Find Nearby Plumbers In Champaign, Illinois

Both reviews are brief but positive, indicating responsive service and timely job completion. One review explicitly mentions reasonable pricing, and both suggest the crew was easy to work with and personable. However, with only 2 reviews, all dimension scores carry very low confidence and should not be treated as reliable indicators of consistent performance. No technical or workmanship details were provided in either review, leaving the Experience dimension entirely unscored. All reviews are from 2020, making them over 4 years old with no recent data to validate current performance.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 not met; WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.
• Both reviews are from 2020 (4+ years old); no recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• Reviews are very brief and lack specific detail, limiting the ability to score dimensions with confidence.
• Experience/workmanship dimension has zero mentions — this is a significant data gap for a plumbing contractor.
• Small sample size increases risk that these reviews are not representative of overall contractor quality.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews from 2020 and should be considered highly unreliable — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional recent references before making a hiring decision.

With only two reviews spanning five years, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The most recent review (2023) describes a serious failure: a no-show appointment with no returned calls, which is a significant red flag for professionalism and project completion. The older 2018 review offers generic praise about pricing, work ethic, and time management, but lacks specific detail and is over five years old. The stark contrast between these two reviews — one highly negative and recent, one highly positive and dated — creates an unreliable and conflicted data picture. All dimension scores are treated as LOW confidence and should not be used as a basis for hiring decisions.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews total. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The positive review is from 2018 (over 5 years old) and should be weighted significantly less than the 2023 negative review.
• POSSIBLE GENERIC REVIEW: The 5-star review from 2018 contains vague, non-specific praise ('hard working', 'knows how to manage time', 'good septic service') with no job-specific details, which is a pattern consistent with low-authenticity reviews.
• SERIOUS PROFESSIONALISM FLAG: The 2023 review explicitly describes a no-show appointment and failure to return calls — a critical reliability concern.
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: The two reviews directly contradict each other on core dimensions, making any aggregate score misleading without more data.

This score report is not reliable for decision-making — only 2 reviews exist, they span 5 years, they directly contradict each other, and the sole positive review shows signs of being generic or low-authenticity; significantly more recent reviews are needed before any confidence can be placed in a WW Score for this contractor.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review explicitly mentions professionalism (punctuality, honesty, professional demeanor) but contains no information about pricing, project completion, or technical experience. No WW Score can be calculated with confidence from a single data point.

• Insufficient review volume — only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality.
• Generic praise language with limited specific details about actual work performed.
• No information available on pricing, project completion, or technical skill.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data volume and age of the single review provided.

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 positively (reasonable charges, no overcharging) and experience (described as excellent plumber), but provides no explicit evidence regarding professionalism (punctuality, communication, attitude) or project completion (job finished, timeliness, follow-through). The review is also from 2012, over 12 years old, and does not reflect current service quality.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review date is 2012-02-16, over 12 years old. Does not reflect current contractor performance.
• LIMITED DIMENSION COVERAGE: Only 2 of 4 dimensions mentioned. Professionalism and project completion not addressed.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review vs. minimum 3 required) and extreme age of the single review (2012). No scoring recommendation can be made.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across multiple dimensions. The contractor failed to complete the work to an acceptable standard, leaving two gates visibly uneven by several inches. When contacted about the issue, the company offered no solution and never returned to remedy the defect — a clear failure of both project completion and professionalism. The reviewer also references a second affected customer (their mailman) who experienced the same pattern of sloppy work and no follow-through, suggesting this may be a recurring behavioral pattern rather than an isolated incident. Experience scores are low given the explicit description of poor workmanship quality.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Anecdotal second-hand account of another customer (the mailman) experiencing the same issues — this is unverified but directionally consistent with the primary complaint.
• No pricing data mentioned — Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• Recency note: Review is dated April 2023, which is within the past 12 months relative to a mid-2024 analysis window and should be treated as current.

This score is based on a single 1-star review and should be considered highly unreliable as a standalone assessment — additional reviews are essential before drawing firm conclusions about this contractor.

The single review provided contains no usable customer-facing data about contractor services. The review is written from the perspective of a former or current employee and addresses internal HR practices, layoff decisions, and alleged disability law violations. None of the four scoring dimensions — professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience — are addressed in any meaningful way as they relate to contractor or plumbing services delivered to a customer. As a result, no WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score.
• The sole review is not a customer service review. It appears to be written by a current or former employee complaining about internal HR and employment practices, including layoffs and alleged disability law violations.
• This review contains no information about workmanship, pricing, punctuality, communication, or job completion and therefore contributes zero usable data to any scoring dimension.
• Review is from 2020 — over 4 years old — and would carry reduced recency weight even if it were usable.

No reliable WW Score can be produced from this dataset; the only review available is an employee grievance with no customer-facing service content across any of the four scored dimensions.