Find Nearby Plumbers In Bolingbrook, Illinois

Both reviews are positive and speak to Dave and crew completing jobs successfully, including a complex water-damage-related toilet replacement and a commercial kitchen installation. One review explicitly mentions fair pricing, and both suggest the work was completed on time and passed inspection where applicable. However, with only 2 reviews — both over 8 years old — confidence across all dimensions is strictly LIMITED and scores have been kept conservative accordingly. The age of these reviews significantly reduces their reliability as a reflection of current service quality.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.
• Both reviews are dated 2015–2016, making them over 8 years old. They do not reflect recent performance and should be weighted very cautiously.
• Reviews are brief and lack granular detail, limiting the ability to score dimensions with precision.
• No negative feedback present, but this is likely due to the extremely small sample size rather than an indicator of consistent excellence.

This score profile should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality — only 2 reviews exist, both are over 8 years old, and no recent customer feedback is available to validate ongoing performance.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, and each dimension is mentioned in only 1 review. Review 1 (2021) praises workmanship and reliability for annual sewer maintenance. Review 2 (2017) highlights competitive pricing, same-day service, and fast completion. Both reviews are generic praise with minimal specific detail. The oldest review is 7 years old, limiting recency relevance.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidance
• All mentions are single-sourced (1 per dimension) — confidence capped at LIMITED
• Both reviews are suspiciously generic with no specific details about work performed, challenges overcome, or concrete outcomes
• Review 2 is 7 years old (June 2017) — significant recency concern
• No negative feedback or balanced perspective — pattern consistent with curated/fake reviews
• Lack of specificity (e.g., 'top-notch,' 'phenomenal') without supporting detail raises authenticity concerns

This score cannot be calculated and should not be trusted. The sample size is too small (2 reviews), each dimension lacks sufficient mention density, and the reviews exhibit patterns consistent with curated or fake content (generic praise, no specifics, all 5-star, one review is 7 years old).

This single review paints a strongly negative picture across multiple dimensions. The contractor arrived over an hour late and charged $485 for approximately 1.5 hours of labor replacing three valves worth roughly $10 in parts, suggesting severely inflated pricing with no transparency. Professionalism suffered further when the customer attempted to seek an explanation and received no callback or follow-up after two attempts and one week of waiting. Project completion received a marginally higher score only because the valves were apparently replaced, though the lack of any follow-through on customer concerns drags that dimension down significantly. No information was provided about technical skill or workmanship quality beyond the basic task being performed.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2008 — this is over 15 years old and may not reflect current business practices.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated with very low confidence.
• No positive reviews present to provide balance; this report reflects only one customer's negative experience.

This score is based on a single review from 2008 and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall quality or current performance.

This single review is severely negative across all measurable dimensions. The technician (Paul) failed to complete the original task of fixing a broken sink, and additionally caused a new problem by clogging the customer's toilet — which he was then unable to resolve. This reflects critically poor project completion and experience. The customer's decision to remove him from the home suggests a complete breakdown in professionalism and trust. Pricing was never discussed in the review and cannot be assessed.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from October 2016, making it over 8 years old. Recency weighting is very low — this data may not reflect current service quality.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension returned null.

This score is based on a single review from 2016 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of overall contractor quality — far more recent and numerous reviews are needed before any meaningful assessment can be made.