@Quincy @Lizzie @Robin4
COMPUTER SAYS "NO" SH BASED ON PAST YEAR RECORD, BUT 'YES' IF YOU DON'T HOST IN THE NEXT QUARTER TILL JULY 1 = THE LOGIC OF LEWIS CARROLL
Quincy & Lizzie,
Now that the dust has settled on the latest SH quarterly assessment, I would like to draw your attention to a certain paradox or even anomaly in SH criteria, namely, significance and definition of 'Experienced'. If my account makes sense to you, perhaps you would consider to draw it to the attention of Airbnb.
We may initially note this thread has become a bit of a backwater due to lack of contributors. It's Lizzie's preceding thread from June 2018 'Welcoming All Superhosts' that's proved the rolling stone, which after the recent quarterly assessment rose to over 2,000 posts.
From the current crop of newly decorated SH, I've chosen three by name so my account can be easily verified: Juana (Peru), Chi (Vietnam), Nuning (France) share the distinction of being awarded SH on the basis of a meagre 9 Reviews. Given that it requires 10 bookings, It would seem to be a disproportionate low figure for achieving SH, save for the fact that it only requires 50% Reviews. Not only can SH be achieved from only half the guests hosted, the period for 10 booking can be incredibly rapid, especially for someone with multiple listings: It's conceivable in a day for a Host with 10 or more listings; alternatively, a host with just 1 listing would not require more than two weeks. While our three newbies with just 9 Reviews only took one or two quarters.
However, it's difficult to make the case of labelling anyone 'experienced' Airbnb Host in one or two quarters given that 'experience' is commonly equated with a significant period of time. and more specific to this enterprise doubtless dealing with a variety of persons, cultures, circumstances and/or contingencies. 10 bookings of whatever outcome are unlikely to give a sufficient variety of experiences.
In my preceding contribution to this post over two weeks ago, i.e. within the fortnight assessment period, I referred to my uncertainty at the information I saw in 'Performance'. It duly became clear when assessment showed 4.7 Average for year ending 31 March; but 4.8 for current on-going period. It suggests that a review in the first week of April nudged me from 4.7 to 4.8; and more certainly, if I maintain 4.8 till June 30th I will receive SH.
In any case, a comparative view of the stats initially realize an inherent paradox vis-a-vis our 3 newly awarded SH:
In the assessment period just finished for the first three months of this year, I had 18 Reviews, 17 x 5* Stars and 1 x 4* stars.
18 Reviews is twice as many as the 3 new hosts who achieved it on only 9 Reviews.
Though I'm literally twice as qualified as the 3 newbies even within the assessment period, the reason I'm not equal to them is obviously because my figures over time do not equate to the requisite 4.8. As mentioned my figure was 4.7.
Therefore let's probe a bit further back. In the preceding quarter, the last three months of 2018, I had 23 Reviews: 20 x 5*, 2 x 4* and 1 x 3*. Like the preceding quarter it would suffice in itself to obtain SH. More so when you add the last 6 months, which realize 37 out of 41 Reviews were 5 stars.Yet when I check the average 6 months ago, it was also 4.7.
Thus two quarters in a row I had 4.7 average, and more significantly, the additional 17 out of 18 x 5* Reviews from the latest quarter were insufficient to nudge the average from 4.7. It further suggests that Airbnb Rating system is most demanding of its Hosts... till we remember our 3 SH newbies!
So let's go a couple of quarters back to complete the past year.
In the quarter of July - Sept 2018: I also had 23 Reviews: 15 x 5*, 7 x 4* and 1 x 2*.
In the quarter of April - June 2018: 19 Reviews: 14 x 5*, 4 x 4*, 1 x 3*.
Total Reviews for 12 months period: 83 Reviews. That's over nine times as many reviews as our 3 newbies!:
66 x 5* 14 x 4*; 2 x 3*; 1 x 2*. which equates to just under 80% 5 Stars Reviews, average 4.75 for this 12 months period.
Yet it's even more instructive to note my averages from the date it began to be shown in its current format July 2017 were 4.5 / 4.6 / 4.7 / 4.7 to the present on-going 4.8.
