Find Nearby Plumbers In Duluth, Minnesota

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. Additionally, the reviews are contradictory and separated by 4 years, with the positive review dating to 2019 and the negative review from 2023. The 2019 review praises professionalism and efficiency, while the 2023 review criticizes project completion and pricing. Each dimension is mentioned in only 1 review, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all metrics.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot reliably calculate WW Score
• Extreme contradiction between reviews: 5-star (2019) vs 1-star (2023) suggests significant service quality change or inconsistency
• Recency concern: Positive review is 4+ years old; negative review is recent (2023)
• Business listed as closed on Yelp per 2019 review, yet 2023 review indicates recent service — status unclear
• Each dimension supported by only 1 mention — all scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be trusted for decision-making

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews). The two available reviews are contradictory and separated by years, making any aggregate score meaningless. Do not rely on this analysis for contractor selection.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a trustworthy WW Score. The reviews present conflicting signals: one praises promptness and knowledge (5-star, 2015), while the other criticizes lack of follow-up after an estimate request (2-star, 2017). No pricing information was mentioned in either review. The data is too sparse and temporally distant to establish reliable patterns.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Reviews are significantly dated (2015 and 2017) — no recent data within past 12 months
• Conflicting signals: one highly positive, one highly negative — suggests inconsistent service quality or context-dependent performance
• No pricing feedback provided in any review
• Project completion dimension shows mixed results: one review mentions repair completion, the other indicates abandoned follow-up on estimate

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and lack of recency; any score derived would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The reviews mention professionalism (promptness, responsiveness) and experience (quality of work, long-term trust), but pricing is not addressed in either review. All data points are from 2012, over 12 years old, and lack specificity regarding project scope or outcomes.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient for reliable scoring (minimum 3 required)
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from 2012 (12+ years old) — no recent customer feedback available
• PRICING DIMENSION: No mentions of pricing, value, or cost in any review — cannot assess price friendliness
• LIMITED SPECIFICITY: Reviews are generic praise with minimal detail about specific projects or outcomes
• SMALL SAMPLE SIZE: All confidence scores are LIMITED due to 1–2 mentions per dimension

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and extreme age of data (2012). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews describe severely negative experiences with this contractor. Review 1 (2021) documents undisclosed additional charges ($1,100 beyond discussed $300-400), refusal to provide itemized billing, and unprofessional conduct including verbal abuse of staff. Review 2 (2015) alleges predatory pricing ($500 for a wax ring change with excessive travel and hourly charges) and poor workmanship (toilet malfunction post-repair). Both reviewers report dismissive, unprofessional attitudes and lack of transparency. The contractor's skill and follow-through are questioned in both cases.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required). WW Score cannot be calculated.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review 2 is from August 2015 (9+ years old) and should be weighted less heavily. Review 1 is from April 2021 (3+ years old). No recent reviews provided.
• PATTERN OF SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Both reviews describe predatory pricing, lack of transparency, and poor workmanship. Review 1 includes allegation of verbal abuse of employee with video evidence. Review 2 alleges deliberate sabotage to sell unnecessary services to elderly customer.
• CONSISTENCY ACROSS TIME: Despite 6-year gap between reviews, both describe similar patterns (hidden charges, unprofessional behavior, poor communication), suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.
• NO POSITIVE REVIEWS: 100% of reviews are 1-star with detailed complaints. No counterbalancing positive feedback provided.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews; minimum 3 required). However, the available evidence is uniformly negative and describes serious allegations of predatory pricing, poor workmanship, and unprofessional conduct spanning multiple years. Any engagement with this contractor should be approached with extreme caution and requires detailed written agreements with explicit price caps.

Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience explicitly. Review 1 describes the team as 'prompt, clean, affordable and very friendly.' Review 2 emphasizes 'prompt, professional, thoughtful and trustworthy' work with reliable follow-up service. However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. All dimensions are based on LIMITED data (1–2 mentions each), and the reviews lack sufficient detail to differentiate performance across specific service areas.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for WW Score calculation.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language and no specific criticisms or challenges mentioned. While not definitively fake, the lack of nuance or detail is atypical.
• Review dates are from early 2023 (20+ months old). No recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• Limited specificity: Reviews lack concrete examples of problems solved, timelines, or detailed pricing information that would strengthen confidence in scoring.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. With only 2 reviews, all dimensions carry LIMITED confidence. These reviews suggest strong performance, but the sample is too small and too old to produce a trustworthy overall score.

Only a single review is available, dated June 2019, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer praised Don's promptness, friendliness, trustworthiness, and helpfulness, supporting a reasonable professionalism score. Pricing was described as 'reasonably priced,' warranting a conservative but positive pricing score. The job was completed quickly and the worksite was cleaned up, suggesting solid project completion. The problem was resolved efficiently, implying competent experience, though no technical detail was provided to justify a high score.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from June 2019, which is more than 5 years old. It does not reflect recent performance.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention each and should be treated as highly speculative.
• No negative feedback exists, but this is likely due to the extremely small sample size rather than an indicator of consistent quality.

This score is not reliable — it is based on a single review from over five years ago, and no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or consistency can be drawn.