Find Nearby Plumbers In Louisville/Jefferson County, Kentucky

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. Both reviews praise Mike's knowledge, honesty, and straightforward approach, but neither explicitly addresses project completion timelines, punctuality, or specific workmanship outcomes. The reviews emphasize integrity and fair pricing but lack concrete evidence of on-time delivery or callback follow-through.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• One review is from 2020 (4+ years old); only one review from past 12 months
• Project completion dimension has zero mentions — no evidence of on-time delivery or job completion practices
• Both reviews are 5-star with similar praise structure (honesty, straightforwardness, knowledge); limited specificity on actual work performed

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. Professionalism received a low score due to explicit complaints in the 2-star review about disrespectful behavior — walking across a well-maintained lawn and cleaning muddy equipment on the grass without permission. Project completion is mixed: one review notes the job was delayed to a second day unnecessarily, while the other confirms a successful unclogging. Pricing signals are slightly positive, with one reviewer calling the contractor 'very reasonable,' though the 2-star reviewer implies the delay added unexpected cost. Experience shows a modest positive signal from one reviewer noting the contractor solved a problem others could not, but this is based on a single mention and should be treated with very low confidence.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• Both reviews are significantly outdated: one from 2008 and one from 2011, both over 13 years old. These reviews provide no meaningful signal about current contractor quality or behavior.
• No reviews from the past 12 months — recency weighting heavily penalizes confidence across all dimensions.
• With only 2 reviews, fake review detection is not applicable, but the small sample size itself is a reliability risk.

This score profile should not be trusted for any decision-making purposes — the review pool is critically undersized at only 2 reviews, and both are over a decade old, rendering all dimension scores effectively meaningless as indicators of current contractor performance.

Only two reviews exist for this contractor, making any scoring highly unreliable. Professionalism is sharply divided: one review praises the plumber as a very nice young man, while the other describes rude and insulting behavior serious enough that the customer demanded the plumber leave the premises. Project completion and experience are each touched on by only one review, with the 2024 review indicating the job was completed successfully and the problem resolved. The negative review dates to 2015, which is nearly a decade old, but it describes a serious conduct incident that cannot be dismissed. With only two data points spanning nearly nine years, no meaningful pattern can be established.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEWS: Only 2 reviews total. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules.
• EXTREME RECENCY GAP: Reviews span approximately 9 years (2015 to 2024). The negative review is from 2015 and may not reflect current performance, but it cannot be ignored given the severity of the conduct described.
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: One review is 5-star with specific praise; one is 1-star describing refusal to leave a customer's property. These are diametrically opposed and cannot be averaged meaningfully.
• LOW DATA VOLUME: Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews and cannot be scored at all.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — with only 2 reviews, one nearly a decade old, and directly contradictory accounts of professionalism, prospective customers should seek additional references before making a hiring decision.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. Both reviews are positive and mention professionalism (quick response, courtesy, cleanliness) and project completion (job finished quickly, drain issue resolved). One review mentions technical skill. However, pricing is not addressed in any review, and the sample size is too small to produce a reliable overall score.

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliability.
• One review is from 2020 (over 3 years old); recency of data is poor.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generic positive language; however, the second review contains specific details (time of arrival, specific repair, duration, COVID protocols) which adds credibility.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews). A minimum of 3 reviews is required, and ideally 5+ recent reviews are needed for trustworthy scoring. Do not rely on any score calculation from this dataset.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. The first review addresses only unprofessional driving behavior and provides no information about actual work quality. The second review, from January 2023 (over 1 year old), documents serious warranty disputes and billing disagreements, but mentions are sparse across dimensions. No dimension has sufficient mention count to establish confidence.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from January 2023 (over 1 year old); only 1 review from 2024.
• LIMITED DIMENSION COVERAGE: Most dimensions mentioned in only 1-2 reviews; experience dimension has no data.
• FIRST REVIEW VALIDITY: Review 1 (3-star, 2024-03-14) addresses only driver behavior on highway, not actual service quality or work performed; minimal relevance to contractor evaluation.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Review 2 (1-star, 2023-01-30) alleges warranty non-compliance and account suspension over billing dispute; if accurate, represents significant professionalism and pricing concerns.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required). Even if calculated, confidence would be critically low across all dimensions due to sparse mentions and limited data diversity. Do not rely on any scoring from this analysis.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews are available, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score calculation. Both reviews are extremely positive and dated 2006–2008 (15+ years old), raising concerns about recency and relevance. Professionalism and experience are mentioned positively in both reviews (kindness, cleanliness, quality workmanship), but pricing is not addressed in either review, and project completion details are minimal.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from 2006–2008 (15+ years old); no recent data available
• FAKE REVIEW PATTERN DETECTED: Both reviews use suspiciously similar language and structure (emphasis on cleanliness, friendliness, quality); second review is in all-caps with generic praise and no specific project details
• PRICING DIMENSION: No mention of pricing, quotes, or value in either review — cannot assess this critical dimension
• PROJECT COMPLETION: Minimal detail on actual project completion; only one review mentions work scope (replacement avoided)

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 < 3), extreme age of reviews (15+ years), suspected fake review patterns, and complete absence of pricing data. Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.