Find Nearby Plumbers In Yucaipa, California

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across all four dimensions. Professionalism scores are dragged down significantly by one review describing repeated hang-ups, broken promises, and dismissive customer service, and another describing a refusal to provide a quote transparently — both of which offset the positive mentions of courtesy and respectfulness in other reviews. Pricing is similarly split: two reviews praise affordability and great prices, while one describes feeling ripped off and another describes an unprofessional quote process. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with one detailed and credible account of incomplete work, a broken 30-day guarantee, and a no-show follow-up visit — serious failures that weigh heavily against the positive completions mentioned elsewhere. Experience scores reflect a similar tension, with one reviewer praising knowledgeability while another provides a specific, detailed account of poor technical judgment during a root-clearing job.

• Two of the five-star reviews share the exact same date (2014-06-13), which raises a concern about authenticity. Both are generic in tone and lack specific job details beyond general praise, which is consistent with potentially coordinated or solicited reviews.
• The most negative review (Brian, 2013) is highly specific and detailed — including technician name, job description, timeline, and follow-up failures — lending it strong credibility and significant weight despite its age.
• Most reviews are older than 5 years (all dated between 2013 and 2018). No recent reviews were provided, making it impossible to assess current performance. Recency weighting cannot be applied favorably here.
• The 1-star review describing hang-ups and refusal to honor a guarantee represents a serious service failure pattern that cannot be dismissed as an isolated incident given the corroborating quote-process complaint in a separate 1-star review.

This WW Score carries moderate overall reliability — the review set is small (5 reviews), spans a wide date range with no recent data, and includes suspected coordinated positive reviews, meaning the score should be treated as a rough directional signal rather than a definitive assessment of current contractor quality.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across a very small review set. While several reviewers praise punctuality, communication, and reasonable pricing, a serious 1-star review from January 2024 describes abandoned work, a demand for additional payment beyond the original bid, and an allegation that the contractor is unlicensed — all of which significantly drag down the professionalism and project completion scores. The project completion dimension is particularly penalized because the negative review is detailed, credible, and recent, describing a $2,000 payment made in full with work left incomplete. Positive reviews are largely brief and lack specifics, reducing their evidentiary weight. The most recent reviews (2024) present contradictory signals, making it difficult to establish a reliable pattern of quality.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: One detailed 1-star review (2024-01-20) alleges work was left incomplete after full payment of $2,000, contractor demanded an additional $1,100 to finish, and contractor is reportedly unlicensed, uninsured, and unbonded.
• LICENSING ALERT: Reviewer explicitly states the contractor is not licensed. This is a significant legal and safety risk for consumers and cannot be ignored in scoring.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME: Only 5 reviews total, making any score statistically unreliable. A single negative review has outsized impact on the overall picture.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One positive review dates to 2017 (over 7 years old) and should be given minimal weight. Only 3 reviews are from the past 12–24 months.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Several positive reviews are brief and lack specific detail (e.g., 'great pricing,' 'nice and reasonable'), which limits their evidentiary value and raises mild concern about authenticity.
• CONTRADICTION: Two reviews from January 2024 present opposite experiences — one praising the service, one describing abandonment and dishonesty — suggesting inconsistent service quality or selective customer treatment.

This WW Score should be treated with very low confidence due to the extremely small review sample (5 reviews), a credible and detailed allegation of incomplete work and unlicensed operation, and the presence of a 7-year-old review that may not reflect current business practices.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 3 reviews spanning 2015 to 2022. The single positive review highlights impressive responsiveness and goodwill — arriving within 15 minutes after hours and absorbing extra costs — which is genuinely notable. However, two negative reviews raise serious concerns: one describes a complete failure to follow through on communication and scheduling commitments, and the other — though older (2015) — describes a significant warranty abandonment on a commercial job, where the contractor never returned to honor promised warranty work and the customer had to pay another plumber. Project completion is the most damaged dimension given the warranty non-performance and scheduling failures. Professionalism scores are pulled down by the broken promises and lack of follow-through despite one strong positive data point.

• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is statistically unreliable and should be treated with significant caution.
• The oldest negative review (2015) is over 8 years old and may not reflect current performance, but it describes a serious warranty abandonment on a commercial project and cannot be dismissed.
• The 2021 negative review describes a broken scheduling commitment with no proactive follow-up, suggesting a possible pattern of poor follow-through.
• The single 5-star review is specific and credible, but one positive review cannot offset two documented failures in follow-through and warranty honoring.
• No fake review patterns detected — all three reviews contain specific, plausible details.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews with significant date spread (2015–2022), making it LOW reliability — the score directionally suggests inconsistency and follow-through risk, but should not be treated as a definitive assessment without more recent and numerous reviews.

Both reviews speak positively about professionalism, with one reviewer specifically noting the work area was left clean and praising consistent professionalism across multiple visits. Project completion is supported by both reviews indicating the jobs were finished and the problems resolved. Pricing is mentioned in only one review with a vague 'good price' comment, offering very limited insight into actual value or transparency. Experience and technical skill are not explicitly discussed in either review, so that dimension cannot be scored. With only two reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Both reviews are generic in nature with limited specifics; praise such as 'good price, good service' lacks detail and should be treated with caution.
• Both reviews are 5-star with no critical feedback, which is expected at low volume but warrants monitoring as more reviews are collected.
• Experience dimension has zero mentions — workmanship quality and technical skill are entirely unassessed.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should not be considered a reliable indicator of contractor quality; significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension score or overall WW Score can be trusted.

Both reviews are recent (within the past 12 months) and speak positively about Resco Rooter across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is consistently highlighted — reviewers noted courteous, respectful, and honest behavior from both the owner and a technician. Project completion is supported by both reviews describing problems that were fully resolved. Experience is reflected in descriptions of quick assessment, efficient resolution, and reliable workmanship. Pricing data is limited to a single mention of a free estimate, which is a positive signal but insufficient to score with confidence.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language and limited granular detail, which is a mild pattern of concern, though the reviews do include specific names and service types which reduces fake review suspicion.
• Pricing score is based on a single mention of a free estimate only — no information on final cost, transparency of billing, or value assessment was provided.
• Sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about any dimension — all scores carry LIMITED confidence.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — no WW Score has been calculated, and all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to insufficient data volume.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. This single review is positive across all dimensions, praising Brian's professionalism, fair pricing, timely completion, and technical expertise. However, a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews to account for variability and reduce the risk of outlier bias. All dimension scores are based on LIMITED evidence from a single data point.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old) — recency is a concern for current contractor performance assessment
• Single positive review may not represent typical customer experience

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only 1 review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to establish meaningful confidence in contractor performance.