Find Nearby Plumbers In Greenwood, Indiana

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review contains generic praise ('well maintain and experienced,' 'keep up the good work') with no specific evidence tied to any of the four scoring dimensions. No explicit mentions of punctuality, communication, pricing, project completion, or workmanship quality are present.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is suspiciously generic with no specific details about services, outcomes, or interactions
• Review date is from December 2017 — over 6 years old, outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• No actionable evidence for any dimension; praise is vague and unsubstantiated

This score cannot be calculated or trusted. A single generic review from 2017 provides insufficient data to assess contractor performance across any dimension.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided. This single review describes a serious project failure where Hendershot allegedly failed to properly seal a city sewer manhole after replacing a neighbor's sewer line, resulting in a sinkhole. The reviewer criticizes lack of accountability, integrity, and quality craftsmanship. However, a single review cannot establish a reliable WW Score, and the review is dated 2015 (9+ years old), making it outdated.

• Only 1 review provided — insufficient for reliable scoring (minimum 3 reviews required)
• Review is from April 2015 — over 9 years old and not recent
• Single negative review with serious allegations but no corroborating data
• No reviews covering pricing dimension
• Cannot calculate weighted WW Score with only 1 review

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 was provided. Additionally, the single review is nearly a decade old and may not reflect current business practices.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions experience (30 years, proper tools, impressed with skill) and pricing (found ways to save money), but does not address professionalism (punctuality, communication, responsiveness) or project completion (timeliness, follow-through). Additionally, the review is from March 2015, nearly 9 years old, and lacks specific project details. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review provided — insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from March 2015 (9+ years old) — recency is a significant concern
• Review lacks specific project details and is generically positive
• No evidence of professionalism dimension (punctuality, communication, responsiveness)
• No evidence of project completion dimension (timeliness, callbacks, follow-through)

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score. A minimum of 3 reviews is required, and the single review provided is nearly a decade old with insufficient specificity to validate contractor quality.

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 does provide positive signals across professionalism (great communication), pricing (fair pricing despite timeline extension), and project completion (job finished), but these observations carry severely limited confidence due to the minimal sample size.

• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality
• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• No data on technical experience/skill level mentioned in review

This score cannot be calculated or trusted with only 1 review. A minimum of 3 recent reviews is required to produce a meaningful WW Score.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions pricing favorably (better prices than competitors) and project completion (kitchen, dining area, and handicap remodel work completed). Experience is inferred from successful completion of multiple project types. However, with only one review and no explicit mentions of professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, attitude), a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Only 1 review provided — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2018 (6+ years old) — recency is a concern
• Generic praise language ('awesome', 'beautiful') with minimal specific detail
• No explicit mention of professionalism factors (punctuality, communication, responsiveness)
• Cannot calculate composite WW Score with fewer than 3 reviews

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required); any individual dimension scores should be treated as exploratory only and not relied upon for decision-making.

The single review paints a strongly positive picture of Derek and his company across several dimensions. Professionalism is highlighted through explicit mentions of politeness and a professional demeanor. Pricing stands out as a particular strength — the reviewer notes that Derek adjusted the final charge downward from the original quote to reflect only the work actually required, demonstrating transparency and integrity. Project completion receives a slightly more conservative score as the review confirms work was carried out and billed appropriately, but provides no detail on timeliness, full scope delivery, or follow-up. Experience cannot be scored as the review contains no commentary on technical skill or workmanship quality.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are LOW CONFIDENCE due to single-review basis. These scores should not be used as definitive indicators of contractor quality.
• No review date range available beyond this single entry dated 2023-10-26 — recency weighting cannot be applied meaningfully.
• Experience dimension has no data — this 20% weighted dimension is entirely unscored, which would materially affect any future composite score.

This score profile is based on a single review and should be considered highly preliminary — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's consistency or overall quality can be drawn until a larger review sample is available.