Find Nearby Plumbers In Davenport, Iowa

Only a single review is available, dated May 2011, making any score highly unreliable. The reviewer explicitly expressed strong dissatisfaction with both the company's business practices and the quality of service, warranting very low scores on professionalism and experience. No information was provided regarding pricing or project completion, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The age of this review — over a decade old — further limits its relevance to current performance.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The sole review is from May 2011, making it over 13 years old. It carries very limited relevance to current contractor performance.
• Review is vague and lacks specific detail (no mention of what service was performed, what went wrong, or what was expected), limiting the ability to score individual dimensions with precision.

This score report is based on a single, decade-old review with minimal detail and should not be used to make any meaningful judgment about this contractor's current quality or reliability.

This single review describes a severely negative experience with improper roof vent installation, failure to complete repairs, and complete non-responsiveness to customer callbacks over several weeks. The contractor was charged $750 for work that required reinstallation and damage repair. All four dimensions show critical failures: professionalism (no callback response), pricing (poor value given defective work), project completion (incomplete and defective), and experience (improper installation). However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• RECENCY: Review is from January 2024 (approximately 12 months old), within acceptable range but at boundary.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot establish pattern or confidence without additional data points.

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a trustworthy WW Score. One extremely negative review suggests serious problems but does not provide sufficient evidence for a generalizable assessment.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review mentions punctuality and follow-through (professionalism), reasonable rates (pricing), and job completion despite complexity (project completion). However, experience/workmanship quality is not explicitly discussed. With only 1 review, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and cannot be aggregated into a meaningful overall score.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• Experience dimension has no data — no explicit mention of skill level or technical quality.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1). At least 3 reviews are needed to establish baseline confidence. Additionally, the single review is significantly outdated (2019), limiting its relevance to current contractor performance.

This single review describes a generally positive experience with Bagby Plumbing, noting responsiveness (offered Saturday service), fair pricing, and successful completion of a water heater installation. Professionalism is implied through the offer of weekend availability and timely Monday installation, though no specific detail about attitude or communication depth is provided. Project completion is supported by the reviewer's trust and intent to return, suggesting the work was done correctly. Experience is inferred from the reviewer's stated trust and repeat usage, but no technical detail is provided to substantiate skill level. All scores are conservative due to the single-review basis and the review's age of over 13 years.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2011-04-17, making it over 13 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• Review is generic in praise with limited specific technical detail, reducing evidentiary weight across all dimensions.
• All dimension scores are assigned LIMITED confidence due to single-mention basis — treat all scores with caution.

This score is based on a single review from 2011 and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about current contractor quality can be drawn from this data alone.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review explicitly mentions professionalism (friendly, professional demeanor) and project completion (water heater replaced within 2 hours, job completed successfully). No information is provided regarding pricing or technical experience/skill level. With only 1 mention per dimension, confidence is severely limited.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality.
• No pricing information mentioned — cannot assess value or fairness of costs.
• No technical skill or problem-solving details provided — experience dimension cannot be evaluated.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review). At least 3 reviews are required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.

Only one review is available, which describes a positive emergency plumbing experience over a holiday weekend. Ron responded quickly (within the hour), was praised for very reasonable pricing, and resolved a flooding situation — indicating solid professionalism and follow-through. However, with a single review, no reliable conclusions can be drawn about workmanship quality or technical experience, and the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably. The experience dimension received no data as the review did not explicitly address skill level or quality of workmanship beyond resolving the immediate issue.

• Only 1 review provided — far below the minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• Single review cannot be used to detect fake review patterns — insufficient data for pattern analysis.
• All scores are LIMITED confidence due to single-mention basis — treat all dimension scores with caution.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance — significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension score or WW Score can be trusted.