Find Nearby Plumbers In Flint, Michigan

Only one review contained usable content, and it briefly mentioned punctuality and professionalism alongside general satisfaction. No details were provided about pricing, project completion, or technical experience. The single usable review is also over 12 years old, significantly reducing its relevance to current performance. With only one data point and no coverage of three out of four dimensions, no reliable WW Score can be produced.

• Only 2 reviews total — minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• One review has no text content ('unknown') and provides zero usable data.
• Both reviews are extremely old (2012 and 2014), over 10 years ago. These do not reflect current contractor performance.
• Insufficient data across all dimensions except professionalism, which itself is based on only 1 mention.

This score report cannot be considered reliable — only 1 of 2 reviews contained any usable information, all data is over a decade old, and three of four scoring dimensions have no evidence whatsoever.

Both available reviews are severely negative and paint a deeply concerning picture of this contractor. The first review describes outright financial misconduct — the contractor accepted money for materials, abandoned the project entirely, and became unreachable across multiple platforms. The second review documents a complete no-show for a scheduled appointment with no communication or callback. Professionalism scores near zero due to explicit evidence of ghosting, non-responsiveness, and disregard for client time. Project completion scores near zero due to an explicitly abandoned renovation. Pricing and experience could not be scored as neither review provided usable data on those dimensions.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT FLAG: Review 1 explicitly describes the contractor taking money for materials and abandoning the project — this is consistent with fraudulent or predatory business behavior.
• NO-SHOW FLAG: Review 2 documents a confirmed appointment that was completely ignored with no call, no show, and no callback.
• COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN: Both reviews independently describe an inability to reach the contractor, suggesting a systemic pattern of avoiding clients.
• RECENCY NOTE: Both reviews are older than 1 year (2019 and 2021). No recent reviews are available to assess whether business practices have changed.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews were provided. Per scoring rules, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are over 1 year old, making the WW Score statistically unreliable — however, the severity and specificity of the misconduct described in both reviews warrants serious caution regardless of sample size.

Analysis is severely compromised by only 2 reviews with contradictory signals and suspected fake review patterns. Review 1 (Nov 2021) documents serious issues: work quality described as mediocre, 6-day project took 3x longer than promised, customer property (door) not returned, ghosting, unresponsiveness, and legal action filed. Review 2 (Mar 2021) is suspiciously generic with no specific details, generic praise, and appears to be written by a different person (signed 'Phil'). The extreme polarity and generic nature of Review 2 raises authenticity concerns. No reliable WW Score can be calculated with only 2 reviews, one of which is questionable.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient for reliable scoring
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW: Review 2 (5-star, Mar 2021) exhibits generic praise with no specifics, suspiciously positive tone contrasting sharply with detailed negative review, and appears written by different person ('Phil')
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Review 1 documents theft of customer property (door), ghosting, unresponsiveness, and legal action filed with State Attorney General and small claims court
• TEMPORAL INCONSISTENCY: Review 2 dated Mar 2021 predates Review 1 (Nov 2021), yet Review 1 describes ongoing pattern of behavior suggesting systemic issues
• EXTREME POLARITY: 1-star vs 5-star with no middle ground suggests either fake review or fundamentally unreliable service quality

This score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume (n=2), suspected fake review in the positive direction, and extreme contradictions that suggest either fabricated data or severely inconsistent service delivery; any decision should not be based on this analysis alone.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. The two reviews provided appear to be for a retail/supply business (Vic Bond Sales) rather than a contractor or plumber. They reference shopping, product selection, and sales service, not plumbing work, project completion, or home service delivery. No evidence of actual plumbing or contracting work is present in either review.

• Reviews appear to be for a retail/supply business, not a plumbing contractor or service provider
• No mention of any plumbing work, project completion, job quality, or service calls
• Reviews reference shopping, product selection, and sales transactions — outside scope of contractor evaluation
• Insufficient and irrelevant data for WW Score calculation

This score cannot be calculated or trusted because the reviews do not pertain to plumbing or contracting services.

Both reviews speak positively across all four dimensions, but the sample size of only two reviews is far too small to produce a reliable WW Score. Professionalism is supported by mentions of rapid response (within 30 minutes), no same-day surcharge, and attentive communication. Pricing is noted as fair in both reviews, with explicit mention of no same-day fee in each. Project completion is strong — both jobs were seen through fully, including creative problem-solving (fabricating a custom cap) and follow-up work the next day. Experience is evidenced by Matt's use of a camera to diagnose a root cause that other companies had missed, and by his ability to handle diverse plumbing tasks competently.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated between 2011 and 2012, making them over 12 years old. These scores carry very low recency relevance and should not be used to assess current service quality.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback of any kind. While the reviews do contain specific details (custom cap fabrication, camera diagnosis), the uniformly perfect ratings across a very small sample warrants caution.
• No reviews from the past 12 months are present in this dataset. Current performance cannot be assessed.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality — the dataset contains only 2 reviews, both over a decade old, providing insufficient and outdated evidence to draw meaningful conclusions.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, both from 2020-2021 with extremely negative ratings (1.0 stars each). Both reviews document severe failures in professionalism (no-shows, poor communication, denial of prior commitments) and project completion (incomplete work, failed callbacks, misdiagnosis of plumbing issues). One review mentions technical competence issues (incorrect diagnosis of leak source). No pricing information provided in either review. The extreme recency gap (3+ years old) and uniformly catastrophic feedback prevent reliable scoring.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews available — sample size is too small for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from 2020-2021 (3+ years old); no recent data available to assess current business practices
• REVIEW REMOVAL ALLEGATION: Second review explicitly states contractor removed negative Facebook review and only 5-star ratings remain visible — suggests potential review manipulation
• SEVERE PERFORMANCE ISSUES: Both reviews document no-shows, broken commitments, poor communication, and technical failures; no positive counterbalance in dataset
• INSUFFICIENT DIMENSION COVERAGE: Pricing dimension has zero mentions; only 3 of 4 dimensions have any data

This assessment cannot be considered reliable due to insufficient review volume (n=2), extreme age of data (3+ years), and evidence of potential review manipulation; any score would be meaningless without current reviews and a larger sample size.