Find Nearby Plumbers In Rockford, Illinois

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. While both reviews are positive and mention professionalism (quick callbacks, responsiveness), pricing (fair/reasonable charges), and project completion (problem solved, thorough work), the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about contractor performance.

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — while not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical detail or balanced perspective limits confidence.
• Review dates are from January 2023 (approximately 2 years old). No recent reviews available to assess current performance.

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume; a minimum of 3 reviews is required, and ideally 5+ reviews should be present before drawing conclusions about contractor quality.

Both reviews are recent (within the past 12 months) and speak positively to Curt's responsiveness, attitude, and pricing. One reviewer specifically noted he came out after 5:30pm for an emergency and charged a reasonable rate, suggesting good availability and fair pricing. The second reviewer praised his knowledge and quick response. However, with only 2 reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, and all dimension scores carry very low confidence. Project completion is only weakly implied — the leak was fixed — but no detailed account of workmanship quality or full job scope was provided.

• Only 2 reviews total — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are brief and lack specific detail about the scope of work, which limits scoring depth across all dimensions.
• No negative feedback present, but this is likely due to the very small sample size rather than an indicator of consistent excellence.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews appear genuine with distinct phrasing and specific situational context.

This score report should be treated as highly preliminary and not relied upon for decision-making; only 2 reviews were available, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence, and a formal WW Score cannot be responsibly calculated.

Only one review contains substantive information; the other is empty. The single usable review praises the contractor's honesty, work quality, and interpersonal skills, suggesting competence in professionalism and experience. However, with only 1 mention per dimension and no data on pricing or project completion, confidence is severely limited. The reviews are also over 12 years old, raising recency concerns. A reliable WW Score cannot be calculated from this dataset.

• Insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews, 1 usable) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably
• All reviews are from 2012 — extremely outdated; no recent performance data available
• One review is empty (only a period) — provides no usable information
• No data on pricing, value, or project completion — critical dimensions missing
• Generic praise without specific examples or details limits confidence in the single positive review

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making; the dataset is too small, too old, and lacks coverage of essential dimensions.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. Both reviews are from 2017–2018 (6+ years old), raising recency concerns. The reviews mention professionalism (pleasant, helpful, reliable), project completion (job finished, leaks corrected), and experience (technical competence), but pricing is not addressed in either review. With such limited and outdated data, any aggregate score would lack statistical validity.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2017–2018 (6+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess current service quality.
• PRICING DATA MISSING: Neither review provides explicit pricing information. One reviewer explicitly states they did not pay directly, preventing price assessment.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume and age of data; any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews speak positively to Mike's professionalism, specifically noting punctuality, proactive communication about a delay, and a polite, attentive manner — strong signals for that dimension. One review explicitly praises the pricing as more reasonable than a handyman, supporting a modest but positive pricing score. Project completion is inferred from both reviewers stating their jobs were handled and that they would use Meyers again, though neither review provides detailed commentary on workmanship quality or complex job follow-through. No review mentions technical skill, problem-solving, or quality of workmanship in enough detail to score the Experience dimension. With only two reviews — one from 2021 and one from 2016 — the dataset is far too small and too dated to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Both reviews are older than 12 months; the most recent is from April 2021 (over 3 years ago) and the other from April 2016 (over 8 years ago). Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability.
• Experience dimension has zero usable data — this 20% weight dimension is entirely unscored, which would materially affect any composite score.
• Sample size is too small to detect or rule out fake review patterns, though no obvious red flags such as identical phrasing were observed.

This score report should be treated as highly unreliable due to an insufficient number of reviews (only 2) and the significant age of both reviews, making it impossible to draw confident conclusions about current service quality.

This single review paints an extremely negative picture across nearly every dimension evaluated. The reviewer explicitly describes rude behavior from the owner, blocked communication after payment, and incomplete work — all severe indicators of poor professionalism and failed project completion. The contractor's in-person response, which included a disclaimer shifting blame to the customer and requesting a signed document to that effect, further undermines confidence in their workmanship and accountability. No pricing information was mentioned, so that dimension cannot be scored. With only one review available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Reviewer alleges the business is not a legitimate company and that its listed office address is not a real office — potential legitimacy concern.
• Contractor allegedly blocked the customer's phone number after receiving payment, which is a serious red flag for fraudulent or predatory business practices.
• Contractor attempted to have the customer sign a document absolving them of responsibility before completing work — highly unusual and potentially deceptive practice.
• Review is dated 2017 — this is significantly older than 12 months and should be weighted accordingly if newer reviews become available.

This score is based on a single review from 2017 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of the contractor's overall quality — additional recent reviews are essential before drawing any meaningful conclusions.