Find Nearby Plumbers In Evanston, Illinois

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly tentative. The one review speaks positively to punctuality, friendliness, and cleanliness, which informs a modest professionalism score. Project completion is implied by the successful pipe installation, though no detail is given about timeline, follow-through, or callbacks. Experience is lightly suggested by the described outcome but lacks any technical specifics. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review total — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from November 2019, making it over 5 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces its reliability as a current indicator of contractor quality.
• The review is broadly positive with limited specifics beyond friendliness and punctuality — low detail reduces scoring confidence across all dimensions.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — that dimension cannot be evaluated.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (1 review) and the age of the sole available review, which is over 5 years old; any dimension scores shown should be treated as placeholder estimates only.

This single review documents severe failures across professionalism, pricing transparency, and project completion. The contractor exhibited poor communication, multiple no-shows, repeated cancellations, and pressure to avoid credit card payments. No work was ever completed. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as this violates the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for statistical validity.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from April 2022 (2+ years old). Does not reflect current operations.
• POTENTIAL BUSINESS MODEL RED FLAG: Reviewer alleges the company is a referral service with the same person answering for multiple 'companies' in the area, suggesting possible fraudulent operation or shell entities.
• SEVERE OPERATIONAL FAILURES: Multiple no-shows, cancellations, and payment pressure tactics documented. If accurate, indicates systemic issues rather than isolated incident.

This score is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A single review, especially one from over 2 years ago, cannot establish a trustworthy WW Score. At least 3 recent reviews are required to produce a valid assessment.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation. The single review mentions competence and skill level (experience dimension), but provides no explicit information about professionalism, pricing, or project completion. The review is generic praise without specific details about work quality, timeline, or cost.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review is from 2018 (6+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality.
• Generic praise without specific examples or details about work performed.
• No mention of pricing, punctuality, communication, or project completion specifics.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score with only one review. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a trustworthy overall score.

Insufficient data — only one review provided. The single review explicitly documents a severe pricing concern: the contractor claimed $212 in parts when actual costs were $47.95, representing a markup of approximately 342%. This suggests dishonest pricing practices. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as it does not meet the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for statistical validity.

• Only 1 review analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2010 (14+ years old) — recency is severely compromised
• Severe pricing fraud allegation: claimed $212 in parts, actual cost $47.95 — suggests intentional deception
• No data on professionalism, project completion, or experience dimensions

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and extreme age of the single review (2010). The pricing concern documented is serious but cannot be generalized to overall contractor performance without additional recent reviews.

This single review describes severe failures across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. The contractor failed to complete agreed work, disappeared multiple times without communication, and retained a $250 deposit without delivering the promised refund despite a public announcement. The reviewer explicitly states the contractor is irresponsible and advises against using his services. However, with only one review and a date from 2020 (over 4 years old), this score cannot be considered reliable for current assessment.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required)
• Review is from March 2020 — over 4 years old; does not reflect current business practices or recent performance
• Severe allegations: non-completion of work, deposit retention, poor communication, and repeated disappearances without notice
• No recent reviews available to assess whether issues have been resolved or if business practices have improved

This assessment is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A single review from 2020 cannot establish a trustworthy WW Score; minimum 3 recent reviews are required.

This single review from 2011 provides positive feedback across all dimensions. The reviewer explicitly mentions Victor's willingness to communicate despite language barriers (professionalism), describes him as 'cheap' and responsive (pricing), confirms three completed jobs that 'held up' (project completion), and expresses trust in his problem-solving ability (experience). However, with only one review from over 13 years ago, confidence in any aggregate score is severely limited and reliability cannot be established.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient data to calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 rules
• Review is from July 2011 — over 13 years old, well outside the recommended 12-month recency window
• No recent data available to assess current performance or consistency
• Reviewer explicitly states hesitation about larger jobs ('I'd still probably shop around'), suggesting limited scope of trust

This score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required) and extreme age of the single available review.