Find Nearby Plumbers In Detroit, Michigan

Only a single review was available for analysis, making any meaningful scoring extremely limited. The review speaks positively to Mr. Carter's attitude toward customers and general service quality, which contributes modestly to a Professionalism score. However, no specific details were provided about pricing, project completion, or technical experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The review is also over 7 years old, significantly reducing its relevance to current performance.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated January 2017, making it over 7 years old. Current performance cannot be inferred from this data.
• Review is vague and generic with no specific details about the work performed, scope of project, or outcomes — limits scoring confidence.
• The reviewer mentions uncertainty about the business being listed as closed, which may indicate the business is no longer active.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review data; the single available review is highly generic and over 7 years old, providing almost no actionable insight into current contractor performance.

This single review paints a strongly positive picture of Atheer Siba across multiple dimensions. Professionalism stands out clearly, with explicit mentions of friendliness, politeness, efficiency, and after-hours availability as a consultant. Pricing is directly referenced at $85 and described as affordable, supporting a solid but conservatively scored pricing dimension. Project completion is implied through the efficient resolution of the issue, though no explicit detail is given about the scope or complexity of the job. Experience is inferred from the plumber's ability to teach DIY solutions and demonstrate problem-solving knowledge, but lacks specific technical detail to warrant a higher score.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from October 2014, making it over 10 years old. Recency weighting is a significant concern — this review may not reflect current service quality.
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis. Treat all scores as directional indicators only, not reliable assessments.

This score is highly unreliable — it is based on a single review that is over a decade old, and no meaningful conclusions about current contractor quality can be drawn from this data alone.

This single review explicitly praises professionalism, integrity, and efficiency, with responsive follow-up service. Pricing is mentioned only as 'not the cheapest' but still acceptable given recommendations. Project completion is demonstrated through multiple jobs (sump pump installation and bathroom plumbing/shower base work) completed as promised with proper callbacks. However, with only one review, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per methodology requirements. Technical experience/workmanship quality is not explicitly discussed.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required to calculate WW Score reliably.
• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old). Recency is a concern for current contractor assessment.
• Single positive review cannot establish reliable baseline for any dimension.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A single review, even highly positive, does not provide adequate evidence to assess contractor performance across dimensions with confidence.

This single review paints a strongly negative picture across multiple dimensions. Pricing received a near-floor score due to an explicit complaint about being charged $585 for 30 minutes of work with no proration, which the reviewer describes as unethical and equivalent to over $1,100 per hour. Professionalism scored very low due to a broken promise of a supervisor callback that never materialized over four days, reflecting poor communication and follow-through at the company level. Project completion received a partial score because the technical work itself was completed (pipes were unfrozen), but the customer service follow-up was entirely abandoned. Experience could not be scored as the review contains no commentary on the technician's skill or workmanship quality.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2018-01-08, making it over 6 years old. This data may not reflect current business practices.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated with very low confidence.

This score is based on a single review from 2018 and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score. The single review mentions professionalism concerns (dishonest behavior, agreement twisting, refusal to start work) and serious pricing issues (undisclosed advance payment policy, perceived dishonest evaluation). Project completion and experience dimensions are not addressed in this review.

• Only 1 review available — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• Review is from July 2023 (over 1 year old) — recency is limited
• Serious allegations of dishonesty and contract violation — credibility concerns warrant investigation
• No data on project completion or technical experience — cannot assess full contractor capability

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required). The single review raises significant red flags regarding business practices and should be investigated independently before engaging this contractor.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture of Quick Quality Services across multiple dimensions. The contractor failed to resolve the customer's main drain backup issue, indicating poor workmanship and ineffective problem-solving. Follow-through was essentially nonexistent — the customer was repeatedly placed on hold and never received a promised callback, reflecting severe failures in communication and responsiveness. Project completion scored near zero as the original job was left unresolved with no corrective action taken. Pricing was not explicitly discussed, so no score could be assigned for that dimension.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from July 2020, which is over 4 years old. Current performance of this contractor may differ significantly.
• No pricing information was mentioned in the review, so the Price Friendly dimension has no data.

This score is based on a single review from 2020 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of the contractor's overall quality — treat all dimension scores as directional indicators only, not definitive assessments.