Guest Points Calculation Algorithm

English Forum Community 🗳️ Suggestions box
1

The algorithm for calculating the number of Guest Points for a home is, in my opinion, unreasonable, unfair, and inadequate; and is long overdue for a major update and improvement.

We are believers in the concept of hosting members, getting credits for being a host, and using those credits to stay at the homes of other members who accept “hosting credits”. We have participated in dozens of traditional reciprocal exchanges and even more guest points exchanges. We understand and respect those members who only participate in reciprocal exchanges on principle, and also the smaller number of members who only participate in guest points exchanges.

However, the Guest Points algorithm seems inadequate and unfair. To avoid writing a long essay by going into great detail, here are the major problems:

The points allocated for “location” (i.e. closeness to a “tourist” site) are totally arbitrary and dependent on a member’s own personal opinion of a “tourist site”. It is not based on any objective ranking of the tourist sites of the world at an international, country, or regional level. Therefore, a member may significantly inflate or deflate the guest points value of their home by over 100 points by manipulating this attribute of their home.

The “sleeping capacity” points of a home are calculated only by the number of beds in a home, not the number of bedrooms or bathrooms. So, for example, if I have a home with only 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom, and 3 double-beds in that single bedroom; I get the same number of points for “sleeping capacity” as a home with 3 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, and 3 double beds! This doesn’t make sense. Surely it is better for couples in a group to have the privacy and space of separate bedrooms and even better, separate bathrooms, and more points should be awarded for extra bedrooms and bathrooms?

And finally, the “amenity” value of a home seems to have a limit so that a home with many more amenities than another might have the same GP calculation for amenties. Also, there are many other issues with the Amenity calculation like duplication of similar things (TV and Smart TV, car and EV, etc). Also, who has assigned the individual value of each amenity type? Many seem to be over-valued or under-valued.

If all this is too complicated to analyze and fix, perhaps it would be better to do a simpler system in which guest points are simply the number of nights which a member has hosted compared to the number where they have been guests. For example, if I have hosted for 14 nights but guested for 10 nights, then I have a “bank” of 4 nights which can be used to stay with a host who accepts me.

In any case, I suggest that the GP algorithm is due for a review and a prioritized list of enhancements. Perhaps the Home Exchange Development team would consider organizing a session or sessions to get input from members? The forum is a wonderful addition to the community, but for deep dives into requirements gathering, I suggest that it requires a more focused effort.

I am retired now, but in my working career I was a software developer, systems analyst and designer, a business analyst, a software development manager, and a project manager (LOL not all at the same time!).

I would be very happy to participate in any sessions or project to review the existing algorithms.

1 Like
2

Hello (again) and thank you for the feedback.
I understand your opinion, but I would come back on a few parts.

I quote you :

"The points allocated for “location” (i.e. closeness to a “tourist” site) are totally arbitrary and dependent on a member’s own personal opinion of a “tourist site”. It is not based on any objective ranking of the tourist sites of the world at an international, country, or regional level. "

No in fact, there’s a quotation explained when members registered and it’s also in the FAQ. See : “https://help.homeexchange.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000613078-How-do-I-complete-and-edit-my-listing-to-100” . Members should check online to see how many visitors are in their area generally.

“The “sleeping capacity” points of a home are calculated only by the number of beds in a home, not the number of bedrooms or bathrooms. So, for example, if I have a home with only 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom, and 3 double-beds in that single bedroom; I get the same number of points for “sleeping capacity” as a home with 3 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, and 3 double beds! This doesn’t make sense. Surely it is better for couples in a group to have the privacy and space of separate bedrooms and even better, separate bathrooms, and more points should be awarded for extra bedrooms and bathrooms?”

As I already answered in an another thread, the staff is already working on it, to avoid including put-up beds etc in the calculation, and to make situations like you describe better. It should be done within a few months.

“And finally, the “amenity” value of a home seems to have a limit so that a home with many more amenities than another might have the same GP calculation for amenties. Also, there are many other issues with the Amenity calculation like duplication of similar things (TV and Smart TV, car and EV, etc). Also, who has assigned the individual value of each amenity type? Many seem to be over-valued or under-valued.”

Each item doesn’t have a “value”, it’s an algorithm which takes a combination of items to make the calculation. It’s different for everyone, it’s not just “+” or " -", it depends on other factors (I don’t have details on that, don’t ask me, I just know this :slight_smile: ).

“If all this is too complicated to analyze and fix, perhaps it would be better to do a simpler system in which guest points are simply the number of nights which a member has hosted compared to the number where they have been guests. For example, if I have hosted for 14 nights but guested for 10 nights, then I have a “bank” of 4 nights which can be used to stay with a host who accepts me.”

It’s a nice exchanging opinion of course, but changing the model would make a big risk for the company, and for its financial results. Why would they do that while the site is successful and getting better and bigger every day, causing too much risk for the business model. I won’t see any reason to do that. Of course the gp algorithm could be better, but changing it completely doesn’t make any sense in the company situation in my humble opinion !

I don’t think it’s the staff projects to work on that, but who knows :slight_smile:

3

It is not a perfect valuation, indeed, there is some room for improvement. Not sure a complete overhaul is the highest priority, perhaps incremental improvements?.. I am also mindful of the fact that, given the variety of members, of homes and of situations, no system will ever please everyone. Still, we should all aim for fairness.
One feature which I feel is not given sufficient value is a free inner city garage parking in major urban centres. For homes in suburbs or country settings, parking is simple, however, free safe parking in a city is a luxury (so the car be left there, safe, for the duration of one’s stay).