Find Nearby Plumbers In Brockton, Massachusetts

Both reviews are positive and mention prompt response times and professional conduct, supporting a reasonable professionalism score. The first review explicitly calls out skill and professionalism, while the second references quality repair, providing limited but consistent signals for experience and project completion. Pricing is entirely unmentioned across both reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. With only two reviews total, no WW Score can be reliably calculated regardless of the positive sentiment expressed.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• One review (2020-09-16) is over 4 years old and carries significantly reduced recency weight compared to the 2024 review.
• Both reviews are generic in nature with limited specific detail, which reduces confidence in all dimension scores.
• Possible generic praise pattern: neither review describes the specific problem solved, scope of work, or any nuanced detail — treat scores with caution.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality due to the critically low review count of only 2, with one review being over 4 years old and both lacking specific detail.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review contains substantive information. The single usable review mentions professionalism (quick, professional work) and project completion (projects completed), but provides no information on pricing or technical experience. Both reviews are older than 10 years (2012–2014), limiting recency relevance. A minimum of 3 reviews with usable data is required for reliable scoring.

• Only 2 reviews total; 1 review is empty (single period)
• Both reviews are extremely old (2012–2014), outside the recommended 12-month recency window
• Insufficient data to calculate WW Score — minimum 3 reviews required
• No pricing information mentioned in any review
• No technical experience or skill-level details provided

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume and age; at least 3 recent reviews with substantive detail are needed to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Only two reviews exist, making any reliable scoring impossible. Professionalism is the only dimension with any data, and it is sharply divided: one reviewer from 2024 praises Dan as attentive, professional, and responsive, while a 2017 reviewer reports being completely ignored via email for over six weeks. The 2024 review is significantly more recent and should carry more weight, but a single positive data point cannot overcome the severity of the unresponsiveness complaint. No pricing, project completion, or experience data was mentioned in either review, leaving three of four dimensions entirely unscored.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The negative review is from 2017 (over 7 years old) and may not reflect current business practices; however, it cannot be dismissed given the small sample size.
• Three of four scoring dimensions have zero data — the score is based entirely on professionalism mentions only.
• With only one positive and one negative review, results are highly sensitive to individual experiences and should not be generalized.

This score report has very low reliability due to an insufficient number of reviews (only 2), a complete absence of data across three of four dimensions, and a wide gap in review recency spanning seven years.

Only one review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer highlights Kevin's dedication and willingness to work late into the evening to ensure the job was done before a heat wave, which speaks positively to professionalism and follow-through. However, the review explicitly notes that there were installation and wiring issues during the HVAC job, which tempers the project completion and experience scores — these problems were resolved, but their occurrence prevents a high score. No pricing information was mentioned in any review, so that dimension cannot be scored. Overall, Kevin appears to be a committed contractor who delivers results, but the acknowledged mid-job issues introduce meaningful uncertainty.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No pricing or value-for-money information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension scored as NO DATA.
• The review explicitly acknowledges installation and wiring problems during the HVAC job, which has been factored into the project completion and experience scores as a negative signal.
• Single review from June 2024 — recency is acceptable, but sample size is far too small to draw confident conclusions about consistent performance.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable — at least 3 reviews are required for a meaningful WW Score, and 5 or more are needed for any dimension to reach HIGH confidence.

This single review from January 2019 praises Dowd Plumbing's professionalism, responsiveness, and honest pricing (no charge for phone consultation). However, with only one review and no data on project completion, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated. The review is over 5 years old, which further limits its relevance to current service quality. The positive feedback is genuine and specific, but the sample size is far too small to establish confidence in overall performance.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review age: dated January 2019 (5+ years old). Does not reflect current service quality or recent performance.
• No data on project completion dimension: review involved phone consultation only, not a completed job.
• Cannot assess consistency or patterns with single review.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A single review from 2019 is not a valid basis for contractor evaluation. At least 3 recent reviews are needed to produce a trustworthy score.

The single review is positive and specific, mentioning the owner by name and describing concrete behaviors such as handling permits, arranging inspection, completing the job quickly, and leaving the workspace clean. Professionalism scores well due to explicit mentions of being personable, efficient, and tidy. Project completion scores highest given the clear description of a fully finished job with permits and inspection handled. Pricing received a modest score because the reviewer only noted it was the 'best deal' found without providing detail on actual cost or transparency. Experience is supported by the descriptor 'knowledgeable' and the efficient execution, though one mention is insufficient for high confidence. All scores are conservative due to the single-review basis.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis; treat all scores as preliminary indicators only.
• Review is from November 2022, which is over 12 months old at most evaluation points — recency should be considered when weighting this data.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance; at least 3 reviews are required for a meaningful WW Score.