Find Nearby Plumbers In San Buenaventura (Ventura), California

With only two reviews, the data is highly limited and no reliable WW Score can be produced. The positive review praises Randy as trustworthy, reliable, and thorough across multiple project types over several years. However, the negative review raises serious concerns about overbilling for labor (charging for two journeymen when one was sufficient), unnecessary material charges, and incomplete work such as failing to replace the tub drain. These conflicting signals across all four dimensions result in conservative mid-range scores that should be treated with very low confidence.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The negative review (1-star, dated 2019) alleges overbilling for labor and materials on a time-and-material contract, which is a significant pricing and professionalism concern.
• The negative review also flags incomplete work (tub drain not inspected or replaced), suggesting a project completion issue.
• The positive review is from 2021 and the negative from 2019 — recency slightly favors the positive review, but the sample size is too small to draw conclusions.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the extreme rating split (5-star vs 1-star) with only two reviews makes any scoring highly unreliable.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — significantly more review data is needed before any dimension score or overall assessment can be considered meaningful.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided. While this single review praises Steven Lopez's professionalism, attention to detail, and technical knowledge, a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews to account for variability and reduce the risk of outlier bias. Pricing information is completely absent from available data.

• Only 1 review provided — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2022 (over 2 years old) — recency is a concern
• No pricing information mentioned — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• Single review with generic praise structure — cannot validate authenticity without comparative data

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score. Collect at least 2 additional recent reviews before relying on any composite scoring.

This single review speaks positively to professionalism and attention to detail, with the reviewer explicitly praising the plumber's follow-through in identifying a flawed drain and resolving a manufacturer issue with a sink stopper. Project completion is supported by the fact that the problem was fully resolved with a replacement product that works correctly. Experience is evidenced by the plumber's ability to diagnose the flaw and navigate a manufacturer dispute to reach a satisfactory outcome. Pricing is not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. With only one review available, all scores carry very limited confidence and should not be treated as reliable indicators of consistent performance.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• Pricing dimension has no data whatsoever and is excluded from any scoring.
• Review is from January 2021, which is over 3 years old — recency weighting is a concern if this is the only available data point.

This score report is based on a single review from 2021 and should be considered highly unreliable — far more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn about this contractor's performance.

Only a single review is available, dated June 2015 — over 9 years ago — making it of very limited reliability. The review indicates the contractor completed multiple scopes of work including bathroom remodels, a kitchen remodel, and a Reverse Osmosis system installation, suggesting reasonable breadth of experience and project follow-through. However, no specific details are provided about professionalism, pricing, or workmanship quality beyond a general recommendation. Scores for project completion and experience are conservatively assigned due to the vague, generic nature of the praise and the single data point available.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is dated June 2015, making it approximately 9+ years old. Recency weighting heavily penalizes this data point.
• Review language is generic and lacks specific detail (no mention of pricing, punctuality, communication, or workmanship quality), which limits scoring confidence across all dimensions.
• No data available for Professionalism or Pricing dimensions — these could not be scored.

This score report is based on a single, nearly decade-old review with minimal detail, and should not be considered a reliable indicator of current contractor performance.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The review explicitly mentions fair pricing and competent/efficient workmanship over a 20-year relationship, but lacks specific detail on professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, attitude) and project completion specifics. The review is dated 2013 (over 10 years old), which significantly limits its relevance to current service quality.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• Review is from 2013 — over 10 years old; does not reflect current service quality
• Limited explicit detail on professionalism and project completion dimensions

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review, and that review's age makes it unreliable for assessing current contractor performance.