Find Nearby Plumbers In Warren, Michigan

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly provisional. The reviewer speaks positively about Mike Malak's professionalism, describing him as honest, caring about his work, and pleasant to deal with. Pricing is noted as fair with the phrase 'honest pricing,' though no specific figures or comparisons are provided. Project completion is implied positively — the reviewer is a repeat customer and references a unique plumbing challenge being accepted and presumably resolved — but no explicit detail about job completion or timeliness is given. Experience is the strongest signal in this review, with explicit mention of Master Plumber credentials since the mid-90s, multi-sector expertise (commercial, residential, industrial), and a family background in the trade.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from February 2019, making it over 5 years old. Recency weighting is a significant concern — current performance cannot be inferred from this data.
• Single review with no corroborating reviews — all dimension scores carry very low evidentiary weight and should not be used for decision-making.
• The review is positive and detailed, which reduces fake review suspicion, but the absence of any critical feedback across a single data point means no balanced picture can be formed.

This WW Score report is based on a single review from 2019 and should be considered unreliable for drawing any meaningful conclusions about All Terrain Plumbing's current quality or consistency.

This single review describes a severely negative experience with K & M Plumbing. The customer reports dishonest diagnosis and billing practices, with the company recommending a $9,800 sewer replacement that was never performed and was not actually necessary. Follow-up investigation by the city revealed the sewer was not broken and the original pipe remained unchanged. The initial $2,200 job involved unnecessary excavation. The review explicitly criticizes the company's honesty and trustworthiness, stating they would never recommend the company.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient data to calculate reliable WW Score. Minimum 3 reviews required.
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old) — recency is poor and may not reflect current operations.
• Single review describes serious allegations of dishonest diagnosis, unnecessary work, and billing practices that were not followed through.
• No corroborating reviews available to validate or contextualize these claims.

This analysis is unreliable and cannot support a WW Score calculation. A single review, especially one from 2019, is insufficient to assess contractor performance. At minimum, 3 recent reviews are required before any meaningful scoring can occur.

This single review paints a strongly negative picture across multiple dimensions. The contractor failed to follow through after collecting a $50 field measure fee, never delivering measurements or a quote, which directly reflects poor project completion and follow-through. Communication was explicitly cited as a major failure, driving the professionalism score very low. The reviewer also expressed concern that the $50 fee may have been the intended outcome, suggesting a potentially deceptive pricing practice. No information was provided about workmanship or technical skill, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Reviewer explicitly suggests a possible predatory business model centered on collecting the $50 field measure fee with no intention of following up — this warrants serious scrutiny.
• No follow-up or callback was made after payment was collected, indicating a potential pattern of abandoned pre-sale commitments.
• With only one data point, all dimension scores carry very low confidence and should not be used as definitive assessments.

This score is based on a single 1-star review and falls well below the minimum threshold for reliable scoring — treat all dimension scores as highly provisional and directional only.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. The single review mentions responsiveness and fair pricing positively, but provides no evidence regarding project completion or technical experience. The review also contains a personal comment unrelated to service quality.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review contains personal commentary ('Ladies: Matt is C-U-T-E') unrelated to service quality
• No evidence of project completion or work quality provided
• No specific examples of work or problems solved mentioned

This score cannot be calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume. At least 3 reviews are needed to produce a meaningful WW Score.

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 via same-day response and excellent communication, pricing as great, project completion via successful drain clearing, and experience via tackling a difficult job others refused), a single review cannot provide reliable scoring. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence in the WW Score.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is from 2023 (over 1 year old) — recency data is limited
• Single positive review cannot establish statistical confidence in any dimension

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only 1 review; at least 3 independent reviews are needed to begin establishing reliable scoring patterns.