Find Nearby Plumbers In Coeur D'Alene, Idaho

The review set is extremely small and deeply polarized, making any score highly provisional. Two of the three reviews describe severe failures: one details an abandoned job with shoddy workmanship, ignored calls for over three months, a potential state law violation regarding unlicensed personnel, and outright rude dismissal of the customer, while another describes unprofessional and hostile behavior during a simple inquiry call. The single positive review praises responsiveness and follow-through but lacks detail on workmanship quality and is from 2017, making it the oldest review in the set. Professionalism scores are dragged sharply downward by two explicit accounts of rudeness and abandonment, partially offset by one positive account. Project completion and experience scores are similarly low due to documented failure to finish work and poor-quality installations requiring full remediation by a second contractor.

• VERY SMALL SAMPLE: Only 3 reviews total. The WW Score cannot be considered reliable with this volume of data.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The sole positive review is from June 2017 — over 7 years old. The two negative reviews are from 2018 and 2023, making them significantly more recent and therefore weighted more heavily.
• SERIOUS LEGAL/REGULATORY FLAG: The 2023 review explicitly alleges a violation of state law (no licensed journeyman present on job), documents shoddy workmanship across multiple fixtures, and states a formal complaint is being filed with the state. This is a high-severity flag.
• ABANDONED JOB FLAG: The 2023 review documents a job that was left incomplete for 3+ months with 8+ ignored calls, requiring a second contractor to remediate all work performed.
• HOSTILE CONDUCT FLAG: The 2018 review describes the business owner or representative using foul language and refusing to identify themselves during a routine business inquiry.
• PRICING DATA ABSENT: No reviews explicitly discussed pricing, quotes, or value for money. Pricing dimension cannot be scored.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews spanning 6 years and should be treated as highly unreliable — the two most recent reviews document serious professional and legal failures, while the only positive review is over 7 years old, making this score insufficient to draw confident conclusions about current service quality.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a trustworthy WW Score. The reviews present a stark contradiction: one 5-star emergency response with creative problem-solving and rapid completion; one 1-star account of abandonment, non-responsiveness, and failure to follow through on a committed project. Professionalism and project completion show conflicting signals across the two reviews. Pricing is not addressed in either review.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring. Minimum 3 reviews required.
• CONTRADICTORY PATTERN: Review 1 (2019-06-16) praises rapid response, creativity, and completion. Review 2 (2019-05-09) reports non-responsiveness, abandonment, and failure to return calls. This suggests inconsistent service delivery or possible operational changes.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2019 (4+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• NO PRICING DATA: Neither review mentions cost, value, or pricing fairness. Cannot score Price Friendly dimension.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and extreme age (both from 2019). The contradictory nature of the two reviews suggests either inconsistent service quality or significant operational changes over time. Any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is highly positive, praising professionalism (cleanliness, efficiency, thoroughness, communication), project completion (finished on time, extra work performed, follow-up call), and experience (expert knowledge, quality workmanship). However, pricing is not addressed in this review, and a single data point cannot establish reliable patterns or confidence in any dimension.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from October 2016 (8+ years old). No recent data available.
• SINGLE REVIEW BIAS: Cannot assess consistency, patterns, or reliability with only one testimonial.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Review contains unusually effusive language with multiple exclamation marks, generic praise structure, and reads as promotional rather than typical customer feedback. However, this assessment is based on a single review and cannot be confirmed without additional data.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review vs. minimum 3 required) and the review's age (2016). No scoring recommendation can be made.

Only a single review is available, dated March 2017, making this analysis extremely limited in reliability. The reviewer praises Jim as courteous and knowledgeable, suggesting solid professionalism and experience. The job was described as completed quickly and at a fair price, indicating reasonable project completion and pricing. However, with just one review over seven years old, no meaningful pattern can be established and all scores must be treated as highly tentative.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated March 2017, making it over 7 years old. It carries very low recency weight and may not reflect current service quality.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention each and should be considered speculative rather than indicative of consistent performance.
• Cannot rule out that this is a one-off positive experience; no corroborating reviews exist to validate claims.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review data — only 1 review exists and it is over 7 years old, providing virtually no basis for confident assessment of this contractor's current quality.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review explicitly mentions professionalism (punctuality, kindness, pleasant attitude), project completion (backflow fixed, cleanup completed), and experience (technical competence in backflow work). However, pricing is not addressed. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a statistically meaningful WW Score.

• Only 1 review available — far below the 3-review minimum threshold for reliable scoring
• Suspiciously generic praise with unusual detail (sourdough bread) that may indicate fake or planted review, though cannot be confirmed with single data point
• No pricing information provided — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• Cannot assess overall contractor reliability with single review

This score cannot be calculated or trusted; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce any meaningful WW Score assessment.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions professionalism (professional service, quick cleanup) and project completion (job done), but provides no information on pricing or technical experience. A meaningful assessment requires substantially more customer feedback.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2023 (over 1 year old) — recency is limited
• No pricing feedback provided in any review
• No technical experience or workmanship details mentioned

This score cannot be calculated or trusted with only a single review; at least 3 independent reviews are required to produce a reliable WW Score.