Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Collins, Colorado

With only 2 reviews, reliable scoring is impossible. The first review (2018) praises professionalism, pricing, and timeliness. The second review (2016) documents severe failures across all dimensions: missed callbacks, billing discrepancies, dangerous installation errors (CO hazard, incorrect gas pressure, wrong coupler, improper placement, unsuitable materials), lack of technical knowledge, and incomplete work. The extreme contradiction between reviews and the critical safety issues in the detailed complaint make any aggregate score meaningless without substantially more data.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews provided. WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.
• EXTREME REVIEW POLARITY: One 5-star generic praise vs. one 1-star detailed safety complaint creates irreconcilable contradiction.
• CRITICAL SAFETY ISSUE: The 2016 review documents a carbon monoxide hazard and multiple code/safety violations. This is a serious red flag regardless of sample size.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews are from 2018 and 2016 — both older than 12 months. No recent data available.
• UNVERIFIABLE CLAIMS: The detailed 2016 complaint includes specific technical allegations (gas pressure, coupler sizing, placement distance) that would require independent verification.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and irreconcilable contradiction between reviews. However, the detailed 2016 safety complaint involving CO hazard and installation failures is a serious concern that warrants independent investigation before engaging this contractor.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. While both reviews are positive and mention fair pricing, work quality, and technical knowledge, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. Review 1 explicitly mentions fair pricing and exceeding expectations; Review 2 praises the team's knowledge. However, neither review provides substantive detail on professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, responsiveness) or project completion specifics.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: Review 2 contains unusual capitalization and formatting ('Always There When You Need / The Best Company For Your AC Needs') suggesting possible template or auto-generated content.
• GENERIC PRAISE: Both reviews lack specific project details, timelines, or concrete examples of work performed.
• ALL 5-STAR: Both reviews are perfect 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or balanced perspective.
• RECENCY: Both reviews are from 2024 (recent), which is positive for relevance.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2). Do not rely on any scoring from this analysis; collect at least 3-5 additional reviews with substantive detail before making contractor decisions.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The reviews mention professionalism positively (courteous, professional, clean) and experience (knowledgeable, quick response), but pricing is not addressed in either review. Both reviews are older than 12 months (2018 and 2020), limiting recency relevance.

• Total review count is 2, below the minimum threshold of 3 required for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are older than 12 months (2018 and 2020); no recent data available
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise and minimal specific detail, which could suggest limited sample bias rather than fake reviews
• No pricing information mentioned in any review
• No explicit mention of project completion timeline or follow-through beyond the hot water heater replacement

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews speak positively of Mark's professionalism, with the detailed 2023 review highlighting consistent punctuality, reliable call-backs, and willingness to tackle difficult working conditions such as a low crawlspace. Project completion is supported by one review explicitly stating work was finished efficiently, neatly, and correctly on the first attempt every time over 15 years. Experience is similarly supported by that same detailed review, which praises Mark's ability to navigate a complex, multi-era plumbing system across numerous jobs. Pricing data is entirely absent from both reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. With only two reviews total, none of these scores carry meaningful statistical weight and should be treated with significant caution.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review 2 (Carol Sheehy, 2018) carries a 1-star rating but the review text is entirely positive, suggesting a possible input or platform error on the star rating. This discrepancy was noted but the text content was used for analysis.
• Review 2 is dated 2018, which is more than 5 years old and outside the preferred 12-month recency window. It was given reduced weight accordingly.
• With only one detailed review (2023) and one very brief review (2018), all dimension scores are based on extremely limited evidence and should not be considered reliable indicators of consistent performance.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, which is below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score — findings should be treated as anecdotal and not representative of overall contractor performance.

With only 2 reviews available, reliable scoring is not possible. The reviews present a stark contradiction: one 5-star review from 2017 praising professionalism, pricing, and work quality, and one 1-star review from 2021 documenting no-shows, poor communication, and project abandonment. The 2021 review explicitly contradicts the customer's own prior positive experiences with the same contractor, suggesting a significant deterioration in service or a change in business practices. The extreme recency gap (4-year difference) and conflicting narratives prevent confident assessment.

• Only 2 reviews available — insufficient sample size for reliable WW Score calculation
• Extreme contradiction between reviews: same customer had 3+ positive prior experiences but experienced complete service failure in 2021
• Significant recency gap: most recent review is from January 2021 (3+ years old); no recent data available
• 2021 review documents serious red flags: no-shows, unresponsiveness to communication, project abandonment without explanation
• Cannot determine if 2021 failure represents systemic issue or isolated incident without additional recent reviews

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and contradictory evidence spanning 4 years with no recent data; any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Only two reviews were provided, and one of them ('Very well every time.') is too vague to extract any meaningful dimension-level data. The second review from February 2017 offers limited but positive signals: the contractor resolved a previously failed toilet repair, suggesting competent workmanship and follow-through, and the price was described as reasonable for the scope of work. No explicit mentions of professionalism indicators such as punctuality, communication, or attitude were found in either review. All reviews are older than 7 years, significantly reducing their relevance to current performance.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• Both reviews are from 2017, making them over 7 years old. They carry very low recency weight and may not reflect current contractor performance.
• Review 1 ('Very well every time.') is extremely vague with no specific details — it provides no usable dimension data and may be a low-effort or generic submission.
• With only 2 reviews, there is insufficient data to detect fake review patterns, but the lack of specificity in Review 1 is noted as a minor concern.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews were available, both are over 7 years old, and only 1 contained enough detail to score any dimensions.