Find Nearby Plumbers In North Port, Florida

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are positive and mention professionalism (quick response, nice people), pricing (good value, fair price), project completion (job finished on fans and light fixtures), and experience (quality work). However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. All mentions are generic and lack specific detail about workmanship or problem-solving.

• Insufficient review volume: only 2 reviews provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Both reviews are suspiciously generic with no specific details about the work performed, timeline, or challenges overcome.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with minimal substantive information — pattern consistent with potential fake or template reviews.
• Reviews are dated 2023 (over 1 year old) — recency is a concern.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews). Do not rely on any scoring from this dataset.

Both reviews are recent (within the past 12 months) and speak highly of Todd Albright across multiple dimensions. Professionalism stands out strongly — one reviewer praised his punctuality and honesty, while another highlighted his willingness to serve customers even under emergency evacuation conditions during Hurricane Milton. Project completion was explicitly confirmed in both reviews, with work finished thoroughly and cleanly. Pricing was directly addressed in one review, where the customer confirmed Albright's rates were fair after obtaining two competing quotes. Experience is supported by descriptions of efficient, skilled work including toilet installation, hardware replacement, hose bib repair, and water heater adjustment — all handled competently in a single visit. However, with only 2 reviews total, all scores carry LIMITED confidence and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings. While the reviews contain specific details and unique circumstances that reduce fake review suspicion, the small sample size means no meaningful pattern analysis is possible.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present across either review — this is expected with only 2 reviews but should be noted as a limitation.
• All scores are conservative due to LIMITED confidence (1–2 mentions per dimension) per Rule 7.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be treated as a very early-stage signal only — while both reviews are detailed, specific, and recent, no statistically meaningful conclusions can be drawn until at least 5–10 additional reviews are analyzed.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are extremely negative (1-star ratings from 2022) and describe severe failures across professionalism, project completion, and workmanship. Review 1 alleges incomplete work (missing shut-off valve), poor quality, and refusal to stand behind work or communicate. Review 2 describes multiple rescheduled appointments, incomplete job with unfinished walls and non-functional fixtures, and complete communication breakdown/ghosting. No pricing feedback provided. The recency of these reviews (both from 2022, over 1 year old) and the extremely small sample size prevent reliable WW Score calculation.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2022 (over 1 year old). No recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• SEVERE PATTERN: Both reviews describe catastrophic failures in project completion and communication. This suggests systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• NO PRICING DATA: Dimension 'pricing' cannot be scored — no explicit pricing feedback in either review.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). The extremely negative feedback from both available reviews is concerning and suggests serious operational problems, but a robust assessment requires at least 3 reviews and preferably more recent data.

Both reviews are positive and mention friendliness, knowledge, and satisfactory job completion, suggesting a capable and personable contractor. One review explicitly mentions a fixed price for a sink install, indicating some pricing transparency, though only a single mention limits confidence in that dimension. The second review highlights superior workmanship on a water heater install performed by the owner himself, reinforcing experience and project completion signals. However, with only two total reviews, no dimension reaches even MODERATE confidence, and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated. More reviews are needed before any score should be treated as representative.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings; while the content is specific enough to avoid a fake review flag, the small sample size means positive skew cannot be ruled out.
• Both reviews are from within the past 12 months (2024), which is a positive recency signal, but the sample remains too small to draw firm conclusions.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews across all dimensions.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are from 2015 (8+ years old) and provide limited explicit detail on key dimensions. Professionalism is supported by mentions of responsiveness, politeness, and attention to detail (removing shoes, showing work). Project completion is evidenced by successful repairs and customer inspection. Experience is inferred from quality of work and problem-solving. Pricing is mentioned only once ($89/hour) with no context on fairness. The extreme age of reviews and small sample size severely limit confidence in any aggregate score.

• CRITICAL: Both reviews are from 2015 — over 8 years old. No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• Sample size is only 2 reviews — below the minimum threshold of 3 for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Pricing dimension has insufficient data (only 1 mention of hourly rate with no context on value or fairness).
• Review dates suggest this contractor may no longer be actively operating or reviewed.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required) and extreme recency bias (all reviews from 2015). Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

With only two reviews, the picture of Bohall's is sharply divided. The 2024 review describes a positive experience with punctuality, professionalism, and reasonable pricing on a maintenance program. However, the 2022 review is a serious red flag: a customer reported 9 weeks without a working AC unit, nearly $3,000 in unexpected out-of-pocket costs on a warrantied part, and endless delays — ultimately resolving the issue by switching to a competitor. The negative review significantly drags down project completion and pricing scores, as the failure described was severe and prolonged. With only two data points, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score. Results should be treated as anecdotal only.
• The 2022 negative review describes a serious project completion failure: 9 weeks of unresolved AC issues, warranty dispute resulting in a ~$3,000 charge, and repeated delays and excuses. This is a significant risk signal.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict with each other, suggesting inconsistent service quality or possible improvement/decline over time.
• The positive review (2024) is recent but lacks specific technical detail, relying heavily on secondhand recommendation rather than direct workmanship assessment.
• Recency note: The negative review is from 2022 (over 2 years old) and the positive review is from 2024. More recent data slightly favors the positive experience, but one review per period is insufficient to draw conclusions about trend direction.

This WW Score report is based on only 2 reviews and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of overall contractor quality — significantly more review data is required before any confident assessment can be made.