Find Nearby Plumbers In Pocatello, Idaho

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across a small and largely outdated review set. The two most recent reviews with usable data — from 2019 and 2012 — include serious complaints: one describes a failed leak repair that worsened the problem, a complete lack of callback responsiveness across 8 attempts, and a charge of over $500 for unresolved work; another describes a job left unfinished and bad technical advice that caused installation problems. These failures heavily drag down project completion and professionalism scores. The positive reviews, while enthusiastic, are all from 2010–2012 and describe a different pattern of responsive, friendly, and competitively priced service — suggesting possible decline in quality or consistency over time. With only 5 usable reviews spanning nearly a decade, confidence in any dimension is limited and the WW Score should be treated with significant caution.

• RECENCY WARNING: The most recent reviews with usable data are from 2019 and 2012. The positive reviews are all from 2010–2012, making them over 10 years old. These older reviews carry significantly reduced weight in assessing current contractor quality.
• One review contained only the word 'unknown' with a 4-star rating and no usable content — excluded from scoring.
• The 2019 review describes a serious pattern of non-responsiveness (8 unanswered calls in 24 hours, no one present at the business location), which may indicate the business was no longer actively operating at that time.
• POTENTIAL QUALITY DECLINE: The contrast between glowing 2010–2012 reviews and the negative 2012 and 2019 reviews suggests a possible deterioration in service quality or business operations over time.
• SMALL SAMPLE WARNING: Only 5 usable reviews total. No dimension reaches the 5-mention threshold for HIGH confidence. All scores should be treated as low-reliability estimates.

This WW Score has LOW reliability due to a very small review sample, a wide date range spanning over a decade, and a stark quality split between old positive reviews and more recent negative ones — it should not be used as a confident indicator of current contractor performance.

This contractor has a deeply mixed record across only 5 reviews spanning over a decade. Two reviews explicitly describe deceptive pricing practices — quoting one price and billing a significantly higher amount — which severely drags down the pricing and project completion dimensions. The positive reviews praise friendliness, communication, and reasonable prices, but these are largely older reviews (2012, 2015) and lack specific detail. The most recent review (2024) is brief and generic, offering limited evidentiary weight. The two 1-star reviews are specific and consistent in their complaints about bait-and-switch tactics, which is a serious red flag that cannot be dismissed.

• SERIOUS CONCERN: Two separate reviews (2015 and 2016) independently describe identical bait-and-switch pricing behavior — quoting a price then billing significantly more. This is a consistent and specific pattern of alleged deceptive business practice.
• RECENCY WARNING: Most reviews are older than 1 year. Only 1 of 5 reviews is from the past 12 months (2024). The 2024 review is brief and generic with no specifics, limiting its reliability.
• REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 5 total reviews exist. This is an extremely small sample size and the WW Score should be treated with caution.
• GENERIC POSITIVE REVIEW FLAG: The 2024 5-star review ('Great service - reasonable prices. Dave is my go-to man...') is very short and non-specific, which reduces its evidentiary value.
• SCORE RELIABILITY: With only 5 reviews and a significant split between detailed negative complaints and older positive reviews, this score carries LOW overall reliability.

This WW Score is based on only 5 reviews — several of which are over 8 years old — and should be considered highly unreliable; the two specific and consistent complaints about deceptive pricing practices are a serious concern that prospective customers should not overlook.

Both reviews speak positively about David's professionalism, including his willingness to communicate, accommodate scheduling needs, and travel outside his immediate service area. Project completion is supported by explicit mentions of jobs being finished efficiently and in a single trip. Experience is reflected in references to his extensive knowledge, expert advice, and problem-solving approach. Pricing is mentioned in only one review, where he is described as 'very reasonably priced,' providing limited but positive signal. All scores are treated conservatively given the very small review sample.

• Only 2 reviews provided — this is below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• Both reviews are dated 2017 and 2020, meaning all data is more than 3 years old. Recency cannot be confirmed and current performance may differ.
• With only 2 reviews, there is insufficient data to detect fake review patterns, but the reviews do contain specific details (location, scheduling logistics, photo communication) which reduces fake review suspicion.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to low mention counts across every dimension. These scores should not be treated as statistically reliable.

This report is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are over 3 years old, making the WW Score unreliable and insufficient for a confident assessment of current contractor performance.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is positive and mentions professionalism (promptness, courtesy, friendliness), project completion (quick service, repeated calls honored), and experience (knowledgeable and proficient). However, pricing is explicitly stated as unknown by the reviewer. With only one data point, confidence in any dimension is severely limited.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from 2018 (6+ years old). Recency is a concern for current contractor assessment.
• Pricing dimension has no data — reviewer explicitly states 'I don't know about their pricing.'

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.

This single review is severely negative across every dimension it touches. The contractor failed to arrive at the scheduled appointment time, performed work without the customer present, and left a hose running unattended that caused basement flooding — indicating a critical failure in both professionalism and project completion. The reviewer explicitly states the company is avoiding their calls and refusing to take responsibility, compounding the professionalism failure. No insurance coverage is alleged, which further undermines trust in the contractor's legitimacy and accountability. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Reviewer explicitly alleges the contractor does not carry insurance, which is a serious legal and liability concern.
• Reviewer alleges the contractor caused property damage (flooded basement) through negligent work and is actively avoiding follow-up contact.
• Review is from 2017 — this is significantly older than 12 months and may not reflect current business practices, but the severity of the allegation warrants full weight.
• No positive reviews exist to provide balance; all scoring is based on a single 1-star complaint.

This score is based on a single review from 2017 and should be treated with very low confidence — the WW Score cannot be calculated, and the dimension scores reflect only one highly negative data point with no corroborating or counterbalancing evidence.

Only a single review is available, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer praises Jesse as friendly, professional, and thorough, and notes he takes time to check all matters — suggesting positive professionalism and experience signals. Project completion is loosely implied by the phrase 'thorough' and 'checks all matters out,' but no explicit mention of a completed job or timeline is made. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored. All scores are conservative given the single-review basis.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension scored as null.
• Single review basis means all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence only — treat all scores with significant caution.
• Review is recent (March 2024) which is a positive recency signal, but one data point is insufficient to establish a trend.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance — substantially more reviews are needed before any WW Score can be meaningfully trusted.