Find Nearby Plumbers In Portland, Maine

Only a single review exists, dated October 2012, making this data over a decade old and highly unreliable for any current assessment. The sole reviewer explicitly reported complete unresponsiveness — repeated calls and messages went unanswered — which is a severe professionalism failure. No data exists for pricing, project completion, or experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume.

• Only 1 review total — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from October 2012 — over 12 years old. This data is extremely stale and should not be used to assess current business quality.
• Reviewer explicitly states the company may no longer be in business. This contractor may be defunct.
• No data available for pricing, project completion, or experience dimensions — three out of four scoring dimensions are completely unscored.

This score report is essentially unusable for decision-making — it is based on a single, 12-year-old review from a business that may no longer be operating.

Only one review was available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review raises serious professionalism concerns, citing questionable behavior and administrative errors (incorrect W-9 EIN), but no data exists regarding pricing, project completion, or technical experience. A minimum of 3 reviews is required for meaningful scoring.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• Review is from January 2020 — over 4 years old. Recency is poor.
• Single review contains serious allegations (incorrect tax documentation, unprofessional conduct) but lacks specificity about actual work performed.
• No data on pricing, project completion, or technical skill — cannot assess full contractor capability.

This analysis is unreliable due to insufficient data volume (1 review minimum threshold is 3). No WW Score can be responsibly calculated.

Only a single review is available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The review speaks positively to responsiveness and communication — the contractor came out the same day to detect a slab leak and scheduled the repair promptly, which reflects well on professionalism. Project completion receives a conservative score because the review confirms scheduling and detection but does not explicitly confirm the repair was fully completed to the customer's satisfaction. Experience is inferred from the contractor's ability to detect a slab leak, a technically demanding task, but no detail on workmanship quality is provided. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Project completion score is conservative: the review confirms scheduling and detection but does not explicitly state the repair was finished or the outcome was satisfactory.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as very low confidence indicators only.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be used to make any meaningful judgment about this contractor's overall quality or reliability.

This single review provides positive feedback across all four dimensions: responsiveness and reasonable pricing demonstrate professionalism, fair labor-only charges reflect price-friendly practices, rapid two-day resolution shows strong project completion, and accurate diagnosis of a manufacturer warranty issue demonstrates technical knowledge and experience. However, with only one review, this assessment carries severely limited confidence and cannot reliably represent overall contractor performance.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• All dimensions scored based on single mention only — confidence is LIMITED across the board.
• Review is recent (October 2024) and specific in detail, reducing fake review concerns, but sample size is critically small.

This analysis is unreliable for decision-making purposes; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a trustworthy WW Score, and this contractor has only 1 review in the dataset.

Only a single review was available for analysis, which describes a service inquiry that resulted in a referral rather than completed work. The contractor communicated clearly that oil-fired burner maintenance was outside their scope and provided a referral to another source, which the reviewer acknowledged positively with a 4-star rating. No work was performed, so project completion, pricing, and experience dimensions cannot be assessed. Professionalism received a conservative score of 70 based solely on the contractor's responsive and helpful communication, but this is based on extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No actual work was performed; the review reflects only a phone/Yelp inquiry interaction, not a completed job.
• Pricing, project completion, and experience dimensions have zero data and cannot be scored.
• Professionalism score of 70 is highly conservative due to single-mention LIMITED confidence — treat with caution.

This score report is not reliable for contractor evaluation purposes, as it is based on a single review describing only an initial inquiry with no work completed.

This single review describes severe failures across multiple dimensions. The contractor failed to properly install a pellet stove (water leak from missing chimney cap), installed a door incorrectly (reversed and drafty), and created additional problems requiring other contractors to fix. The review explicitly mentions poor project completion and lack of technical skill. However, with only one review, this assessment carries very limited confidence and cannot reliably represent overall contractor performance.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Single negative review does not establish pattern. Additional reviews needed to validate claims and assess consistency.
• No pricing information provided despite customer paying for rework by other contractors.

This analysis is unreliable due to insufficient sample size (n=1). A single negative review, while concerning, cannot establish a trustworthy overall score without corroborating data from additional reviews.