Find Nearby Plumbers In Joliet, Illinois

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly conservative and unreliable. The review does mention reliability and reasonable pricing positively, and notes the job (garage sink installation) was completed on a specific date, suggesting follow-through. The reviewer describes Mark as knowledgeable, which provides minimal signal on experience. All scores are deliberately conservative given the extremely limited data pool of one review.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from December 2021, which is more than 12 months old. No recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• With only one review, it is impossible to detect fake review patterns or establish any meaningful trend. Treat all dimension scores with extreme caution.

This score is based on a single review from over two years ago and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality or consistency.

Only a single review is available, dated September 2017 — over 7 years ago — which severely limits reliability. The reviewer mentions friendly and professional staff, good prices, honest work, and satisfaction with quality across both residential and commercial projects, suggesting a broadly positive experience. However, no specific details are provided about any individual job, timeline, or problem-solving scenario, making the praise generic in nature. All dimension scores have been kept conservative due to the single-mention, low-detail, and aged nature of this review. No WW Score can be calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated September 2017, making it over 7 years old. It carries very low recency weight and may not reflect current service quality.
• Review language is generic and lacks specific job details, which is consistent with low-detail praise patterns. Cannot confirm or rule out authenticity.
• All dimension scores are LIMITED confidence and should not be used as a reliable indicator of contractor quality.

This score report is based on a single, generic, 7-year-old review and should not be trusted as a meaningful indicator of current contractor performance.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review praises professionalism (courteous, punctual, professional), project completion (issue was fixed, offered solutions), and experience (very competent, outstanding technical thoughts). However, pricing is not mentioned at all. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review provided — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2017 (over 6 years old) — recency is a concern
• No pricing information mentioned in the single review
• Cannot assess consistency or detect patterns with only one data point

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable score. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 was provided. Additionally, the single review is from 2017 and does not address pricing, limiting dimensional coverage.

This single review from October 2019 provides limited evidence across all dimensions. The reviewer mentions the job was completed despite a challenging situation (heavy grease buildup), notes reasonable pricing and friendly service, but also indicates the contractor arrived late. While the overall tone is positive, the sparse detail and age of the review (5+ years old) prevent reliable scoring. A WW Score cannot be calculated with only one review.

• Only 1 review available — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation (minimum 3 reviews required)
• Review is from October 2019 — over 5 years old; does not reflect current service quality
• Limited specificity in review; no detailed descriptions of workmanship, communication, or follow-up
• Punctuality concern noted (arrived late) but not quantified

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality; a minimum of 3 recent reviews is required to produce a meaningful WW Score.

This single review provides positive feedback across all four dimensions, with explicit mentions of professionalism (polite, professional), fair pricing (reasonably priced), project completion (completed by Tuesday, work finished), and experience (quality of work, go above and beyond). However, with only one review, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per methodology requirements. All dimension scores are based on LIMITED evidence and should not be treated as representative of typical performance.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Single review is suspiciously generic with no specific technical details about the plumbing work performed.
• Review contains multiple superlatives (great, zero complaints, 100% satisfaction, care about quality, go above and beyond) with minimal concrete examples.
• All dimensions mentioned in single review with uniformly high praise suggests potential bias or incomplete picture of contractor performance.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to establish baseline reliability; scores based on single reviews are not actionable and should not influence contractor selection decisions.

Only a single review is available, dated December 2019, making any scoring highly conservative and low-confidence. The reviewer mentions same-day service, which speaks positively to responsiveness and project completion follow-through, and notes fair prices, supporting a modest pricing score. The reviewer's warm tone and mention of the contractor's friendliness with pets suggests good interpersonal professionalism, though no specific detail about workmanship or technical skill was provided. Experience cannot be scored at all due to a complete absence of relevant mentions.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated December 31, 2019 — this is over 5 years old and carries significantly reduced recency weight.
• Review is brief and lacks specific detail about the nature of the work performed, limiting scoring precision across all dimensions.
• No data whatsoever on Experience/workmanship quality — this dimension is entirely unscored.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single, vague, and significantly outdated review with no usable data on technical experience.