Find Nearby Plumbers In Caldwell, Idaho

Both available reviews are strongly negative and raise serious concerns across multiple dimensions. The first review explicitly describes a billing discrepancy — charged $65 over the verbal agreement — and alleges theft of a bottle of whiskey from the customer's home, which is an extreme professionalism red flag. The second review describes a roof repair that failed to fix the leak, indicating poor workmanship and incomplete project delivery. Although only two reviews exist, every dimension that can be scored reflects significant failure. The recency gap between reviews (2020 and 2024) prevents trend analysis, but neither review offers any positive signal.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold rules.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: Review 1 alleges theft of personal property ($65 bottle of whiskey) from a customer's home — this is a significant integrity and professionalism red flag.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: Review 1 describes a billing amount ($465) that exceeded the verbal agreement ($400) without apparent explanation — possible deceptive pricing practice.
• SERIOUS CONCERN: Review 2 describes a roof repair that continued to leak after completion, suggesting the job was not completed to a functional standard.
• RECENCY NOTE: One review is from 2020 (over 4 years old) and one is from 2024. The 2024 review is given higher weight, but the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions.
• NO POSITIVE REVIEWS PRESENT: All available reviews are 1-star. There is no counterbalancing positive data. Scores reflect only negative evidence and should be treated with caution due to extremely limited sample size.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, which is below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score — treat all dimension scores as directional indicators only, not definitive assessments.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. That single review speaks positively about Travis Baker's professionalism, noting he was understanding, thoughtful, and considerate during delays caused by city sewer work. Project completion is supported by the mention that drain lines were replumbed and the customer was kept functional throughout, though no explicit timeline or delivery detail was provided. Workmanship quality is referenced briefly as 'excellent,' lending a modest experience score. 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 carry LIMITED confidence only.
• Review is dated October 2020, making it over 4 years old. Recency weighting is a concern — this may not reflect current service quality.
• No pricing or value information was mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has NO DATA.
• With only one review, fake review detection is not applicable, but the review is specific and detailed enough to appear genuine.

This score report is based on a single review from 2020 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's current or consistent performance.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed, and it does not contain completed project work. The review explicitly states the customer did not use the business, so no project completion data exists. Only professionalism was mentioned (friendly demeanor, timely response), which cannot support a reliable overall score.

• Only 1 review analyzed — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review describes a quote/consultation only, not completed work — no project completion data available
• Customer did not actually hire the contractor, limiting the validity of assessment
• Review is from October 2022 — over 18 months old, outside the preferred 12-month recency window

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review), lack of actual project completion data, and age of the single review.