Find Nearby Plumbers In Hoffman Estates, Illinois

Dan's reviews paint a consistently positive picture across professionalism, project completion, and experience, with multiple detailed accounts of thorough, skilled work across diverse trades including plumbing, electrical, networking, and general handyman tasks. Pricing feedback is mixed — one reviewer explicitly praised significant savings and fair prices, while another felt the price was a little high, resulting in a conservative pricing score. Project completion is well-supported, with reviewers describing jobs finished cleanly, completely, and with attention to detail such as cleanup and preventive measures. However, the majority of reviews are significantly outdated, with most dating from 2009–2015 and only one from 2015, meaning no reviews fall within the past several years, which substantially limits confidence in current performance.

• RECENCY WARNING: All 9 reviews are dated between 2009 and 2015. None are within the past several years. This score reflects historical performance only and may not represent current quality or availability.
• THIN DATA WARNING: With only 9 reviews total, the dataset is small. While some dimensions reached HIGH confidence via the formula, real-world reliability is limited by the low absolute volume.
• VAGUE REVIEWS: Two reviews ('Went Well' and 'It went well. He was efficient and professional.') provide minimal usable detail and were counted only for dimensions explicitly mentioned.
• POSSIBLE SELF-REVIEW PATTERN: One reviewer explicitly states they are writing 'a series of reviews for Dan' across multiple categories. Three reviews share the same date (2014-05-12) and appear to be from the same person. This inflates mention counts and may skew scores — treat with caution.
• RATING INCONSISTENCY: One review gives a 3-star rating with the text 'okay at the start' but provides no further detail, making it difficult to score any dimension from it reliably.

This WW Score should be treated as LOW-to-MODERATE reliability due to the age of all reviews (none within recent years), a small total review count, and a pattern of multiple reviews submitted by the same individual on the same date, which may artificially inflate positive signals.

Professionalism is the strongest and most consistently mentioned dimension, with multiple reviewers praising responsiveness, punctuality, communication, and polite demeanor across several reviews. Project completion scores well, with reviewers noting jobs were seen through to resolution — including weekend and emergency callbacks — though the small total review count limits confidence. Pricing is mentioned positively in a few reviews, with one reviewer explicitly calling the price fair for a large Sunday job and another noting reasonable pricing, but the limited mentions keep this score conservative. Experience is supported by references to diagnosing complex issues, explaining the process, and delivering quality workmanship, though again the low review volume constrains confidence. One review (the window-cleaning review) appears to be for an entirely different type of business and was treated as non-applicable to plumbing-specific scoring.

• One review (dated 2016-09-06) describes a window-cleaning service with a crew of three and references Angie's List coupons — this is almost certainly a misattributed review for a different business entirely and was excluded from dimension scoring.
• One review (dated 2014-10-22) contains only the word 'unknown' with no usable content and was excluded from all scoring.
• All reviews are rated 5.0 stars with no negative or mixed feedback, which warrants mild fake-review awareness caution, though most reviews do contain specific, credible details that reduce this concern.
• All reviews are older than 12 months — the most recent plumbing-relevant review dates to January 2018, making this data significantly outdated. Current performance cannot be reliably inferred.
• Total usable review count is very low (7 reviews, with only 6 fully applicable to plumbing). Scores should be treated as directional only.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small number of usable reviews, the complete absence of any negative feedback across all ratings, the presence of one clearly misattributed review, and the fact that all reviews are more than six years old — meaning this score should not be used as a confident indicator of current contractor quality.

Able Sewerage has a strong base of loyal, satisfied customers who consistently praise responsiveness, fair pricing, and pleasant workers — several reviewers note multi-year or even 15-year relationships with the company. However, the review set contains multiple serious negative experiences that meaningfully drag down every dimension: two reviews describe misdiagnosis of plumbing problems that led to unnecessary and costly repair recommendations, one describes repeated no-show appointments with no communication, and one describes a disputed service charge and an unprofessional owner response. Professionalism is mixed — while many reviewers praise attitude and communication, at least three reviews cite poor communication, missed appointments, or dismissive responses. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with credible accounts of jobs left unresolved, incorrect diagnoses, and work described as a 'bandaid' without disclosure to the customer. Pricing scores moderately well overall, but is undercut by two reviews where customers paid competitors significantly less for the same or better work.

• Several 5-star reviews are brief and generic (e.g., 'Good quality service. Timely response. Professional attitude.') with little specific detail — mild fake review risk, though not conclusive.
• Two reviews (2020 and 2022) describe near-identical patterns: Able misdiagnosed a sewer issue, recommended expensive excavation or pipe replacement costing thousands, and a second company resolved the problem quickly and cheaply. This pattern is a significant credibility concern for the experience dimension.
• One negative reviewer (2021) references an 'unprofessional response' from owner Chris, suggesting a public dispute — this is a reputational flag for professionalism.
• Recency note: Only 5 of 19 reviews are from 2022 or later. The majority of reviews (14) are from 2021 or earlier, with several dating back to 2013–2017. The score should be treated with caution as current performance may differ from historical patterns.
• One review (2016) explicitly describes two cancelled appointments with no notification and blames being given misleading information about scope of work — this is a direct project completion and communication failure.

This WW Score carries HIGH data confidence due to review volume, but the score itself should be treated with moderate trust given the age of most reviews, a recurring pattern of misdiagnosis complaints, and documented communication failures that suggest inconsistent service quality.

Both reviews are positive but extremely limited in number and are over 20 years old, significantly reducing their reliability. The first review provides meaningful detail: the contractor responded in the middle of the night, arrived on time the following morning, completed multiple tasks including pipe repair, basement pumping, sump pump installation, and unexpected gravel refreshing under the crawl space, and communicated clearly without high-pressure sales tactics. The second review is brief and generic, confirming repeat use and consistent good work but offering no specific detail. Pricing was not mentioned in either review, so that dimension cannot be scored. Experience was inferred conservatively from the technical scope of work described in Review 1.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated 2003–2004, making them over 20 years old. They carry very low recency weight and may not reflect current contractor quality or practices.
• Review 2 is highly generic ('they have done good work for us, whenever we needed them') with no specifics — limited analytical value.
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — this dimension is entirely unscored.

This score profile should be treated as essentially unreliable for decision-making purposes: only 2 reviews were provided, both are more than two decades old, and one of the two reviews contains no actionable detail.

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 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review does provide positive signals across professionalism (communication, explanation, politeness), pricing (fair and reasonable), and experience (knowledgeable, problem-solving), but these are based on extremely limited evidence and cannot support a reliable overall score.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from January 2023 — over 1 year old; recency is limited
• No explicit mention of project completion, timeliness, or follow-through
• Cannot assess patterns of consistency or detect fake reviews with single data point

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume; at least 3 reviews are needed to establish meaningful patterns and confidence in contractor performance.