We need only recall that prior to the 5* Average, the quarterly assessment was calculated in %. So that when the new system was introduced, my % average going back over four years to 2013 was repackaged and stood at equivalent 4.5* in July 2017.
In sum, it's taken over 300 Reviews to get me to the current point of 4.8 Average.
Still there is no guarantee that I will be awarded SH in July as it depends on my performance over the next three months.
Though I've yet to qualify for SH, one thing for certain, it can't be said that I'm less 'EXPERIENCED' than those who achieve SH in barely one or two quarters. I'm rather clearly taking what may be depicted as the scenic route to the SH summit.
Many would consider this situation plainly absurd. Indeed, it evokes the BBC comedy Little Britain sketch 'Computer says "No".' Computer says I'm not qualified for SH based on the past four quarters total; but for the next quarter assessment it says 'Yes'... conditionally, you are guaranteed SH status,,. providing you don't take another booking till July 1st!
It's an infallible logic that would have been well understood by renown 19th Century mathematician Charles Lutwidge Dodgson better known as Lewis Carroll author of Alice in Wonderland.
Confronted by this logic, what to do? Should I sit back and twiddle my thumbs for 3 months to ensure SH. Or do I risk continuing, expanding my experience, in the hope that I don't encounter the odd Guest or two who may once again derail my chances of reaching SH status?
The conundrum is real. For the current quarterly period I have already taken 10 bookings: .
- 1 Cancelled a few minutes after booking, applying the quite recently introduced '48 hours Grace Period'.
- 3 have been and gone and reviewed All 5* Thus, so far so good.
- 2 possible reviews from past week are still within the 14 days deadline.
- 1 guest currently here, departing Monday.
- 3 more bookings due to arrive in the next 5 weeks.
My decision to keep hosting clearly indicates that I will not only continue to take bookings, but put greater value in hosting than the badge awarded by Airbnb.
The data and its interpretation leads to three conclusions:
1) The stats don't lie, but their implication is most revealing:
The more experienced the host, the longer period and more bookings, the more difficult it is to reach SH status.
In my case, it is the accumulation of stats over 6 years that determine the difficulty of reaching the goal of 4.8 Average.
2) The definition of 'experienced' re SH Status.
Incorporating the term 'experienced' to the SH award isn't necessarily an accurate criteria, and in many cases is far from the truth.
3) If Airbnb wish to keep 4.8 Average for SH status, they would do well to consider acknowledging 'experienced Host' by a different means or category than Superhost!
For example, the 'experienced' criteria should be first and foremost judged over a lengthy period of say 18 months - 24 months, and within that period it should include say 100 Reviews and / or the equivalent of 365 days hosting, i.e. one year. .
A separate category of Experienced Host would also guard against the arbitrary nature of damaging reviews that can easily sink an SH below the surface.
===============
Robin,
I must confess my dismay that yesterday you simply pointed Hannah from Bondi Beach to Ute's analysis of the stats.
[Hannah's thread 'Ratings glitch? 4.7 has not budged.' - Ute's 'Guantanamo.']
You relayed to Hannah: "the information you need to work out why your rating is not changing was compiled by another contribtor. Ute, last year and you will find a full explanation on this thread that she created."
Sadly Ute's analysis is far from the full explanation; on the contrary, it is grossly misleading.
Indeed, according to Ute's analysis of the system "4.6 = delisted."
Ute propagates nonsense as I'm sure Professor Dodgson would have agreed. Obviously so, given that when the 5 Stars averages began in July 2017, I was at 4.5 and further evidently operating on 4.6 or less with some 250 Reviews over a 5 years period before I even reached 4.7
How come then I wasn't delisted a long time ago?
In addressing the question it becomes apparent that Ute's graphics is crucially remiss of one dimension, namely the dimension of time. There is no Time-Line or Time-Scale on Ute's graphics.
Stated otherwise as an equation it lacks the crucial factor T = Time.
Ute's post received over 100 replies, yet no one noticed the anomaly which is ironically well illustrated by one respondee.
The person who strangely agreed with Ute was Jeet in Pune, India.
