[elif]

I don't see either the user or contractor as "less protected" In fact, my experience with homejoy has been the opposite.

When I gave a rating of literally "Meh. 5/10" for a decent but not impressive cleaning job, they went nuts--found me a new cleaner, offered discounts, said they would work with the cleaner to make sure she learned lessons, etc. way more than i would have done if i were hiring her directly.

On the other side, if a cleaner thought my house was disgusting or hated my cats or something, I presume it would be easier for him to decline the job than if he were an employee of a service with contracts and reputations.

Of course there are no guarantees about how they will dish out that $7M insurance fund but based on my experience with them, I have a feeling HJ would err on the side of paying more and maintaining their reputation.

[typomatic]

> I presume it would be easier for him to decline the job than if he were an employee of a service with contracts and reputations.

Do you have any reason to believe that outside of a need to avoid cognitive dissonance? I ask because it is well-known that for some services (e.g. Uber) refusing open contracts will result in penalties or termination of the agreement with the service.

[DanBC]

When you say "5/10" you mean "decent but not impressive".

When most people give "5/10" they mean "terrible, but did not shit of the coffee table".

Did they check with you what you meant by 5/10?