Find Nearby Plumbers In Minneapolis, Minnesota

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. The two reviews present a stark contradiction: one 5-star review from 2021 praising responsiveness and quality work, and one 1-star review from 2015 citing multiple failures including incomplete work, refusal to honor callbacks, and installation errors. The extreme polarity and significant time gap (6 years) between reviews make it impossible to establish a reliable current performance baseline.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• EXTREME RATING POLARITY: One 5-star and one 1-star review with no middle-ground reviews suggests either significant service inconsistency or potential data quality issues.
• SIGNIFICANT RECENCY GAP: The negative review is from March 2015 (9+ years old), while the positive review is from April 2021 (3+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• CALLBACK REFUSAL: The 2015 review explicitly documents the contractor refusing to honor a callback due to distance, citing regret about accepting the job. This is a serious professionalism and project completion failure.
• MULTIPLE INSTALLATION DEFECTS: The 2015 review documents at least three distinct failures: crossed hot/cold lines, improperly positioned hose bib installation through siding, and misaligned pedestal sink. These suggest either lack of experience or quality control issues.
• CUSTOMER SELF-REMEDIATION: The 2015 review indicates the customer had to fix multiple items themselves, indicating incomplete project delivery.

This score cannot be calculated and should not be used for decision-making. The sample size is critically insufficient (2 reviews vs. minimum 3 required), the reviews are contradictory and separated by years, and the most recent negative review documents serious failures in professionalism and project completion. Additional recent reviews are essential before drawing any conclusions about current service quality.

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. Both reviews are extremely positive and generic, lacking specific details about pricing, timelines, or concrete examples of work quality. The reviews are also significantly dated (2010 and 2019), with no recent feedback to assess current performance.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably
• Both reviews are suspiciously generic and lack specific details about the work performed
• No pricing information mentioned in any review
• Reviews are very old (2010 and 2019) — no recent data available to assess current service quality
• Possible fake review pattern: both reviews are 5-star with vague praise and no substantive details

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required) and lack of recent, detailed feedback. Do not rely on this assessment for contractor selection.

Both reviews speak positively to Davis's professionalism and reliability, with one reviewer noting same-day service and prompt follow-up work, supporting a modest professionalism score. Pricing is referenced in one review with a specific quote of $520 for two jobs completed efficiently, suggesting reasonable value, though no comparison to market rates is made. Project completion is supported by one detailed review describing two jobs fully finished within agreed timeframes, which is a positive signal. Experience is inferred from the first review's description of competent, efficient repairs, but only one review provides any technical detail, keeping confidence very low across all dimensions.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• The second review is notably generic ('very professional and reliable') with no specific details about the work performed, pricing, or outcome. This pattern is consistent with low-information or potentially inauthentic reviews, though it cannot be confirmed with only 2 data points.
• Both reviews share the same date (2024-05-04), which is a minor flag worth noting. This could be coincidental but warrants awareness.
• All scores are based on 1–2 mentions only and should be treated as highly provisional. Do not rely on these scores for decision-making without gathering more reviews.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, which is below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score — treat all dimension scores as preliminary indicators only and seek additional reviews before making a hiring decision.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. Both reviews explicitly praise professionalism (responsiveness, honesty, fair dealing) and pricing (fair price, reasonable cost, honest assessment), but neither review provides substantive evidence regarding project completion or technical experience/workmanship quality. The reviews are also dated 2020–2021, making them 3+ years old with no recent data.

• Insufficient review volume: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for WW Score calculation.
• All reviews are older than 1 year (2020–2021). No recent reviews available to assess current service quality.
• Project completion dimension has zero mentions — no evidence of on-time delivery, follow-through, or callback performance.
• Experience/workmanship dimension has zero mentions — no explicit assessment of technical skill or quality of work.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generic praise language; limited specificity on actual work performed or outcomes.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and lack of recency (all reviews 3+ years old). Professionalism and pricing show promise based on limited data, but project completion and experience dimensions are entirely undocumented. Do not rely on this assessment for contractor selection.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. While both reviews mention pricing positively (fair/on budget) and project completion (multiple jobs completed successfully), the sample size is too small to produce a trustworthy overall score. Additionally, both reviews are older than 5 years (2015 and 2018), limiting recency relevance.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are 6+ years old (2015, 2018); no recent data available to assess current performance
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Both reviews use broad positive language ('amazing service', 'so good', 'highly recommend') with minimal specific detail about workmanship or interactions
• PROFESSIONALISM DATA MISSING: No explicit mentions of punctuality, communication, attitude, or responsiveness in either review
• EXPERIENCE DATA MISSING: No explicit mentions of skill level, technical knowledge, or problem-solving ability in either review

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews vs. 3 minimum required) and lack of recency; any score calculated would be statistically unreliable 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. Both reviews are highly positive and mention service quality, pricing reasonableness, technical expertise, and problem-solving ability. However, the extremely limited sample size, combined with both reviews being 5-star ratings with no critical feedback, prevents reliable scoring.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Both reviews are 5-star with no negative feedback — insufficient diversity to assess true performance
• Review from 2012 is over 11 years old and should not be weighted equally with recent feedback
• Limited sample size means any score would have very low statistical reliability

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). A minimum of 3 reviews is required; 5+ reviews are strongly recommended for meaningful assessment.