Jeet posted a link to an article she wrote on CC in January 2017, that is 18 months prior to Ute's thread.
Jeet's article included a screenshot of her ratings at the time. 63 Reviews. Only 38% were 5 stars with overall average of just 4.2.
The Airbnb notice crucially did not threaten delisting but SUSPENSION: 'Your account could be suspended....'
We can happily update Jeet's situation, as she is still hosting, and her previously threatened listing is now evidently re-titled '100 + Reviews, Whistling Palms, 2BHK, Cozy Stay'. The listing currently boasts 146 Reviews, last one this month, April 2019. One can't tell precisely Jeet's current average, but the graphic shows c. 4.5 +
In any case, we can readily draw the conclusion that Jeet wasn't threatened with delisting but suspension, and thus her reaction to Ute's post is misleading as it fails to take into consideration the intermediary step of suspension and warning....
My experience serves to further shed a light on the issue of 'suspension'.
Last summer I actually had one room 'suspended' for 5 days:, it was termed '5 day pause'. It occurred when the average for this listing was precisely 4.2.
However, there was a significant discrepancy between the automated email pause at 4.2 and the figure shown in 'Progress' for this listing 4.4.
It took me the best part of a month to get Airbnb to properly address the issue. Over the phone a number of CS checked and agreed but could not explain or do anything about it. In the end I visited Airbnb London HQ and one lady kindly spent 45 minutes with me. She also agreed but couldn't explain, and forwarded me to her colleague in Dublin, who spent half an hour on the phone, before again forwarding to a Case Manager I think in USA. Though he also couldn't address the discrepancy that he in turn forwarded to another department, the Case Manager did something else, he addressed the underlying cause for the pause, namely a contravention of an undisclosed 3rd Party Booking that led me to ask the Guest to leave, and the Booker to take revenge in review with 1* Rating. In the process the Case Manager further deleted two similar 3rd PB undisclosed violations from the preceding year. When the offending reviews were deleted, the average for this listing rocketed to 4.8, 4.9 and since then 5* for the past 12 months.
[My other listings are not at this level, but multiple listings are calculated together for SH, so currently overall 4.8]
Since all this took several weeks, the 5 Day Pause came and went without anyone doing anything about it. Thus the Case Manager eventually declared: 'Regarding your complaint about the Pause was based on wrong figures, since the listing is already active we can not revert the time it was paused.'
While I was naturally aware the horse had bolted, I never received an explanation for the manifest discrepancy between the pause 4.2 and Progress 4.4.
I would summarily speculate that you Robin have not understood the problem with Ute's graphics probably because you attained SH status almost immediately or soon after you began hosting. In other words, you may never have experienced the gradation over time as I have, and therefore when Ute equates 4.6 = delisting, you have no experience to contest her statement.
My concern with Ute is that she is a highly active member of CC but has very little experience as an Airbnb Host.
Ute rather has a vast experience of hosting on other websites, but not Airbnb, nevertheless she promotes herself as some kind of expert on all matters Airbnb.
Ute has done a considerable amount of research from CC but in this case, she has no personal experience with the Stats, yet she influences others to believe in her analysis.
Worse still, when questioned about her level of experience as an Airbnb Host, Ute considers it as 'criticism' of herself for criticising Airbnb. Her thread with an evident allusion to me in 'Critizing Airbnb' remains prominent on Host Circle.
Yet if we peruse the source thread, namely Inna's 'Fake Extenuating Circumstances', my interaction with Ute rather conveys a difference of opinion which led me to question Ute's experience as an Airbnb host.
Ute replied in detail, but for reason known to herself interpreted it as 'criticism'. Thus while I invited Ute to initiate her own thread on a hypothetical scenario she posited, she did not pursue my suggestion, rather hastily composed her self-defence thread.
In sum, Ute's deflection in my eyes is simply egocentric and most unhelpful. Ute garners the support for her self-defence class and right to criticise Airbnb.
Her right to criticize Airbnb was never questioned by me, only her experience as an Airbnb host to make endless pronouncements which in my eyes she's not qualified to make.
