Find Nearby Plumbers In Crystal Lake, Illinois

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience favorably. However, pricing is not addressed in either review, and the limited sample size prevents confident generalization about overall performance.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable WW Score calculation
• One review is from 2018 (6+ years old) — recency is limited
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with positive language, but sample size too small to assess for fake review patterns

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). Individual dimension scores should be treated with extreme caution and are provided for reference only.

Only one review contained usable data, making any scoring highly tentative. That single review describes a severely failed wall-hung toilet installation where the contractor misrepresented his experience, failed to resolve a recurring leak across multiple callbacks, and ultimately had to be replaced by another plumber who corrected the job in one hour. Professionalism scores low because the contractor falsely claimed competence on the phone and failed to diagnose the root cause across multiple visits. Project completion scores near the floor because the job was never successfully finished by this contractor. Experience scores near the floor because the reviewer explicitly concluded the contractor had no knowledge of wall-hung toilet installation and used incorrect components. Pricing could not be assessed as no review mentioned cost.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score.
• One review (Rating: 5.0, Date: 2014-12-18) contains only the text 'unknown' and provides zero usable information. It was excluded from all dimension scoring.
• The sole usable review is from 2015, making it approximately 9–10 years old. It should be treated as significantly outdated and not representative of current performance.
• With only one usable review, all dimension scores carry extremely low evidentiary weight and should not be used to make hiring decisions.

This score report is not reliable — only one usable review exists, it is nearly a decade old, and the second review contains no meaningful content; no hiring decision should be based on this data alone.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, with contradictory signals. The 2020 review documents serious professionalism and project completion failures (quit mid-project, left customer hanging after learning they did their own demo). The 2018 review praises skill and friendliness but provides no specifics on pricing, timeliness, or completion. Both reviews are older than 1 year, limiting recency relevance. The extreme polarity (1-star vs. 5-star) and lack of detail in the positive review raise concerns about consistency.

• Only 2 reviews total — sample size is too small for reliable scoring
• Reviews are 2+ years old (2018 and 2020) — no recent performance data
• Extreme polarity: 1-star and 5-star with no middle ground suggests inconsistent service or potential data quality issues
• Positive review (5-star) lacks specific detail about pricing, timeline, or completion — generic praise pattern
• Negative review documents serious project abandonment and unprofessional behavior (quit when learning customer obtained competing quotes)
• No pricing data available from any review
• Contradictory signals make it impossible to establish reliable contractor profile

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2), age of reviews (2+ years old), and contradictory signals that suggest either inconsistent service quality or data reliability concerns. Do not rely on this analysis for contractor selection.

Both reviews describe severely negative experiences with this plumber. The first review documents incomplete work—a toilet continued to overflow after two paid service calls ($700 total), forcing the customer to hire a competitor with a guarantee. The second review details a pattern of deceptive pricing practices: quoted 'around $200' but charged $300+ upon arrival, with the dispatcher defending vague pricing and refusing to warranty work that failed within 3 months. While one reviewer acknowledged the technician (John) was honest and skilled 2 years prior, current service delivery has deteriorated significantly. With only 2 reviews and both extremely negative, confidence in any score is severely limited.

• CRITICAL: Both reviews are 1-star ratings describing fundamentally failed service and deceptive business practices. This is not a fake review pattern—these are detailed, specific complaints with dates, dollar amounts, and named individuals.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review 1 is from June 2022 (approximately 2 years old); Review 2 is from January 2020 (approximately 4+ years old). Both are outside the preferred 12-month window, though they may reflect ongoing business practices.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability. Current data is too sparse to generate a trustworthy composite score.
• PATTERN ALERT: Both reviews describe incomplete/failed work and pricing disputes. This suggests systemic issues rather than isolated incidents, but sample size is too small to confirm.
• PROJECT COMPLETION FAILURE: Review 1 explicitly documents work that did not solve the problem despite two paid service calls. Review 2 documents work that failed within 3 months with no warranty support.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews, minimum 3 required). However, the available evidence strongly suggests serious deficiencies in project completion, pricing transparency, and customer service. Both reviews are detailed and credible, but they are too old and too few to establish current performance with confidence. Do not rely on any dimensional scores presented here—seek additional recent reviews or contact references before engaging this contractor.

Both reviews speak positively about the technician's knowledge, communication, and helpfulness, suggesting strong professionalism and experience. One review explicitly references a Facebook deal ($89 furnace tune-up), indicating transparent and value-friendly pricing, though only one review touches on this dimension. Project completion is affirmed in both reviews, with work described as finished as planned and the work area left clean. However, with only two reviews available, all scores carry very low confidence and should be interpreted with significant caution.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are from 2022, meaning all data is over 2 years old. Current service quality may differ.
• Both reviews are 5-star with generally positive language and no criticisms. While not conclusive, this warrants caution given the small sample size.
• Mild similarity in structure and tone between the two reviews (both mention efficiency tips, punctuality, and cleanliness) — not definitively fake, but worth noting.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 2 years old, making it insufficient to reliably assess this contractor's current quality or consistency.

This single review documents severe failures across all dimensions. The contractor abandoned a flooring project mid-completion (July to December), performed work so poorly it required complete reinstallation by another contractor, failed to refund for returned materials, and exhibited hostile unprofessional behavior (screaming at customer before Thanksgiving). The company also refused to provide receipts and purchased materials in their own name, preventing customer warranty coverage. However, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated from a single review, as one customer's experience—however detailed—does not provide sufficient data to establish patterns or confidence in contractor performance.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews to calculate reliably.
• SEVERE PERFORMANCE ISSUES: Review documents project abandonment, poor workmanship, financial disputes, and unprofessional conduct. If additional reviews confirm these patterns, this contractor would score critically low.
• SINGLE-SOURCE BIAS: Cannot determine if this represents systemic failure or isolated incident without corroborating reviews.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review. A minimum of 3 independent reviews is required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels. The single review provided contains serious allegations that warrant investigation, but scoring based on one customer's experience alone would be unreliable.