Find Nearby Plumbers In Detroit, Michigan

Based on a single review, Big Beaver Plumbing demonstrated solid professionalism through clear communication from office staff (Martha) and a courteous, transparent technician (Tom) who allowed the customer to observe the work. Pricing was explicitly stated at $100 for testing plus $20 for an interior walkthrough, which the reviewer accepted without complaint but did not enthusiastically praise as exceptional value. Project completion was strong — Tom encountered a failed, clogged backflow device, disassembled and cleaned it, and successfully retested it to a passing result within the same visit. Experience was evidenced by Tom's self-reported long tenure in the industry and his effective troubleshooting of a decade-old, clogged system, though this is based solely on one account.

• Only 1 review analyzed — 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 highly provisional.
• Reviewer expressed minor uncertainty about whether the listed address is the actual business location — worth noting for data integrity.
• No fake review patterns detected; the review contains specific names, dollar amounts, procedural detail, and a nuanced outcome, suggesting authenticity.

This score is based on a single review from 2022 and should be considered highly provisional — no meaningful conclusions about consistent contractor quality can be drawn until substantially more reviews are analyzed.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While this single review is highly positive and mentions all four 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. The review explicitly praises Geno's responsiveness, calm demeanor, professionalism, fair pricing, thorough work completion, and technical problem-solving ability.

• Only 1 review provided — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• Cannot calculate WW Score with fewer than 3 reviews per methodology

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable WW Score because only 1 review was provided; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a statistically meaningful score.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions professionalism (timely, good communicator, respectful), fair pricing, and experience (quality work, bathroom remodels), but project completion is not explicitly addressed. All scores are based on LIMITED confidence due to the single mention.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from January 2021 — over 3 years old, outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• Project completion dimension has no explicit mention in the available review

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 review was provided. Any score calculated would be statistically unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Only one review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer explicitly noted that Jason arrived on time and completed the faucet repair quickly and professionally, supporting modest scores in professionalism and project completion. The technician also offered to repair a broken access panel left by a prior contractor, suggesting a degree of initiative and competence that informs the experience score. Pricing was never mentioned in any form, so that dimension cannot be scored. All scores are conservative given the single-review basis.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis; treat all dimension scores as highly provisional.
• Review is dated 2017 — over 7 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability as it may not reflect current service quality.
• No pricing information mentioned anywhere in the review — Pricing dimension scored null.

This score report is based on a single review from 2017 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's current or consistent performance.

This single review is severely negative across nearly every dimension assessed. The contractor failed to complete the job properly — work broke down within 24 hours and caused additional water damage to the customer's home. The use of electrical tape to patch a pipe is a clear indicator of dangerously poor workmanship and technical incompetence. Professionalism was also critically lacking, with the contractor becoming completely unresponsive after receiving payment. No pricing data was mentioned, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Contractor allegedly became unresponsive after payment — potential pattern of abandonment or fraud.
• Documented use of electrical tape on a plumbing pipe suggests severely substandard workmanship and possible safety hazard.
• Work failed within 24 hours and caused secondary property damage — this is a critical project completion failure.
• All scores are LIMITED confidence due to single-review data set. These scores should not be treated as statistically representative.

This score report is based on a single 1-star review and should be treated as highly preliminary — while the review is detailed and specific enough to be credible, no statistical reliability can be established from one data point alone.

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 indicates serious concerns with project completion (failed to locate the actual leak and provided incorrect information) and pricing (aggressive upselling of unnecessary services including asbestos remediation and humidifiers). No explicit mention of professionalism dimensions such as punctuality or communication was found.

• Only 1 review available — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• Serious allegation of misdiagnosis and aggressive upselling tactics
• Review is recent (March 2024) but represents isolated incident with no corroborating data

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume. A single negative review, while concerning, does not provide enough evidence to establish a trustworthy overall rating. At least 3 reviews are required to begin meaningful analysis.