Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Wayne, Indiana

With only two reviews spanning 2007 and 2009, there is insufficient data to produce a reliable WW Score. The professionalism dimension is mixed: one review praises a staff member (Jessica) as highly professional and knowledgeable, while the other describes a contractor who only improved their work after the customer invoked Angie's List membership — suggesting responsiveness required external pressure. Pricing is similarly split: one reviewer appreciated help staying within a tight budget, while the other expressed dissatisfaction with the overall service value. Project completion is the most concerning dimension, with the only relevant review describing repeated problems, an unsatisfactory initial outcome, and a need for rework. All scores are treated conservatively given the extremely low mention counts and the age of both reviews (15+ years old).

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are significantly outdated, dated 2007 and 2009 respectively — over 15 years old. These reviews provide no meaningful signal about current contractor performance.
• Review 1 (2-star) describes a warranty repair scenario involving a manufacturer referral, which may reflect on the manufacturer's process as much as the contractor's own standards — context limits direct attribution.
• Review 2 (5-star) explicitly states 'Plumber's Supply did not do the actual installation,' meaning the positive experience relates to a supply/sales interaction only, not actual contracting or plumbing work. This significantly limits its relevance to workmanship or project completion scoring.
• No patterns of fake reviews detected, but the extremely small sample size and age of reviews make any scoring highly unreliable.

This WW Score report should not be trusted for any purchasing or hiring decision — only 2 reviews exist, both are over 15 years old, and one explicitly does not cover actual installation work, leaving the dataset far too thin and outdated to draw meaningful conclusions.

Both reviews are severely negative with explicit evidence of poor service across all dimensions. Review 1 documents incomplete work (water heater left disassembled with parts on floor), overpricing ($2000+ quote vs. competitor standards, $140 service call vs. $85 industry standard), lack of professionalism (no senior discount offered despite advertisement, failure to attempt simple troubleshooting), and questionable technical judgment (misdiagnosis of tank crack). Review 2 describes critical safety failures (CO2 levels 3x safe limits), repeated failed diagnostic visits (3 visits with no resolution), and lack of technical knowledge (competitor diagnosed issue in 5-10 minutes, was aware of known class-action defects the Fire & Ice tech missed). However, with only 2 reviews total, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated per protocol.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Step 4 protocol
• SAFETY CONCERN: Review 2 alleges life-threatening carbon monoxide exposure due to negligent diagnosis — this is a serious liability issue
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review 2 is from December 2020 (3+ years old); only Review 1 is recent (April 2024)
• Both reviews are 1-star with detailed, specific complaints (not generic praise) — authenticity appears high, not fake
• Pattern of incomplete work and customer abandonment evident in both reviews

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). The two reviews available are highly negative and internally consistent in documenting poor professionalism, overpricing, incomplete work, and technical failures, but a minimum of 3 reviews is required for reliable scoring. Recommend collecting additional recent reviews before making contractor decisions.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. The two reviews provided describe a plumbing supply store/shop, not a contractor or plumber service. They reference purchasing parts and obtaining advice, not actual service work performed at a customer's location. No dimensions related to professionalism, pricing, project completion, or workmanship can be reliably assessed from these reviews.

• Business type mismatch: Reviews describe a plumbing supply store, not a contractor/plumber service provider
• No service delivery data: Reviews do not describe actual plumbing work performed or service calls
• Insufficient review count: Only 2 reviews provided; minimum 3 required for reliable scoring
• Review age: Both reviews are older than 5 years (2016 and 2018); no recent data available

This analysis cannot produce a valid WW Score because the reviews do not pertain to contractor/plumber services and the sample size is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a statistically meaningful WW Score. Both reviews are extremely negative (1-star ratings from 2017–2018), citing poor phone communication/attitude and deceptive pricing practices. However, with only 2 data points and no recent reviews, the score cannot be considered representative of current business performance.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are from 2017–2018 (5–6 years old) — no recent data available to assess current performance
• Both reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed complaints — no positive reviews to balance assessment
• First review documents poor phone professionalism (curt, rude tone, lack of customer service)
• Second review documents alleged deceptive pricing practices (charged for travel time not disclosed upfront, missing parts/tools despite assurances, delayed invoice)
• No reviews mention technical skill or workmanship quality — cannot assess experience dimension
• Insufficient data to determine if issues are systemic or isolated incidents

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable indicator of current business performance due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and complete absence of recent data (all reviews are 5–6 years old).

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism (responsiveness, honesty), project completion (multiple jobs completed), and experience (technical knowledge, explanations). One review explicitly mentions reasonable pricing. However, with fewer than 3 reviews, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per methodology guidelines. All mentions are limited in frequency (1–2 per dimension), resulting in LIMITED confidence across all dimensions.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise language ('great job', 'highly recommend') — limited specific detail about work quality or scope
• One review is dated 2021 (over 2 years old); only one review from past 12 months — recency concern
• No negative feedback or specific problem-solving examples provided — cannot validate claims independently

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum 3 required). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

With only two reviews, the data is deeply conflicted and insufficient for a reliable score. One reviewer praises the contractor as swift, effective, and skilled in resolving a drain issue, suggesting competent workmanship and good follow-through. However, the second reviewer explicitly accuses the contractor of taking payment and never showing up, which is a serious allegation of non-completion and potential fraud. These two reviews directly contradict each other across nearly every dimension, making any aggregate score highly unreliable. The no-show allegation is particularly damaging to project completion and professionalism scores.

• CRITICAL FLAG: One reviewer explicitly accuses the contractor of taking payment and not showing up, labeling them a scammer. This is a serious allegation that significantly impacts trustworthiness.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews exist. Per scoring rules, a WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: The two reviews are polar opposites (5-star vs 1-star), making any averaged score misleading without more data.
• RECENCY NOTE: The positive review is from October 2024 and the fraud allegation is from April 2024. Both are within the past 12 months and carry equal recency weight.
• The positive review uses vague, emotionally charged language ('God send', 'blessing') with limited technical specifics, which slightly reduces its evidentiary weight for skill-based dimensions.

This score report should not be trusted for any hiring decision — only 2 reviews exist, they directly contradict each other, and one contains a serious unresolved fraud allegation that warrants significant caution.