Find Nearby Plumbers In Decatur, Illinois

Only a single review was available for analysis, making any reliable scoring impossible. That review briefly mentions friendliness and exceptional service, which provides minimal signal for the Professionalism dimension only. No information was provided regarding pricing, project completion, or technical experience. The review is also over 8 years old, significantly reducing its relevance to current performance.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated December 2016 — over 8 years old. This data is stale and should not be treated as representative of current contractor quality.
• Review is extremely brief and generic ('friendly,' 'exceptional') with no specific details about the work performed, which limits its evidential value.
• Three of four scoring dimensions have no data whatsoever — score should not be used for any hiring or trust decision.

This score is not reliable — it is based on a single, vague, 8-year-old review with no data on pricing, project completion, or workmanship, and falls well below the minimum review threshold required for a trustworthy WW Score.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions friendly staff and reasonable prices, suggesting adequate professionalism and fair pricing, but provides no specific details about project completion, workmanship quality, punctuality, or technical skill. No WW Score can be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review available — insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is generic with no specific project details or outcomes mentioned
• No information on project completion, timeliness, or quality of work
• Cannot assess experience/workmanship from this review alone

This score cannot be calculated reliably with only 1 review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Only a single review is available, dated September 2018, making any scoring highly tentative. The review indicates same-day responsiveness and successful resolution of a faucet drip, which supports modest scores in professionalism and project completion. However, no information is provided regarding pricing, workmanship quality, or technical skill, leaving two dimensions entirely unscored. The brevity and generic nature of the review limits the depth of any meaningful analysis.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated 2018 — over 6 years old and carries very low recency relevance.
• Review is extremely brief and generic ('Great service') with minimal specific detail, reducing its analytical value.
• Single-word praise with no specifics raises mild concern about review depth, though not enough to flag as definitively fake.

This score should not be trusted for any decision-making purposes, as it is based on a single, brief, and outdated review with no data on pricing or workmanship quality.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The single review indicates serious deficiencies in project completion (incorrect plumbing and electrical installation requiring costly corrections) and experience (poor technical execution on a bathroom remodel). However, a single review cannot establish a reliable overall score. Additional reviews are required to validate these concerns and assess other dimensions such as professionalism and pricing.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is dated 2023-06-19 (approximately 1.5+ years old) — recency is limited
• No data on professionalism or pricing dimensions
• Severe quality issues reported but cannot be generalized from single source

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; at least 3 reviews are required to calculate a meaningful score.

This single review is written by a third party on behalf of their parents, which introduces an indirect layer of observation and limits scoring precision. Professionalism is supported by mentions of flexibility, friendliness, punctual work habits, and clear communication — all positive but drawn from one secondhand account. Project completion is implied through two completed bathroom plumbing jobs with the customer reportedly pleased, though no specific detail about timelines or follow-through is provided. Experience receives a conservative score as the reviewer notes the worker is skilled and knowledgeable enough to explain the work clearly, but no technical specifics are given. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is secondhand (written by a child on behalf of parents) — direct customer experience cannot be fully verified.
• No pricing or value information mentioned in any review — that dimension is unscored.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review data set — treat all dimension scores with caution.

This score report is based on a single secondhand review and should be considered highly preliminary — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn until substantially more direct customer reviews are analyzed.

This single review paints a severely negative picture across the dimensions that can be scored. Professionalism was critically poor: the contractor arrived nearly four hours late, provided false information about obtaining a city permit, and failed to return calls or follow through on commitments. Project completion was essentially nonexistent — the job was never started, the contractor abandoned the engagement without notice, and the customer was forced to hire a competitor who responded the same day. Pricing and experience cannot be assessed as neither was mentioned in the review.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2013-11-07, making it over 10 years old. This data should be treated as highly outdated and may not reflect current contractor performance.
• Contractor allegedly misrepresented permit activity to the customer — a serious integrity concern that, if accurate, goes beyond poor service into potential deception.

This score carries very low reliability due to a single review from over a decade ago, covering only 2 of 4 dimensions, with no corroborating data to establish patterns.