Find Nearby Plumbers In Des Moines, Iowa

This single review describes severe failures across all dimensions. The contractor failed to arrive on time (professionalism), charged $300 for approximately 10 minutes of work with no resolution (pricing and project completion), and demonstrated poor diagnostic skills by misidentifying the problem and leaving the customer to hire another contractor (experience). However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as this represents an insufficient sample size for meaningful statistical confidence.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from May 2019 (5+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot determine if this represents typical service or an isolated incident.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1). At minimum, 3 reviews are required; 5+ reviews are strongly recommended for any confidence in scoring.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review is available for analysis. The single review indicates serious deficiencies in project completion (leaks during and after work, requiring drywall removal 2 years later) and experience/workmanship (improper plumbing installation). However, a single review cannot establish a reliable overall score. No data exists regarding professionalism or pricing.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old) — recency is poor
• Severe quality issues reported (recurring leaks, structural damage) suggest significant workmanship problems
• No positive reviews to balance assessment

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and age of the single review. A minimum of 3 recent reviews is required for meaningful WW Score calculation.

Only a single review is available, dated April 2014 — over a decade ago — making any scoring highly unreliable. The review mentions high standards of quality and getting the job done right the first time, which speaks to experience and project completion, but provides no specific detail about what work was performed, pricing, or professionalism. Scores for project completion and experience are intentionally conservative given the vague, generic praise and the single data point. No data exists for professionalism or pricing dimensions.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from April 2014 — over 10 years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• Review language is generic and lacks specific detail (no job type mentioned, no names, no specifics about the work). This pattern is consistent with low-information or potentially unverified reviews.
• WW Score cannot be calculated — insufficient review volume.

This score report is not reliable and should not be used for contractor evaluation — it is based on a single, decade-old review with no specific details across most scoring dimensions.

Only a single review was available for analysis, and it provides very limited usable data. The review notes that the owner called back and was polite, which speaks modestly to professionalism and responsiveness. However, no actual work was performed — the job was completed by someone else — so there is no evidence of workmanship, pricing, or project completion. The 5-star rating appears to reflect appreciation for a callback rather than a completed service engagement, which significantly limits its informational value.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• No work was actually performed by this contractor in the reviewed interaction; the rating reflects a phone callback only.
• Pricing, Project Completion, and Experience dimensions have zero data and cannot be scored.
• The 5-star rating may be inflated relative to the actual service interaction described, which was minimal.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review data; the single available review describes only a phone callback with no completed work, making any meaningful assessment of this contractor's capabilities impossible at this time.

Only a single review is available, making any reliable scoring impossible across most dimensions. The one review is a 1-star rating that explicitly describes serious professionalism failures: workers arrived unprepared, left supplies scattered, engaged in unsafe practices, and management was reported as indifferent to worker conduct and safety concerns. Professionalism received a very low score of 5 to reflect these severe, specific complaints. Pricing, project completion, and experience were not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• The single review is strongly negative (1-star) and describes safety and management culture concerns, which may indicate systemic issues rather than an isolated incident.
• No data exists for pricing, project completion, or experience — three of the four scoring dimensions are entirely unscored.
• Recency note: This review is from October 2021 and may be more than 12 months old depending on current date. No recent reviews are available to confirm whether issues have been addressed.

This score report is highly unreliable due to the presence of only one review; no meaningful WW Score can be calculated, and the professionalism score of 5 should be treated as a preliminary signal only, not a definitive assessment.

Only a single review is available, dated September 2011, making this score highly unreliable due to both age and sample size. The reviewer explicitly cited long delays, dishonesty (lies), and unprofessional behavior, which directly and severely impacts the Professionalism and Project Completion dimensions. No information was provided regarding pricing or technical experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. Given the extreme negativity of the sole review and its age of over a decade, no meaningful WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from September 2011 — over 13 years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor performance.
• Pricing and Experience dimensions have zero data and cannot be scored.
• Single-review bias: one negative review carries 100% of the weight, which is not statistically representative.

This score is not reliable — it is based on a single review from over 13 years ago, and critical dimensions including pricing and experience have no data whatsoever.