Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Petersburg, Florida

Only a single review is available, which describes a no-show on a pre-scheduled and quoted job, with a last-minute cancellation call on the day of service. This is a serious failure in both professionalism and project completion, warranting very low scores in both dimensions. Pricing and experience cannot be assessed as neither was mentioned in the review. With only one review and data from 2019, this report carries very limited reliability.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from May 2019, which is over 5 years old. Recency weighting is very low and current contractor performance may differ significantly.
• No data available for Pricing or Experience dimensions — these could not be scored.

This score report is based on a single review from 2019 and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall quality or current performance.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer praised the work as 'excellent' and the price as 'very reasonable,' suggesting positive experiences with both workmanship and value. The jobs described — fixing a leaky toilet and replacing an old faucet — were completed successfully, supporting a modest project completion score. No explicit mention of professionalism-related factors such as punctuality, communication, or attitude was made, so that dimension cannot be scored. All scores are conservative given the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 for a reliable WW Score.
• Insufficient data to calculate a WW Score — result marked accordingly.
• The phrase 'tried the rest, now found the best' is a common marketing-style expression that could indicate a coached or incentivized review, though no definitive fake review pattern can be confirmed from a single review.
• Review is from February 2023, which is over 12 months old depending on current date — recency weighting may apply.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality — significantly more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review mentions professionalism (timely service, pleasant office interaction), pricing (reasonable cost), and project completion (efficient service). However, with only one data point, confidence in any dimension is severely limited, and no meaningful overall score can be derived.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review contains spelling errors ('wase' instead of 'was', 'Reasonal' instead of 'Reasonable', 'repose' unclear context) suggesting possible rushed or low-quality submission.
• Generic praise with minimal specific details about the actual work performed.
• No mention of experience/skill level or technical quality of workmanship.

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment. A single review is statistically insufficient to establish contractor performance patterns or confidence in any dimension.

Only a single review is available for analysis, which severely limits scoring reliability across all dimensions. The reviewer explicitly praises responsiveness and honesty, supporting a modest professionalism score. The mention of avoiding unnecessary upsells and preferring simple solutions over expensive repairs suggests fair and transparent pricing practices. Project completion and experience are inferred from the reviewer's decision to return as a personal client after contractor work, indicating satisfactory outcomes, but no granular detail is provided. All scores are intentionally conservative given the extremely limited data.

• 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 each and should be treated with very low confidence.
• Recency note: The single review is dated October 2024, which is within the past 12 months and is therefore considered current.
• No fake review patterns detected, but with only one review, no meaningful pattern analysis is possible.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be used as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension score or overall assessment can be trusted.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer praised the contractor's kindness and communication, noted pricing below average market rates, and mentioned a 90-day callback guarantee suggesting follow-through commitment. The contractor also demonstrated some advisory knowledge by explaining how to prevent the issue from recurring. However, with just one review and no detail on the actual quality of the completed work, all scores are held conservative per scoring rules.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• No explicit detail provided about the quality of workmanship or technical execution — experience score is inferred conservatively from advisory behavior only.
• Project completion cannot be fully confirmed — the review implies work was done but does not explicitly state the job was completed successfully.
• Single 5-star review with no corroborating reviews — cannot rule out recency bias or isolated positive experience.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single review and falls well below the minimum data threshold required for a meaningful WW Score.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The reviewer mentions a fair price and positions Mike as a more affordable alternative to larger companies, which supports a modest pricing score. The phrase 'did good work' provides minimal evidence of competence but lacks any specific detail about the nature or quality of the work performed. No information was provided regarding professionalism dimensions such as punctuality or communication, nor about project completion specifics. Due to the extremely limited data, no WW Score can be responsibly calculated.

• Only 1 review analyzed — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Review is dated 2021-12-18, which is more than 1 year old; recency weighting is a concern.
• Review language is generic ('great', 'fair price', 'good work') with no specific details about the job, which limits scoring confidence.
• Single 5-star review with vague praise — cannot rule out bias or lack of critical perspective.

This score report is based on a single, generic, and dated review and should not be trusted as a meaningful indicator of contractor quality.