Find Nearby Plumbers In National City, California

This single review describes severe failures across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. The contractor abandoned the job mid-way through, failed to communicate or return calls, did not pay his subcontractor as agreed, and left the customer with an incomplete roof that poses water damage risk. The review also raises credibility concerns about insurance claims and cash-only payment practices. However, with only one review and no data on technical experience or skill level, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• SEVERE ALLEGATIONS: Review contains serious claims of project abandonment, non-payment to subcontractor, communication failure, and incomplete work.
• CREDIBILITY CONCERNS: Reviewer (with professional construction background) questions contractor's insurance claim and notes cash-only payment practice.
• RECENCY: Review is from August 2015 (9+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess current business practices.
• NO EXPERIENCE DATA: Review does not address technical skill or workmanship quality—only abandonment and non-completion.

This assessment is unreliable for decision-making. A single negative review from 2015, while alarming in its allegations, cannot establish a valid WW Score. At minimum 3 recent reviews are required to produce a trustworthy score.

This single review from 2011 provides positive feedback across all four dimensions. The reviewer praises Glen's attitude and work ethic (professionalism), describes rates as reasonable (pricing), indicates successful completion of multiple commercial projects with intent to rehire (project completion), and highlights technical knowledge of codes and meticulous workmanship (experience). However, with only one review from over 12 years ago, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from December 2011 — over 12 years old. Does not reflect current business practices or quality.
• SINGLE MENTION LIMITATION: Each dimension scored on only 1 mention, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all areas.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A single review from 2011 is not a valid basis for contractor evaluation; at least 3 recent reviews are required.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer explicitly mentions reasonable pricing and satisfaction with quality of work, and the job appears to have been completed across four distinct tasks including electrical, mounting, and fixture installation. No information was provided about punctuality, communication, attitude, or responsiveness, so professionalism cannot be scored. Scores for all scoreable dimensions are kept conservative given the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Single review with no detail on professionalism dimensions such as punctuality, communication, or attitude — professionalism score withheld entirely.
• With only one review, there is no way to assess consistency of performance or detect patterns across customers.
• Review is recent (November 2024) which is a positive signal, but one data point is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable — at least 3 reviews are required for a meaningful WW Score, and 5 or more are needed for any dimension to reach full confidence weighting.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review praises responsiveness and communication (professionalism), transparent pricing with no hidden charges (pricing), and technical competence (experience). However, project completion is not addressed. With only one data point, confidence in any dimension is severely limited, and no reliable overall WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2018 (6+ years old) — recency is a concern
• No explicit mention of project completion, timeliness, or follow-through
• Single positive review without comparative context provides insufficient evidence

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume. At least 3 reviews are needed to establish baseline confidence; only 1 review was provided.