Find Nearby Plumbers In Springfield, Illinois

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 mentions fair pricing positively but provides no explicit evidence regarding professionalism, project completion, or experience/workmanship.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2017 (7+ years old) — recency is a concern
• Review is generic with no specific details about work performed, timeline, or technical quality
• No explicit mentions of professionalism, punctuality, or project completion

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume and age of the single available review.

Only one review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The single review does speak positively to both project completion and experience — specifically noting that Zach Wood and Wade solved a persistent plumbing issue that 8 other plumbers had failed to resolve, which is a meaningful and specific indicator of strong technical skill and follow-through. No information was provided regarding pricing, professionalism, punctuality, communication, or appearance, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The reviewer also mentions consistently good experiences across multiple visits, which adds a small degree of additional credibility to the positive signals present.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2019-12-20, which is more than 5 years old. This significantly limits its relevance to current performance.
• No data available for Professionalism or Pricing dimensions — these cannot be assessed from the available review.

This score report is based on a single review from over five years ago and should be considered highly unreliable — far more reviews, particularly recent ones, are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn about this contractor's performance.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score. The single review documents severe failures in responsiveness and callback follow-through, but a single data point cannot support a trustworthy overall assessment of the contractor's performance.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from November 2022 (over 1 year old) — recency is poor
• No data available on pricing, experience/workmanship quality, or broader professionalism patterns
• Single negative review cannot be generalized to contractor's typical performance

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1). Any score derived from a single review would be statistically meaningless and should not be used for decision-making.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions professionalism (timely, professional attitude) and experience (knowledgeable, good eye for detail), but provides no information about pricing or project completion. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• No data on pricing or project completion dimensions
• Review is generic praise with no specific project details or outcomes mentioned

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review mentions all four dimensions positively: affordability and friendliness (pricing/professionalism), same-day service and cleanliness (project completion/professionalism), and general capability (experience). However, with only one data point and no comparative context, no dimension can be scored with confidence above LIMITED.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review contains spelling errors ('definately', 'everthing') suggesting possible authenticity, but single review cannot establish pattern.
• Generic praise without specific technical details limits ability to assess true experience level.
• No date recency concern (review from 2023), but single data point is unreliable regardless of age.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.

Only a single review is available, dated December 2008, making this data over 16 years old and of very limited reliability. The reviewer explicitly praised the contractor's responsiveness and punctuality, supporting a modest professionalism score. Project completion is supported by the specific mention of no more leaks and a stated intent to rehire, indicating the job was finished satisfactorily. Experience is inferred from the successful resolution of the leak, though no technical detail is provided. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated December 2008 — over 16 years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension scored as null.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis. Treat all dimension scores with caution.

This score report is based on a single review from 2008 and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality, pricing, or consistency.