Find Nearby Plumbers In Haverhill, Massachusetts

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score. The two reviews present contradictory evidence: one describes severe communication failure and non-responsiveness (1-star), while the other praises responsiveness and job completion (5-star). Professionalism scores are heavily conflicted, and pricing/experience dimensions lack any explicit mention. The extreme recency gap (2018 vs. 2023) and small sample size prevent meaningful scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• EXTREME RECENCY DISPARITY: One review from 2018 (5+ years old) and one from 2023. The older review may not reflect current business practices.
• CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: Review 1 reports complete communication failure and non-responsiveness; Review 2 reports excellent responsiveness. These cannot be reconciled without additional context.
• MISSING DATA: No explicit mentions of pricing or experience/workmanship quality in either review.
• ANECDOTAL NATURE: Second review mentions the reviewer switched to a different plumber (Dan Dunn Plumbing) after the negative experience, suggesting the first issue was not resolved.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required) and contradictory evidence across dimensions. Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Only two reviews exist for this contractor, making any reliable scoring impossible. The professionalism dimension is directly contradicted between the two reviews: one describes an abrupt, dismissive hang-up with zero explanation, while the other offers enthusiastic praise for work quality. The experience score is drawn solely from the positive review, which praises workmanship and problem-solving, but carries very low confidence given it is a single data point from 2013. No pricing or project completion information was mentioned in either review.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score.
• The positive review (2013) uses generic superlatives ('phenomenal', 'exceptional', 'never takes short cuts') with no specific job details, which is a pattern consistent with low-credibility reviews.
• The positive review is over 10 years old and should be weighted minimally under recency rules.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict on professionalism, suggesting the score for that dimension is highly unstable.
• No pricing or project completion data exists — two of the four scoring dimensions have no evidence whatsoever.

This WW Score cannot be calculated or trusted due to an insufficient number of reviews, a 10+ year gap on the only positive review, and a direct contradiction between the two available data points.

Both reviews speak positively across all four dimensions, citing Henry's responsiveness, fair pricing, and technical competence. Professionalism is highlighted through punctuality, personable demeanor, and willingness to respond to emergencies. Project completion is supported by both reviews describing jobs that were carried through efficiently and without issue. Experience is noted through phrases like 'he really knows his stuff' and descriptions of quick, efficient work. However, with only 2 reviews — both over a decade old — all scores must be treated as highly provisional and low-confidence.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 not met; WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.
• Both reviews are from 2011–2012, making them over 12 years old. These scores may not reflect current service quality.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language and no specific criticisms or neutral observations, which warrants mild caution around review authenticity, though the reviews do contain some specific details (e.g., Memorial Day weekend installation, emergency same-day visit) that reduce fake review suspicion.
• Recency concern: No reviews from the past 12 months (or even the past several years) are present. Current performance is entirely unknown.

This score should be treated with very low reliability — it is based on only 2 reviews, both more than 12 years old, providing insufficient and outdated data to draw meaningful conclusions about current service quality.

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. The two reviews present a sharply divided picture: one customer (2024) experienced a no-show appointment with no courtesy call and no phone answer across multiple attempts, reflecting serious failures in punctuality, communication, and follow-through. The other customer (2023) reported a positive experience with responsiveness, professionalism, fair pricing, and quality workmanship on both an emergency pipe repair and faucet installations. The professionalism and project completion scores are pulled down significantly by the 2024 no-show incident, which is a concrete and serious failure. Scores for pricing and experience are based on a single positive review and should be treated with very low confidence.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules (minimum 3 reviews required).
• The two reviews are in direct conflict: one is a 1-star no-show complaint, the other is a 5-star positive experience. This polarization makes any aggregate score highly unreliable.
• The 1-star review is the most recent (September 2024) and describes a significant service failure — no-show, no call, no phone answer. Recency weighting means this negative signal carries elevated importance.
• Pricing and experience scores are each based on a single review only and should not be treated as representative of typical contractor performance.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality — seek additional reviews before making a hiring decision.

Only a single review is available, dated April 2018, making any scoring highly conservative and unreliable for broader conclusions. The review speaks positively about punctuality, communication with office staff (Nancy), and the plumber (James) arriving on time and cleaning up after himself, supporting a moderate-to-good professionalism score. Project completion appears solid — the faucet was installed with needed alterations and the job was finished — but there is no mention of follow-up work, callbacks, or complex scope, so the score is kept conservative. Pricing is mentioned only vaguely ('the price wasn't bad'), which is insufficient to assign a strong score, hence a conservative 65. Experience is implied by the successful completion of the task with alterations, but no technical detail is provided to justify a high score.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated April 2018, which is more than 6 years old. This data may not reflect current service quality.
• Pricing mention is vague ('the price wasn't bad') — insufficient to score with confidence; conservative score applied.
• No negative feedback present, but this is likely due to the extremely small sample size rather than an indicator of consistent quality.

This score is based on a single review from 2018 and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's current or consistent performance.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While this single review is highly positive across all dimensions (professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience), a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews to account for variability and reduce the risk of outlier bias. All dimension scores are based on LIMITED evidence from a single data point.

• Only 1 review provided — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Single review is uniformly 5-star with no critical details or specific technical descriptions — cannot validate authenticity without comparative data
• No recency risk (review from July 2024, recent), but sample size is critically insufficient

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only 1 review. A minimum of 3 independent reviews is required to establish baseline reliability and confidence in any dimension scoring.