Find Nearby Plumbers In Hollywood, Florida

Only two reviews were available for analysis, which is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. The first review provides some concrete detail — a plumber arrived quickly after a call, handled an emergency clog efficiently, and was described as friendly — supporting modest scores in professionalism, project completion, and experience. The second review is entirely generic, offering no specific details about any service dimension, and reads as a vague endorsement with no actionable evidence. Pricing was not mentioned in either review, leaving that dimension with no data. All scores carry very low confidence due to the minimal review count.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review #2 is suspiciously generic with no specific details about the job, technician, pricing, or outcome. It may be a fake or promotional review and was not used to score any dimension.
• Both reviews are dated September 2010 — over 14 years old. These reviews do not reflect current service quality and should be weighted very low.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the Price Friendly dimension cannot be scored.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current service quality — it is based on only 2 reviews, both over 14 years old, one of which appears generic and uninformative.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed; a minimum of 3 reviews is required for reliable scoring. The two reviews present extreme polarity: one highly positive generic praise with minimal specifics (5-star, July 2024), and one detailed 1-star complaint from 2012 documenting severe damage, incomplete work, insurance lapses, and fraud allegations. The extreme age gap (12 years) and contradictory nature of these reviews prevent meaningful aggregation. The older review contains extensive documentation of professionalism failures, project incompletion, and poor workmanship, while the recent review lacks substantive detail.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable WW Score calculation
• EXTREME POLARITY: 5-star and 1-star reviews with no middle ground suggests potential data quality issues or significant business changes over time
• RECENCY CONCERN: 2012 review is 12+ years old; business practices may have changed substantially since then
• GENERIC PRAISE: 2024 review uses vague language ('amaze,' 'private doctor') with no specific examples of work quality, pricing, or project details — suggests limited evidentiary value
• DETAILED NEGATIVE: 2012 review is highly specific with documented damage, insurance fraud, incomplete work, and state attorney general filing — carries substantial weight despite age
• BUSINESS CONTINUITY QUESTION: 2012 review documents insurance lapse and Servicemagic termination; unclear if current business is same entity or successor
• INSUFFICIENT MENTIONS: All dimensions based on 1-2 mentions only; confidence is LIMITED across all scored dimensions

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and extreme polarity between reviews separated by 12 years. Any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.

Both reviews are severely negative and describe serious issues with Ruiz Plumbing. The first review details price gouging (charging 4x market value for a water heater) and dismissive customer service when confronted. The second review alleges dishonesty, theft, and failure to file required permits despite instructing the customer to cancel appointments. Professionalism is critically undermined by arrogant responses and apparent deception. Project completion is questioned due to permit filing failures. However, with only 2 reviews total, this analysis lacks sufficient data volume to produce a reliable WW Score.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2020-2021 (3+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess current business practices.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Reviews contain accusations of theft, dishonesty, and regulatory non-compliance. These are severe claims that warrant independent verification.
• EXPERIENCE DIMENSION: No explicit mention of technical skill or workmanship quality in either review. Score cannot be calculated for this dimension.
• LIMITED MENTION COUNTS: All scoreable dimensions have only 1-2 mentions, resulting in LIMITED confidence across the board.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and age of data (both reviews from 2020-2021). The severe negative allegations warrant investigation but cannot be validated through review analysis alone. Any scoring would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

This single review is severely negative across all four dimensions. The reviewer alleges the contractor failed to fix a simple toilet issue, deliberately caused a leak resulting in flood damage, installed faulty equipment misrepresented as new, and stopped returning calls after complaints — indicating critical failures in professionalism, project completion, experience, and pricing integrity. The claim of intentional damage creation to generate more billable work is a serious allegation that directly impacts all scoring dimensions. However, with only one review available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, and all scores carry very low confidence.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. A minimum of 3 reviews is required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• REVIEW AGE: This review is from December 2015, making it approximately 9+ years old. It may not reflect the contractor's current practices or quality.
• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION: The reviewer explicitly alleges the contractor intentionally caused property damage (a leak leading to flooding) to manufacture additional work — this is a significant red flag if substantiated.
• FRAUD ALLEGATION: The reviewer claims equipment described as 'new' was actually faulty, suggesting possible misrepresentation of parts or services rendered.
• UNRESOLVED DAMAGE: The reviewer reports lasting property damage (ceiling stain) attributed to the contractor's work, with no resolution provided.
• SINGLE-REVIEW BIAS: All scores are based on one reviewer's account and should be treated with extreme caution. No corroborating reviews exist to validate or contradict these claims.

This WW Score report is not reliable for decision-making purposes — it is based on a single review that is over 9 years old, and the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a valid WW Score has not been met.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review explicitly mentions professionalism elements (cleanliness, courtesy, time respect) but provides no information about pricing, project completion, or technical experience. No WW Score can be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is from 2016 (8+ years old) — recency is a concern for current contractor assessment
• Generic praise with no specific project details or technical accomplishments mentioned

This assessment is unreliable and should not be used to evaluate the contractor. A minimum of 3 recent reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

This single review provides explicit praise across all four dimensions: professionalism (described as 'very professional and honest,' responsive to callbacks), pricing (no charge for follow-up service), project completion (handled permits, electrical, plumbing, and follow-up service thoroughly), and experience (correctly diagnosed issue, made recommendations, handled complex tankless installation). However, with only one review and no comparative data, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated. The review is detailed and specific rather than generic, which supports authenticity.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability
• Review date is over 10 years old (August 2013) — does not reflect current service quality or business practices
• Single positive review cannot establish statistical confidence in any dimension

This analysis is unreliable for decision-making purposes. A single review from 2013, regardless of its positive tone, cannot support a trustworthy WW Score. Minimum 3 recent reviews are required to calculate a meaningful score.