Find Nearby Plumbers In Olathe, Kansas

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, both from 2017–2018 (5–7 years old). Both reviews are extremely negative, citing severe professionalism failures (rudeness, aggression, physical contact, dismissiveness), incomplete project work (air conditioning left non-functional across multiple visits), and broken commitments (abandoning job on contractor's birthday). No pricing information provided in either review. The extreme age of these reviews and the small sample size prevent reliable scoring.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from 2017–2018 (5–7 years old). No recent reviews available to assess current performance
• SEVERE NEGATIVE PATTERN: Both reviews describe serious professionalism and completion failures. First review: no air conditioning for 2.5 weeks, job left incomplete, contractor cancelled without notice. Second review: rude/aggressive behavior, physical contact (arm-snatching), problem unresolved after two visits
• NO PRICING DATA: Neither review mentions cost, value, or pricing — this dimension cannot be scored
• LIMITED EXPERIENCE DATA: Only one review explicitly addresses technical competence (problem still unresolved after two visits)

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and extreme age (5–7 years). The two available reviews are severely negative and suggest serious historical issues with professionalism and project completion, but current performance is unknown. Do not rely on this analysis for decision-making without more recent data.

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 extremely negative (1-star ratings) and describe serious failures in workmanship, project completion, and customer service responsiveness. However, with only 2 data points and no positive reviews to balance the assessment, the score cannot be considered statistically meaningful.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive reviews to provide balance
• One review is from 2019 (5+ years old); only one review from past 12 months
• No pricing dimension data available — cannot assess value for money claims
• Severe quality and service issues described (damaged equipment, poor workmanship, unresponsive warranty service, rude staff) but sample size too small for generalization

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable score due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required). The extremely negative feedback is concerning and warrants investigation, but a proper WW Score requires a larger sample size to be statistically meaningful.

This single review describes a negative experience in which the contractor caused property damage (deep scratches on a countertop) while performing a wax ring repair. The contractor failed to return to address the damage or make it right, indicating poor follow-through and accountability. Project completion is scored very low because the job left the customer worse off than before, with unresolved property damage. Experience is scored low due to the damage caused during what should be a routine repair. Professionalism is scored very low due to the failure to communicate or return after causing damage.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• All scores are based on a single data point and should be treated with extreme caution.
• Review is from February 2022, which is over 1 year old — recency weighting is reduced.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.

This score is based on a single review from over two years ago and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. This single review contains severe allegations: poor workmanship quality, non-responsiveness to customer concerns, refusal to stand by work, and blocking customer communication. While the review explicitly mentions professionalism failures (blocking number, non-responsive), project completion issues (poor quality work), and experience concerns (hatchet job), a single review cannot establish a reliable WW Score. Pricing fairness is not addressed in this review.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• Single negative review with serious allegations (scam, poor work, customer blocking) — cannot be validated without corroborating reviews
• No positive reviews to balance assessment
• Review date is recent (May 2024) but single data point carries extreme risk of bias

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a meaningful WW Score; only 1 review was provided.

Only a single review is available, dated November 2017, making this analysis extremely limited in reliability. The reviewer explicitly mentions satisfaction with customer service and the manner in which work was performed, supporting a conservative professionalism score. The completion of a full home replumb suggests the project was seen through to the end, warranting a modest project completion score. Pricing and experience dimensions received no explicit mention and cannot be scored. All scores are treated conservatively given the single-review basis and the age of the review.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated November 2017 — over 7 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current contractor performance.
• Review is generic in praise with no specific details about workmanship, pricing, or timeline. Low specificity reduces confidence in dimension scoring.

This score should not be trusted as a meaningful indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single, vague, 7-year-old review with no data on pricing or technical experience.

This single review provides limited evidence across three dimensions. The reviewer explicitly mentions communication ('kept us up to date'), which supports a professionalism score of 85. Project completion is evidenced by the callback and pipe replacement work, scored at 80. Workmanship quality ('awesome work') supports an experience score of 85. However, with only one review and no mention of pricing, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per protocol.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably
• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old) — recency is a concern
• No pricing information provided — cannot assess value dimension
• Generic praise language without specific technical details

This analysis is unreliable due to insufficient data volume (only 1 review) and age of the review (2020). A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a trustworthy WW Score.