Find Nearby Plumbers In Idaho Falls, Idaho

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The reviewer explicitly describes being charged $300 more than the original phone quote, with an unexplained $175 charge, which severely damages the pricing dimension. Professionalism scores low due to the lack of transparent communication around charges and the apparent disregard for the original quote. Project completion receives a modest score because the job was ultimately finished, though the experience of the transaction was clearly negative. No information was provided regarding technical skill or workmanship quality.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Pricing concern flagged: reviewer explicitly states final bill was $300 over the original phone quote, with an unexplained $175 surcharge.
• No data available for the Experience dimension — workmanship quality cannot be assessed.
• Single 1-star review with no corroborating reviews — scores should be treated as anecdotal only.

This score is based on a single 1-star review and should not be trusted as representative of this contractor's overall performance — far more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Only a single review is available, dated July 2010, making it over 14 years old and of very limited reliability. The review mentions 'great prices' which provides minimal evidence for the pricing dimension, scored conservatively at 80 due to the vague and unspecific nature of the praise. The phrase 'great service' is too generic to be mapped to any specific dimension without further detail. No data exists for professionalism, project completion, or experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from July 2010, over 14 years old — recency is extremely poor and this data should be treated as largely irrelevant to current performance.
• Review language is highly generic ('great service and great prices') with no specific details — low informational value.
• Single 5-star review with no specifics may not be representative of overall contractor quality.

This score report is based on a single, 14-year-old review with no specific details across most dimensions and should not be trusted as a meaningful indicator of current contractor quality.

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 pricing favorably and project completion (reverse osmosis installation), but provides no explicit evidence regarding professionalism dimensions such as punctuality, communication, or responsiveness. The review also describes non-plumbing services (curtain hanging, lawn mowing, furniture assembly), which are outside the scope of contractor evaluation.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review provided — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2021 (3+ years old) — recency is a concern
• Review describes multiple unrelated services (plumbing, curtains, lawn care, furniture assembly) — unclear if reviewer is evaluating a plumber or a general handyman service
• Review lacks specific technical details about plumbing work quality or professionalism indicators
• Suspiciously generic praise without specifics on communication, punctuality, or problem-solving

This score cannot be calculated or trusted. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 review was provided, and it is over 3 years old with limited actionable data on core contractor dimensions.

This single review is highly detailed and specific, describing multiple visits, named technicians, a complex diagnostic process, and a satisfying permanent resolution — all strong indicators of authenticity. Professionalism scores near the top due to explicit praise of demeanor, communication, punctuality (within one hour on a weekend), and thoughtful cleanup. Pricing scores very high because the crew repeatedly declined to charge for follow-up visits stemming from the original issue, demonstrating exceptional value transparency. Project completion is nearly perfect given the persistent follow-through across multiple visits until the root cause was permanently resolved. Experience is strongly evidenced by the systematic camera mapping, accurate diagnosis of a broken cleanout, and successful excavation and repair. However, all scores carry only LIMITED confidence because they rest on a single review, and no WW Score can be reliably calculated with fewer than three reviews.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All four dimensions are scored at LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis; scores should not be treated as statistically representative.
• No fake review indicators detected — review contains specific names (Jason, Ben, Spencer), a detailed multi-day narrative, and nuanced emotional context, all consistent with an authentic account.
• Review is dated 2024-05-09, which falls within the past 12 months relative to mid-2025, so recency is not a concern.

This score report is based on a single, high-quality and apparently authentic review and should be considered directionally positive but statistically unreliable until a minimum of 3 reviews are available for analysis.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While this single review is highly positive across all dimensions (praising quick response, professionalism, knowledge, fair pricing, and efficient completion), a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews to account for variability and reduce the risk of outlier bias. All dimension scores are based on LIMITED evidence from a single data point.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from January 2021 (over 3 years old) — recency is a concern
• Single 5-star review with uniformly positive language across all dimensions — cannot validate consistency or detect patterns

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable representation of contractor performance. A minimum of 3 recent reviews is required before a meaningful WW Score can be calculated.

Only one review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer praises Mike for going out of his way to repair, diagnose, and educate customers, which suggests positive professionalism and experience. Project completion is implied but not explicitly detailed, so a conservative score is applied. Pricing is not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. Overall, the single review is enthusiastic but lacks the specificity and volume needed to draw reliable conclusions.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review contains generic superlatives ('best RV repair company out there', 'Hands down') with limited specific detail, which reduces evidentiary weight.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension scored as null.
• Single 5-star review with broad praise and no critical feedback — treat all dimension scores with very low confidence.

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