Find Nearby Plumbers In Overland Park, Kansas

Both reviews describe emergency water damage scenarios where the owner responded rapidly, arriving sooner than expected and deploying crews within hours — strong indicators of professionalism and responsiveness. Project completion appears solid, with both reviews describing full removal of water-damaged materials and thorough drying of the basement. One review explicitly mentions a fair price recommendation, providing limited but positive pricing signal. Workmanship quality is praised in both reviews, with specific details such as careful baseboard removal for reuse and respectful handling of the home. However, with only two reviews — one of which is over five years old — confidence across all dimensions is strictly LIMITED and no reliable WW Score can be produced.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• One review is dated 2018 (over 5 years old) and one is dated 2021 (over 2 years old); neither falls within the past 12 months, reducing recency relevance.
• Both reviews are 5-star with generally positive language; while specifics are present (baseboard removal, carpet stripping, 12-hour response), the small sample size prevents meaningful pattern analysis for fake review detection.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both older than 2 years, making all dimension scores LOW confidence estimates that should not be used as a reliable basis for hiring decisions without seeking additional recent reviews.

Both reviews exclusively address professionalism concerns, specifically the rude and hostile behavior of the front-desk receptionist named Leslie. Neither reviewer had any actual work performed by the company, so no data exists for pricing, project completion, or experience. The professionalism score is extremely low (5/100) because both reviewers independently described the same pattern of unprovoked rudeness, dismissiveness, and failure of management to address the issue. The consistency of the complaint across two separate reviewers separated by roughly two years lends credibility to the concern, despite the small sample size.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated 2017 and 2019 respectively — all data is more than 4 years old and may not reflect current business practices.
• Neither reviewer had actual work performed, meaning three of four scoring dimensions (pricing, project completion, experience) have zero usable data.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews are detailed, specific, and independently corroborate the same complaint about a named employee (Leslie), which increases credibility.

This score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, all data being over 4 years old, and the complete absence of information on three of the four scoring dimensions.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a statistically meaningful WW Score. Both reviews are extremely negative (1-star ratings) and describe serious failures in project completion (missed deadlines, incomplete callbacks), poor professionalism (unresponsive to complaints), and deficient workmanship (incorrect shower installation causing water damage). However, with only 2 reviews and no positive counterbalance, a composite score cannot be reliably calculated.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• EXTREME NEGATIVITY: Both reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive reviews to balance assessment.
• SERIOUS QUALITY ISSUES: Both reviews describe structural/installation failures (shower pan failure, water damage, incorrect installation) and lack of follow-up service.
• UNRESPONSIVENESS PATTERN: Second review explicitly documents 3 unanswered callback requests; first review states complaints were not addressed.
• BBB RATING MENTIONED: First review references F rating with Better Business Bureau, suggesting pattern of unresolved complaints beyond these two reviews.
• RECENCY NOTE: First review is recent (July 2024); second review is older (January 2023, describing May 2022 service). Both within 2-year window but show persistent issues over time.

This assessment cannot be considered reliable due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews minimum threshold is 3). While the available evidence is uniformly negative and describes serious defects, a WW Score cannot be calculated with statistical confidence from only 2 data points.

Only a single review is available, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer praises Donny Plackey for going 'the extra mile' on frozen pipes and a broken sump pump, suggesting solid problem-solving ability and follow-through on a multi-issue job. Professionalism is inferred from the strong recommendation but no specific details about punctuality, communication, or attitude are provided. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored. All scores are conservative given the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension scored as null.
• Single review with no corroborating data; scores should be treated as highly speculative.
• Review is recent (August 2024) which is a positive recency signal, but one data point is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions.

This score is not reliable and should not be used for decision-making; with only one review, there is insufficient data to assess this contractor's performance across any dimension with meaningful confidence.

Only one review is available for analysis, which severely limits scoring reliability. The single reviewer praises Bill Ross as honest and reliable, and notably highlights that he solved a plumbing issue two other plumbers could not resolve, suggesting strong technical experience. Professionalism is implied through words like 'honest' and 'reliable,' and the reviewer notes repeat usage and referrals to clients, suggesting consistent follow-through on project completion. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. All scores are conservative given the single-review basis.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2017 — over 7 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• Single review with generic positive language ('honest, reliable, excellent job') and no granular detail — treat all dimension scores with caution.

This score is based on a single review from 2017 and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use it as a meaningful indicator of current contractor quality without substantially more recent and varied review data.

Insufficient data — only 1 review provided. This single review documents severe failures across professionalism, project completion, and technical expertise. The service representative refused to properly diagnose the problem, misidentified the root cause, and failed to complete the water shutoff correctly, resulting in catastrophic water damage and mold remediation. However, a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews to account for variability and reduce the impact of outliers.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEWS: Only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• SEVERE QUALITY ISSUES: Single review documents critical failures in diagnosis, professionalism, and follow-through resulting in significant property damage and mold.
• REVIEW AGE: Review dated 2019-10-09 (approximately 5 years old). No recent reviews available to assess current performance or whether issues have been corrected.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only 1 review. At minimum 3 reviews are required to establish a baseline. The single review provided is highly negative and detailed, but represents only one customer experience and cannot be generalized to overall contractor performance.