Find Nearby Plumbers In Taylor, Michigan

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The positive review (2024) praises responsiveness, emergency availability, fair pricing, and honesty under current owner Jimmy Monks. The negative review (2022) describes serious failures including a leaking shower installation, inability to install a standard drain, and leaving a clogged toilet with fecal matter for the homeowner to clean — while still charging for the work. The two reviews are in direct conflict, and the positive review explicitly notes a change in ownership, which complicates direct comparison. Scores are heavily penalized due to the severity of the negative review and the critically low total review count.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Ownership change noted: the positive review states Frank no longer works at the company and it is now operated by Jimmy Monks. The negative review references Frank specifically. These may reflect two different operators, making cross-review comparison potentially invalid.
• The negative review describes serious workmanship failures (leaking water lines, inability to install a Kohler drain) and a hygiene/conduct incident (clogged toilet left for homeowner) — these are significant red flags regardless of ownership change.
• The positive review is generic in some respects and lacks specific project detail, though it does reference an emergency call and provides some context about the ownership transition.
• Recency note: the positive review is from August 2024 (within past 12 months at time of analysis) and the negative review is from November 2022 — more than 1 year old. However, with only 2 reviews, recency weighting cannot meaningfully offset the severity of the negative account.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews were available, the reviews conflict sharply, and an ownership change between the two review periods introduces further uncertainty.

With only two reviews, the data is highly insufficient to draw reliable conclusions. The two reviews are sharply contradictory: one is a glowing 5-star review praising speed, friendliness, professionalism, and quality of work, while the other is a scathing 1-star review citing rude and condescending behavior, unauthorized work, and unexplained price increases. Professionalism scores low due to the serious misconduct described in the negative review — eye-rolling, condescension, and working without customer approval — which cannot be offset by a single positive review. Pricing is flagged as a concern due to the explicit complaint about a $40 unexplained charge increase with no transparency. Project completion is mixed: the hot water tank job was completed well, but the spigot job involved unauthorized work and no review of completed work with the customer.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The positive review (2021) is over 1 year old relative to the negative review (2023); the more recent review is the negative one and should carry greater weight per recency rules.
• The positive review uses somewhat generic praise ('fast, friendly, professional, on time, excellent work') with limited specifics, which slightly reduces its evidentiary weight.
• Unauthorized work performed without customer approval is a serious flag and may indicate inconsistent service standards or worker misconduct.
• Unexplained price discrepancy of $40 above a previously quoted or experienced rate was not addressed transparently by the worker, raising a pricing integrity concern.

This score is highly unreliable due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews; no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality should be drawn until substantially more review data is available.

Both reviews are severely negative with explicit criticism across all dimensions. Review 1 criticizes unprofessional behavior, unfair diagnostic charges, and incorrect diagnosis. Review 2 documents catastrophic technical failure (improper refrigerant handling and welding), non-responsiveness to callbacks, and lack of professional follow-through. The contractor failed to complete repairs and disappeared after causing $5,000 in damage. However, with only 2 reviews total, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per protocol.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability
• Both reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints (not generic praise or suspiciously identical language) — authenticity appears high
• Review 2 includes corroborating evidence (third-party professional confirmation, EPA report reference, visible leak documentation) — credibility is strong
• Review 2 is from August 2023 (older than 12 months); Review 1 is from February 2024 (recent) — mixed recency
• Severe technical incompetence documented in HVAC/refrigerant work — potential safety and regulatory violations

A WW Score cannot be calculated from only 2 reviews. While both reviews are credible and detailed, the sample size is too small to produce a statistically meaningful score. The contractor shows critical failures in all four dimensions, but scoring requires minimum 3 reviews per protocol.

This single review paints a severely negative picture of the contractor across two measurable dimensions. The plumber explicitly abandoned an incomplete job, left two yards torn up, promised a follow-up that never occurred, and became unreachable by phone — representing a near-total failure of both professionalism and project completion. No information was provided regarding pricing or technical experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. With only one review available, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated, but the available evidence is strongly negative.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from November 2018, making it over 6 years old. Recency weighting is very low — contractor performance may have changed significantly since then.
• Explicit report of abandoned work, broken promise of return, and no response to phone calls — serious project completion and professionalism failures.
• Reviewer stated desired rating of 0 stars, indicating extreme dissatisfaction beyond the 1-star minimum allowed by the platform.

This score is based on a single review from 2018 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of the contractor's overall quality — far more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions pricing positively ('great price'), project completion favorably (job completed in 1.5 days on-site), and work quality ('amazing work'). However, professionalism is not explicitly addressed. With only one data point, confidence in any aggregate score is severely limited and unreliable.

• Insufficient review count (n=1) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 requirements
• Review is from 2015 (9+ years old) — recency is a significant concern
• Single review with generic praise language and no specific details about professionalism, communication, or punctuality

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only 1 review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required per protocol.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While this single review is highly positive, praising McGraw Plumbing for same-day responsiveness, friendly demeanor, reasonable pricing, and successful completion of multiple tasks (pipe repair and appliance hookup), a single data point cannot support a reliable overall score. At least 3 reviews are required to establish meaningful patterns across the four dimensions.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality
• Cannot assess consistency or detect patterns with single review

This score cannot be calculated or trusted. Minimum 3 reviews required; only 1 available. Additionally, the single review is significantly outdated (2019), making it unreliable for assessing current contractor performance.