Find Nearby Plumbers In Hutchinson, Kansas

Only three reviews were available for analysis, one of which contained no usable text, making reliable scoring impossible. Pricing received a modest positive signal from one reviewer who noted fair pricing and no upselling. Project completion was inferred from two reviews indicating satisfactory work outcomes, though with very little detail. All reviews are over a decade old, significantly reducing their relevance to current performance.

• One review contains no text whatsoever (listed as 'unknown') and could not be scored on any dimension.
• All three reviews are from 2012–2016, making them over 8 years old. These reviews are not representative of current contractor performance.
• Review count is below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• Extremely sparse review detail across all submissions — no specifics on punctuality, communication, workmanship quality, or job completion timelines were provided.

This score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes due to an insufficient number of reviews, a complete absence of recent data, and critically low detail across all submitted 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 reliable WW Score calculation. Both reviews are severely negative, citing critical failures in communication (no callbacks, no-shows, unresponsiveness across multiple contact methods) and project completion (AC system non-functional after 5+ weeks and $500 spent). No data exists on pricing fairness or technical experience/workmanship quality.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably
• Both reviews are from June 2022 — over 2 years old; no recent data available
• Severe consistency in complaints across both reviews suggests genuine pattern of poor service rather than isolated incidents
• No positive reviews present to balance assessment
• Pricing dimension has no explicit mention of fairness or value; only cost mentioned ($500) without context of whether it was reasonable

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required); however, the two available reviews paint a consistently damaging picture of communication failures and incomplete project delivery that warrants serious caution.

Only one substantive review was analyzable (the first review contains no usable detail). The detailed 2013 review documents severe failures across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. The contractor failed to deliver an estimate despite multiple follow-ups over 6+ weeks, initially assured the customer a $25k budget was feasible, then demanded $50k–$60k without justification, and never followed through with communication or billing. No technical experience or workmanship could be evaluated since no work was performed.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 total reviews; 1 is a bare 5-star with no detail (unusable). WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 substantive reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The only usable review is from October 2013 — over 10 years old. Current business practices may differ significantly.
• FIRST REVIEW SUSPICIOUS: The 5-star review from August 2015 contains zero detail and appears to be a placeholder or fake positive review, which raises credibility concerns about the review source.
• PROJECT NEVER COMPLETED: No actual work was performed; estimate process was abandoned after budget disagreement.

This score is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Fewer than 3 substantive reviews exist, the only detailed review is over a decade old, and one review appears fabricated. A minimum of 5–10 recent, detailed reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

This single review is strongly negative across nearly every dimension scored. The reviewer explicitly states the contractor refused to honor his original quote, which drives the pricing score to near zero. Project completion is scored at the floor because the reviewer describes being left without a resolution for over 6 months with the plumbing problem unresolved and no follow-through. Professionalism is also critically low, as the reviewer describes the contractor as unwilling to communicate, find middle ground, or stand behind his word. No technical skill or workmanship details were mentioned, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored at all.

• Only 1 review is present — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention each and must be treated as very low confidence.
• No reviews exist to cross-validate this negative account; the true picture of this contractor's performance is unknown.
• Experience/workmanship quality was not addressed in the review — that dimension returns null and is excluded from any future score calculation.

This score report is based on a single 1-star review and should not be considered a reliable representation of the contractor's overall performance; far more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer explicitly mentions successful installation of both a water heater and an AC/Heating unit, suggesting competent workmanship and full project completion. Professionalism is supported by comments about staff being easy to work with and communicate with. Pricing is not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. All dimension scores are conservative due to the extremely limited data pool of one review.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from 2020 (over 4 years old) — recency weighting is a concern as this does not reflect current performance.
• With only one review, it is impossible to detect patterns, verify consistency, or assess fake review risk meaningfully.
• Pricing dimension has zero data and cannot be evaluated.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — it is based on a single, dated review with no pricing data and no corroborating evidence across multiple customers.

This single review presents a mixed picture of the contractor. Past work on garbage disposal installation and fixture replacements was praised as good, clean, and fast, suggesting solid workmanship and fair pricing. However, a serious project completion failure is explicitly described: the contractor accepted an estimate agreement for additional kitchen fixtures and then never returned over a two-month period, which is a significant red flag for reliability and follow-through. Professionalism is scored conservatively due to this abandonment, despite the reviewer describing him as a nice man. All scores are heavily discounted due to the extremely limited data from a single, now very dated review from 2006.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• This review is from August 2006 — nearly two decades old. It carries very low recency relevance and should not be used to assess current contractor performance.
• Explicit project abandonment reported: contractor accepted an estimate, then failed to return for over two months with no explanation. This is a serious project completion concern.
• Insufficient data to detect fake review patterns — only one review exists.

This score is not reliable for decision-making: it is based on a single review from 2006 that itself contains contradictory signals, including both praise for past work and a reported instance of job abandonment.