I’m constantly frustrated seeing homes comparable to my own (location, size, beds, amenities…) but with much higher GP values. Sometimes I do see comparable homes and GP values but even these can be very much lower than similar homes in same locations.
So I’m constantly engaging with the guest points stay arrangement at a disadvantage points wise.
My 50m2 1BR renovated apartment with terrace in a prime Sydney location is valued by the system at 59GPs. I’ve raised this to the maximum of 89 but my guests tell me it should be 120GP minimum.
I know people ‘cheat’ a bit by adding put up beds etc but I do not want more than two adults in my home and I’m not comfortable working the system. I even saw a 14m2 studio in Paris with a 150GP value claiming even to have a swimming pool!
Of course I’ve experimented with seeing how changing size and number of beds alters the value but I’m surprised that it’s pretty subtle. At best adding a single put up bed (my large sofa) and a portable crib I can get only to 103 points.
I’ve checked all the variables like location and amenity. Is it possible that Sydney is a very low demand / low value destination…?
Home Exchange mentions that it’s important that homes are neither under or over valued and I agree with this.
My home is undervalued by about 30GP and there’s nothing I can do about it short of lying about amenities, beds etc.
Homes that are similar with GP values of 130/140 don’t seem to be cheating either. So I can only assume that one of the most expensive neighbourhoods in Sydney is ‘cheap’.
My suggestion is that the system continue to provide the recommended value but the host member is able to increase this without limit to settle on a fair ‘market’ value.
I love HE but this is a major obstacle for me moving forward being always in a points deficit when staying in similar properties using guest points.
I set my home at zero points for reciprocal exchanges however I’m coming to accept that for my preferred longer stays in my preferred destinations that GP exchanges are more suited.
So this is something I would like to see reviewed. I can’t see what there is to lose.
Did you asked the staff about it ?
Hi. Yes I did that first but response was that that’s how the system is set up and nothing could be done.
Hi. I have already selected ‘in the heart of an international tourist site’. I’m walking distance from Sydney Opera House and other attractions as well as the Harbour. It’s a very sought after area for visitors
you are absolutely right and there is the same suject in french, people from the organisation told us they were thinking about an improvement of the system.
Let’s wait and see…
I today discovered for example (by trial and error) that air conditioning is +29 points and kids playground also +29 points. In some circumstances neither of these are needed or even relevant yet they add substantially to a home’s points value.
And @GcSydney it doesn’t work like this. An item has no value in itself, it’s an algorithm which change depending on all your other items and amenities, and on the range value you are in. For example if I add this to my listing, it doesn’t change my value. If @FlorentDubois my Friend ambassador adds a swimming pool, it doesn’t change his gp value etc. It does this cause you are probably on the range limit and each item you add makes you a big step forward, which is not the case for us for example.
I’ve seen the same thing in my experiences. I have two properties and disputed both evaluations. One home was reevaluated fairly, the other has still not been addressed. It took sometime to find and engage a human with the power to evaluate the discrepancy, once that happened it changed quickly. The other I’m still trying. I understand the need for the algorithm when you sign up, however there should be an overriding human eye to appeal to without wasting all this time to find one. Sometimes I think it’s the luck of the draw.
I’ve decided that in the interim I will ‘cheat’ to get my GP value up to a fairer minimum of 118 points. There is a kids playground near by so I’ve included this as one of the amenities. I saw this done recently on another property and it’s brought my maximum GPs to 118 from 89. It’s nuts but I now have a fourth guest telling me my home should be minimum 120GPs so I consider it to be a work around rather than cheating. At least I don’t call everything a bed and have multiple fold up cribs and kids beds. Who wants their small home used as a dormitory?!
Interesting, I never would have thought a children’s playground might count for 40 points ! In particular when a downtown indoor private parking space seems to count for “0”.
It’s not working item by item. It’s a multiple factor
It is quite the mystery, indeed! 
I just answer cause the author and Denys were thinking an item only adds a value, I explained that’s it’s not working like that. I’m not working for the staff to remind and only take time to explain how it works.
You should not cheat with that and contact the staff again about it.
What would you suggest Etienne answer? He’s given the explanation of how the algorithm works. He’s a HE ambassador and gives his time voluntarily to help answer questions and moderate this forum. I see you are an Ambassador too, so you must know how that works, and that we aren’t HE employees. What do you do, and what is your contribution to the question? Ambassadors are here to help aren’t they?
Thank you everyone for your interest and comments. My post was more of a general observation regarding the allocated GP value of a home and did not intend it to become a back and forth about the intricacies of how it works.
My suggestion to be clear is that members have greater autonomy to adjust GP values to align with comparable properties in their area. Let supply and demand determine the value.
I recognise there can be other ways to address this also.
Talking about unfairness, here’s an example:
Members offering a room in hospitality for 150 GP or more, and others letting their whole place for less than 100 GP. What sense does it make? None.
Think of someone who has been gaining points before 2021, letting his/her place for say 120 GP (nowadays it would be let for 240).
Now that someone would like to be hosted for points, but the amount required for one night is, on average, the double of what he/she gained.
This means that, because of inflation, that member’s amount of GP (acquired by hosting with reasonable GP rates) has lost HALF of its value.
How unfair is that?
In the last years there’s been a surge in GP rates per night.
Moreover, less and less people are hosting for GPs, because they have too many and it’s too hard to use them.
The whole GP system has been corrupted by greed and inflation, which is leading to a real problem, a very serious one, given the lack of reasonable limits and the laissez faire of the platform.
@HEager I won’t comment all your answer, but the part “more and more users stop gp exchanges” is wrong, there are never been so many gp exchanges on the site and it represents 80% of total volume of exchanges, like all previous years, so around 800 gp exchanges finalized every day !
I wrote something different: “less and less people are hosting for GPs, because they have too many and it’s too hard to use them.”.
Then, sure, there are people doing 30, 40+ GP exchanges every year, but still the vast majority of members need to send hundreds of requests to use their guestpoints, which is not normal and very stressful and time consuming.
Of course this is my perception and it might be inaccurate, but reading other people’s comments I wouldn’t say so.
I don’t disagree, but I also believe some members are quite fixated on their GP valuation, to no good. I try to keep in mind that it is a means to an end, it is not an end in itself. As such, the system does not have to be perfect, I don’t expect it to be an exact science, more of an art. Perhaps this reflects that I don’t feel any great unfairness, though it is not perfect. I can appreciate that it might be quite frustrating if members feel their home is underestimated in a significant way, relative to nearby comparables.
I intentionally don’t list the 2 person capacity of our hide-a-bed sofa, though it could get me more points. I don’t want 4 people in 60 sq metres, I don’t want guests to sleep in a sofa bed either (OK for 1 or 2 nights, or a child). As a result, being slightly on the low or affordable side helps me attract a larger pool, to pick our favourites, single women who stay 2 weeks 
we’ve had many. I mention this as it speaks to your point of members having more control of their valuation. I feel I can achieve that, to a good extent.
That said, I think we all have our pet peaves, and no system will please everyone unanimously. My peave is how a bit or a lot of garden space in the middle of nowhere, in the boonies, is highly valued (it should be a given in the countryside, there is plenty of space) but an indoor reserved free parking downtown is not. There, I’ve said it I appreciate though that this viewpoint stems from my personal circumstances