Find Nearby Plumbers In Deltona, Florida

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a trustworthy WW Score. The reviews present sharply contradictory experiences: one 5-star account praising professionalism, communication, and quality work; one 1-star account citing severe unprofessionalism, abandonment of a large project, and poor communication. The extreme polarity and small sample size make any aggregate score unreliable.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Extreme polarity: one 5-star and one 1-star review with no middle ground
• Significant recency gap: 2023 review vs. 2015 review (8-year span) — unclear if contractor practices have changed
• 2015 review is substantially older than 1-year window; limited relevance to current operations
• Contradictory accounts of professionalism and communication make confidence assessment difficult

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2). The two reviews present fundamentally opposing narratives about the same contractor, and the 8-year gap between them raises questions about whether either reflects current service quality. At least 3 additional recent reviews are needed before a trustworthy WW Score can be generated.

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 provided are both 5-star ratings from 2012 and 2018 (both older than 12 months), with limited specific detail about pricing, timeline adherence, or technical problem-solving. While professionalism, project completion, and experience are mentioned positively, the sample size is too small and recency is poor to generate a reliable composite score.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable scoring
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are older than 12 months (2012 and 2018); no recent data available
• LIMITED DETAIL: Reviews lack specifics on pricing, timeline, callbacks, or technical complexity resolution
• PRICING DIMENSION: No mentions of pricing, value, or cost transparency across any reviews

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and poor recency; any score generated would be statistically unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Only one review contains usable data. The first review (2020) explicitly mentions punctuality (crew showed up on time), professionalism/care (minimum damage during repairs), and quality of work. The second review is marked 'unknown' and provides no substantive information. With only a single data point across three dimensions, confidence is severely limited and a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Insufficient data: only 1 usable review out of 2 total
• Second review contains no text ('unknown') and cannot be scored
• First review is from 2020 (4+ years old); no recent data available
• All dimensions based on single mention — extremely limited confidence
• Cannot calculate aggregate WW Score with fewer than 3 reviews

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Minimum 3 reviews with substantive data are required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience explicitly. One review mentions fair pricing. However, with only 2 total reviews, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. The reviews praise punctuality, courteous staff (Nick and Angel), technical knowledge, quick service, quality work, and reasonable pricing. No negative feedback or complaints are present, but the limited volume prevents confident scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for WW Score calculation.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Both reviews are 5-star ratings with suspiciously generic praise ('can't say a negative thing, not one' and 'HIGHLY RECOMMEND'). Review 2 uses vague language ('This is the one. you can stop looking') without specific details about the work performed.
• RECENCY: Review 1 is recent (July 2024), but Review 2 is older (December 2023). Limited temporal diversity.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). The high ratings and potential fake review patterns further reduce confidence in any conclusions drawn from this data.

With only two reviews, the data is highly polarized and insufficient for a reliable WW Score. The positive review (Dec 2023) describes strong professionalism, transparent deposit practices, good pricing, thorough project completion, and solid workmanship across multiple jobs. However, the negative review (Oct 2023) directly contradicts several of these dimensions — specifically citing an unfinished job after 73 days, broken promises on deadlines, and problematic upfront money requests that led the customer to hire a replacement contractor and consider legal action. The project completion dimension is most severely impacted, as the negative review describes a near-abandonment scenario. Scores have been conservatively weighted to reflect this direct conflict between the only two available data points.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Direct contradiction between reviews: one reviewer reports excellent completion and professionalism; the other reports an unfinished job after 73 days, missed deadlines, and a potential police/civil complaint.
• The negative review raises a serious red flag regarding upfront payment practices — the contractor reportedly requested advance money and did not complete the work, which is a significant financial and legal risk indicator.
• Both reviews are from late 2023 and are within 12 months of each other, so recency weighting does not differentiate them.
• The positive review, while detailed, covers multiple past jobs and includes personal relationship language ('great family friend'), which may introduce positive bias. However, the specificity of the details reduces fake review suspicion.
• The negative review is highly specific (73 days, 90% completion, police report threat) and does not appear fabricated.

This score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews with directly conflicting accounts; no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's typical performance can be drawn until significantly more reviews are available.

With only two reviews, the data is highly insufficient to draw reliable conclusions. The two reviews are sharply contradictory: one is a glowing 5-star review praising speed, friendliness, professionalism, and quality of work, while the other is a scathing 1-star review citing rude and condescending behavior, unauthorized work, and unexplained price increases. Professionalism scores low due to the serious misconduct described in the negative review — eye-rolling, condescension, and working without customer approval — which cannot be offset by a single positive review. Pricing is flagged as a concern due to the explicit complaint about a $40 unexplained charge increase with no transparency. Project completion is mixed: the hot water tank job was completed well, but the spigot job involved unauthorized work and no review of completed work with the customer.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The positive review (2021) is over 1 year old relative to the negative review (2023); the more recent review is the negative one and should carry greater weight per recency rules.
• The positive review uses somewhat generic praise ('fast, friendly, professional, on time, excellent work') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces its evidentiary weight.
• Unauthorized work performed without customer approval is a serious flag and may indicate inconsistent service standards or worker misconduct.
• Unexplained price discrepancy of $40 above a previously quoted or experienced rate was not addressed transparently by the worker, raising a pricing integrity concern.

This score is highly unreliable due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews; no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality should be drawn until substantially more review data is available.