Find Nearby Plumbers In Fort Wayne, Indiana

Both reviews are severely negative with ratings of 1.0 stars. The first review criticizes work avoidance and poor pricing. The second review documents multiple no-shows without communication, rudeness from the owner (Mike Knueve), and failure to complete the initial service request. Professionalism is critically undermined by missed appointments, lack of communication, and dismissive customer service. Project completion is severely compromised by incomplete work and abandoned service requests. However, with only 2 reviews total—both from different years (2023 and 2015)—the sample size is far too small to generate a reliable WW Score.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2015 (9+ years old); only one recent review from 2023. Historical data may not reflect current operations.
• SEVERE NEGATIVE PATTERN: Both reviews are 1-star with explicit complaints about professionalism, communication, and work completion. No positive reviews present to balance assessment.
• OWNER CONDUCT ISSUE: Second review names owner 'Mike Knueve' directly and documents rude behavior and dismissive attitude toward customer concerns.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. With only 2 reviews (one nearly a decade old), no statistically valid WW Score can be generated. However, both available reviews are severely negative and document serious professionalism and project completion failures; any engagement should proceed with extreme caution pending additional recent reviews.

Only one review is available, which describes a serious failure: a newly installed drain was left unconnected, resulting in flooding and physical damage to the customer's bathroom and laundry room floors. Project completion scores near zero because the job was not only left incomplete but caused active harm. Experience scores very low as well, since failing to connect a drain is a fundamental workmanship error. No data exists for professionalism or pricing, so those dimensions cannot be scored. With only a single review, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• The single review describes property damage caused by incomplete work (unconnected drain leading to flooding), which is a serious red flag for both competence and liability.
• Insufficient data to detect fake review patterns, but the single review is specific and credible in its detail.
• No reviews from other time periods available to assess consistency or improvement over time.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered reliable or representative — prospective customers should seek significantly more review data before making a hiring decision.

This single review paints a positive picture across several dimensions. The contractor demonstrated strong punctuality by arriving at 9:59 for a ~10am window communicated at 7am, and was described as super nice, supporting a solid professionalism score. Pricing was noted as 'not a ridiculous price,' which is a mild positive but lacks specificity, warranting a conservative pricing score. Project completion is supported by the reviewer stating the job was done and the workspace was left as found, though no detail is given about complexity or follow-through. Experience cannot be scored as no mention of technical skill or workmanship quality was made.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• Review is dated 2021-05-01, which is more than 3 years old — recency weighting is low.
• No technical or workmanship details provided — Experience dimension returned null.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality; it is based on a single, dated review with no technical detail and insufficient data to calculate a WW Score.

This single review from 2019 provides limited evidence across three dimensions. The reviewer explicitly praised same-day responsiveness and successful pump/tank replacement (professionalism and project completion), and implied technical competence through successful problem resolution (experience). However, pricing is not mentioned at all. With only one review, confidence in any aggregate score is severely limited, and the review's age (5+ years old) further reduces reliability.

• Insufficient data: only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from March 2019 — over 5 years old. Does not reflect current service quality.
• No pricing information provided in review.
• All scores based on single mention carry LIMITED confidence only.

This analysis is unreliable for decision-making. A single review from 2019 is insufficient to establish a trustworthy WW Score. At least 3 recent reviews are required to produce meaningful results.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided, and it contains no substantive content (review text is empty). A 5-star rating alone provides no actionable information about professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience.

• Review contains only a period (.) with no descriptive text
• Review is from 2015 (9+ years old) — far outside the 12-month recency window
• Single review is insufficient for reliable scoring; minimum 3 reviews required

This score cannot be calculated or trusted due to insufficient data and lack of substantive review content.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The one reviewer explicitly expressed dissatisfaction with the pricing, describing $150 for removal of a small number of items as excessive, which drives the pricing score down significantly. The job does appear to have been completed in that the items were removed, but no detail is provided about quality, professionalism, communication, or workmanship. Professionalism and experience dimensions cannot be scored at all due to a complete absence of relevant information.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• No data whatsoever on professionalism, punctuality, communication, or technical skill — these dimensions cannot be evaluated.
• The sole review is from 2020, making it over 4 years old. Recency weighting is a significant concern.
• The review is a 2-star rating with a specific pricing complaint — this is the only signal available and should be treated with caution as a single data point.

This WW Score cannot be calculated or trusted in any meaningful way — only one review exists, it is over four years old, and it covers only pricing and a vague implication of task completion, leaving the majority of scoring dimensions entirely without data.