

[Allan336]

To me instant book is a dreadful idea .

Maybe of some benefit to guests?

Certainly not to hosts . Have never done it , pretty much booked all year round

[Emilie]

Hi @Pippi1,

Thanks for your comment! I just wanted to let you know that we've shared more details on this here: 

https://community.withairbnb.com/t5/Airbnb-updates/Details-on-Airbnb-s-update-to-instant-book-settin...

More specifically, the following info might be of interest to you: 

• In the top 35 countries/regions on Airbnb, the “government-ID required” option has been automatically replaced with the new multi-step identity verification process, and removed as an Instant Book setting. Learn more about Airbnb’s verification process here
• Hosts outside of the top 35 countries who previously selected the “government-ID required” option can now require Airbnb’s multi-step verification process. Learn more about Airbnb’s verification process here

I hope this helps!

Emilie

[Gillian166]

@Emilie  just a quick question, is a profile photo now a standard requirement for all guests? Just had a guest query that with me, she couldn't book until she had a photo. 

I seem to remember I have ticked ✓require photo (and it's a bit concerning that she is questioning this, given I've since googled her and she runs a biz, with fb and insta and pics everywhere), but is the photo now a standard requirement of all guest profiles? 

[JoandJoe0]

You mean the process that doesn't require a government ID, but only "may" require it?

[Huma0]

@Pippi1 

I suspect that Airbnb will argue that it is now requiring ALL guests to be verified before booking, so there's no need to have it as a IB filter.

However, what they mean by 'verified' is rather vague and it does not necessarily mean government ID will be verified. If you read the article on that, you will see that the wording is deliberately vague and mentions "we may" ask for this or that, not "we require". 

Also, it says that usually official name and address are sufficient for verification, which I find worrying, especially as it does not mention anything about guests having to provide PROOF of that name/address.

I turned off IB earlier this year but, if I hadn't, I would certainly be turning it off now due to these changes. I would also recommend that all hosts, whether they use IB or not, take Airbnb's verification process with a big pinch of salt. I am not sure it's worth the paper it's written on. Do due diligence and screen/vet guests yourself, to the best of your ability. I know that is not much as the system doesn't give us a lot of detail to go on...

[Pippi1]

Yes my IB is off as of 5 minutes ago. Too risky. I recently had a situation where the supposedly verified guest has absolutely no internet presence and I believe may have been using a different name. It appeared that their travelling companion was a recently  convicted criminal. After much pleading, Air BnB assisted but there appeared to be zero verification of the guest's companion, and doubtful verification of the guest. This was before these latest updates.

[Gillian166]

---

@Sybe wrote:

If a guest breaks ground rules, they get a warning the first time. If the issues persist, they'll be suspended and, if necessary, permanently removed from Airbnb.

---

@Sybe  I'm a bit confused by this. 
Just curious how we will report them for breaking ground rules?
Is this part of the review process?
Will they get a warning purely as a result of getting 1-3 stars in the review?
Or do we report them during the stay? and what will that entail? 

[Pippi1]

I don't think the new review process is working well. I have had 3 guests recently who have left lots of rubbish (taking the rubbish out is a house rule), left the place dirty or refused to leave on time. Only in the one that I said I would not host again has the overall review been marked down from 5 to 4.5. With the other 2  I left negative points and comments. Air BnB has given them a 5 star review (including the one who refused to check out on time). I didn't give them 5 stars. Air BnB should also take host safety into account and how this is placed at potential risk if they show the bad guests what we have said in our reviews.

[Sybe]

@Gillian166 You can report either through the new reviews process or by contacting Customer Support. In the Resource Center article there's an example of this, where the guest leaves the carpet dirty and the Host can report the issue either by giving a low cleanliness rating or by contacting Customer Support. 🙂

[Huma0]

@Gillian166 

Exactly, all the articles on the updates are so vague. There is barely any useful detail there at all and I can't imagine that is a mistake. Even the mods here don't seem to know the answers. 

For example (see my last comment) about the new IB filter 'good track record'. Well, it seems that breaking policies and rules only stops the guest having a good track record if that is something they did "recently"...

[Gillian166]

@Huma0  I don't know why the mods keep giving us links to articles, there's limited info in them and plenty of vague phrasing. We ask questions, no one has answers. I feel for them, it shouldn't be their job to manage the fallout. And it could be avoided simply by have beta testers who come to the forums and explain the reasoning.  

[Huma0]

@Gillian166 

I believe the articles are very deliberately phrased vaguely with key information/details missing, because if they claimed the situation clearly, hosts would be able to see that we have been left completely in the lurch and vulnerable, and there would be an uproar.

[Bubba-Lee0]

Because they are using scripted responses in place of actual answers. So we are being told only what Chesky wants us to hear, not what we want to hear.

I hope I don't get admonished again for calling out the obvious use of scripted responses. I was told I was being mean.

[Huma0]

Seems @Bubba-Lee0 did not get admonished again, but got BANNED (same old story: warning message that wasn't really a warning at all, followed by a ban less than 24 hours later). Apparently, we are not allowed to point out that answers seem scripted. It's a cardinal sin.

[Jenny]

Thanks for highlighting your concerns here, @Huma0.

You know we would never take the decision to restrict someone's access lightly, however in order to keep this thread on track please drop one of the OCM team a private message if you'd like to discuss this further.

Thanks

Jenny

[Gisele158]

I spent over 20 hours being passed from person to person trying to resolve a retaliatory review before I gave up. Told time and again it's basically okay for a guest to do damage, completely fabricate conversations, refute photographic evidence and leave a review that (as a new host) severely damaged my ranking. 


Then I gave up in disgust and disappointment.

I know I am not alone.