Find Nearby Plumbers In Washington, District Of Columbia

Only one review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The single reviewer explicitly praised Malcolm Jordan's professionalism, describing him as focused, prepared, and professional, which supports a modest professionalism score. Project completion is evidenced by the contrast drawn with a prior plumber who gave up — Jordan completed a job another provider could not, indicating solid follow-through. Experience is inferred from the reviewer's description of quality workmanship on a challenging drain clog, though no technical specifics were provided. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as very low confidence.
• Review is from October 2021, which is over 12 months old — recency weighting is a concern if this remains the only review.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.

This score profile is based on a single review from 2021 and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While this single review is positive across all dimensions (professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience), a statistically meaningful WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews. Each dimension is based on only 1 mention, resulting in LIMITED confidence across the board.

• Only 1 review provided — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for reliable scoring
• All dimensions based on single mention — confidence severely limited
• Review is generic praise with minimal specific detail (no timeline mentioned, no complexity assessment)

This data is insufficient to produce a trustworthy WW Score. Collect at least 2 additional reviews before relying on any scoring output.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly provisional. The reviewer describes a positive experience with a broken AC unit, noting quick response time (within 30 minutes), friendly demeanor, and fair pricing — all of which are encouraging signals. The job appears to have been completed satisfactorily within a reasonable timeframe, and the reviewer explicitly credits the contractor with saving them money versus a full replacement. However, with just one review from 2021, no meaningful pattern can be established across any dimension.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from August 2021, which is more than 1 year old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• Single review with a 5-star rating and generally positive but non-specific language — cannot rule out recency or authenticity bias, though no overt fake review patterns detected.
• All dimension scores are LOW CONFIDENCE due to single-mention basis and should not be treated as representative.

This score profile is based on a single review from over three years ago and should be considered highly unreliable — seek additional recent reviews before making any hiring decision.

This single review provides positive feedback across all four dimensions. The reviewer explicitly praised punctuality (arrived on time Tuesday morning), professionalism (described as 'a true professional'), competitive pricing, and technical expertise (20 years experience, quickly diagnosed and resolved the issue). However, with only one review, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence in the scoring.

• Insufficient data: only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review contains promotional content (phone number, email, 'SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESS') which is atypical but does not indicate inauthenticity.
• All dimensions scored based on single mention — confidence is LIMITED across the board.

This assessment is unreliable for decision-making purposes. At least 2–3 additional reviews are needed to establish a trustworthy WW Score and validate these initial positive impressions.

This single review provides explicit evidence across three dimensions: professionalism (on-time arrival, friendly demeanor, conscientiousness), project completion (job completed as requested, follow-up callback honored), and experience (quality workmanship implied by successful job execution). However, pricing is not mentioned. With only one review, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per methodology requirements.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from September 2023 (approximately 1+ year old). Recency is limited.
• Single review with perfect 5-star rating and no specific pricing information limits confidence in overall assessment.

This analysis is unreliable for decision-making purposes. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a trustworthy WW Score; only 1 review was provided.

Only a single review is available, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer noted that Ricky was helpful, showed up on time, and resolved a toilet issue, providing minimal but positive signals across professionalism, project completion, and experience. No information was provided regarding pricing, transparency of quotes, or value for money, so that dimension cannot be scored. All scores are intentionally conservative given the extremely limited data pool of one review.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• No pricing or cost-related information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension cannot be evaluated.
• Single review provides very limited specificity; while not flagged as fake, no pattern analysis is possible with one data point.
• Review is from May 2024, which is within the past 12 months and therefore carries full recency weight, but this does not compensate for the lack of volume.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — with only one review, there is insufficient data to draw meaningful conclusions about any dimension.