Find Nearby Plumbers In Lakewood, Colorado

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. Both reviews are extremely positive and mention professionalism, pricing, and project completion favorably, but the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions. Additionally, the reviews span a 6-year gap (2008 and 2014), with the older review being substantially more detailed.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews are from 2008 and 2014 — both older than 12 months. No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• EXPERIENCE DIMENSION: No explicit mentions of technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability in either review. Cannot score this dimension.
• GENERIC PRAISE IN FIRST REVIEW: First review contains minimal detail ('amazing service', 'friendly smiles') with no specific examples. Second review is highly detailed and credible.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and lack of recent data. Any score calculated would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews are highly positive and mention Sean's professionalism, quick response, problem-solving ability, and ethical approach to pricing. Review 2 explicitly contrasts Urban Plumbing's $3,700 solution favorably against a competitor's $14,000 assessment, demonstrating strong value and technical expertise. However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. All dimensions show LIMITED confidence due to insufficient mention volume (1–2 mentions each).

• Insufficient review volume: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Potential fake review pattern: Both reviews are 5-star ratings with highly polished language and no specific criticisms. Review 1 reads like promotional copy with a direct phone number. Review 2 contains suspiciously detailed financial comparisons and emphatic praise (multiple capital letters, exclamation marks). This pattern warrants caution.
• Recency concern: Both reviews are from 2023 (oldest is March 2023, newest is July 2023). No recent reviews from past 12 months available to assess current performance.
• No negative feedback: Complete absence of any criticism or mention of problems is atypical and reduces confidence in authenticity.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews). Additionally, the suspicious uniformity of praise and promotional tone raises concerns about review authenticity. Any scoring would be highly speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.

Both reviews describe completed jobs — a tankless water heater installation and three toilet replacements — suggesting David follows through on his work. Professionalism is lightly supported by one mention of David taking time to explain the issues with old toilets and the work looking 'very professional.' Experience is implied by successful completion of both jobs, though no deep technical detail is provided. Pricing is entirely unmentioned across both reviews, so no score can be assigned for that dimension. 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 reliably calculated.
• Both reviews share the same date (2022-05-27) and are both 5-star ratings, which may indicate they were submitted together or prompted simultaneously — treat with caution.
• Reviews are from May 2022, which is over 2 years old at time of analysis — recency is a concern and these may not reflect current service quality.
• Generic praise with limited specifics in both reviews; no mention of pricing, scheduling details, or any negatives — low informational depth overall.

This score profile is based on only 2 reviews, both from the same date in 2022, and should be considered highly unreliable as a basis for hiring decisions without additional, more recent review data.

Only two reviews are available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The November 2012 review describes a positive experience — Alberto and Jerry navigated a complex multi-party situation involving the City and County of Denver, earning praise for patience and service. However, the January 2013 follow-up review from what appears to be the same job reveals the solution failed within two months, which significantly undermines both the project completion and experience scores. Professionalism received a modest positive score based on the single mention of patience and good service, but this is low-confidence data. No pricing information was mentioned in either review.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The two reviews appear to be from the same customer or job, with the January 2013 entry serving as a follow-up indicating the solution failed. This means the positive November 2012 review should not be treated as independent positive evidence.
• Review dates are from 2012–2013, making all data over 10 years old. This score should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• The original November 2012 review carries a rating of 2.0 out of 5, which conflicts with the positive language used — this inconsistency warrants caution in interpretation.

This score is not reliable — it is based on only 2 reviews from over a decade ago, one of which documents a failed outcome, and no pricing data exists whatsoever.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The single review explicitly mentions professionalism and communication positively, but provides no specific evidence regarding pricing, project completion details, or technical experience. A WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews to be statistically meaningful.

• Only 1 review available — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2021 (over 3 years old) — recency is a concern
• Generic praise without specific project details or examples
• No pricing information mentioned
• No project completion timeline or scope details provided

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume; at least 3 reviews are required for meaningful assessment.

Only a single review is available, dated September 2011, making this over 13 years old and of very limited reliability. The reviewer speaks positively about Michael and his family, describing him as honest and referencing specific jobs such as clearing a backed-up basement and scoping pipes for a rental property. These details suggest genuine experience and follow-through, but all dimension scores are held conservative given the single data point. No pricing specifics were provided, though the word 'honest' was interpreted as a mild pricing/value signal.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated September 2011, making it over 13 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should not be used to assess current service quality.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and must be treated as LOW CONFIDENCE estimates only.
• Insufficient review volume to detect fake review patterns, but the single review does contain specific details (basement backup, pipe scoping, rental property) which are mild indicators of authenticity.

This WW Score cannot be calculated due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required), and the sole available review is over 13 years old, rendering it unreliable as a current indicator of contractor performance.