This contractor demonstrates strong technical skill and workmanship (88/100), with multiple reviews praising quality and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a serious scheduling failure and rude behavior toward a customer's spouse, resulting in a 68/100 score. Project completion shows mixed results: same-day emergency service is excellent, but schedulin...
Read more Score Narrative
This contractor demonstrates strong technical skill and workmanship (88/100), with multiple reviews praising quality and problem-solving ability. However, professionalism is significantly undermined by a serious scheduling failure and rude behavior toward a customer's spouse, resulting in a 68/100 score. Project completion shows mixed results: same-day emergency service is excellent, but scheduling reliability is poor. Pricing appears fair based on limited evidence (one positive transaction). The WW Score of 78.2 reflects solid technical capability offset by concerning interpersonal and reliability issues that directly impact customer trust.
Flags & Warnings
• RECENCY CONCERN: All reviews are from 2011–2013 (10+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess current performance or whether issues have been addressed.
• FAKE REVIEW RISK: Review dated 2012-03-08 contains only a period (.) with a 5-star rating. This is a red flag for placeholder or spam review.
• CRITICAL PROFESSIONALISM ISSUE: One detailed negative review (2-star, 2013) describes scheduling confusion, failure to show on correct day, and rude behavior to customer's wife. This is a serious incident that directly contradicts the positive reviews and suggests inconsistent service quality.
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: Only 6 reviews total, with 1 unusable. Confidence in overall score is limited by low review volume.
Reliability Statement
This score should be treated with caution due to very old review dates (10+ years), a small sample size, one suspicious placeholder review, and a significant negative incident that contradicts positive reviews, making it unclear whether current performance matches historical data.
Read less