Find Nearby Plumbers In Minneapolis, Minnesota

Only a single review is available, dated 2018, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer noted quick responsiveness and a positive outcome for a pipe repair and whole house filter installation, which supports modest scores in professionalism, project completion, and experience. However, no pricing information was mentioned at all, leaving that dimension entirely unscored. The 4-star (not 5-star) rating suggests minor reservations, though no specific criticism was articulated. Given the age of the review (over 6 years old) and the lack of detail, all scores are treated conservatively.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The sole review is dated 2018-07-10, making it over 6 years old. It carries very low recency weight and may not reflect current service quality.
• Review is brief and lacks specific detail, limiting the ability to score dimensions with confidence.
• Pricing dimension has zero data and cannot be scored.

This score report is based on a single, low-detail review from 2018 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or consistency.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review praises responsiveness and weekend availability (professionalism), fair pricing relative to service timing (pricing), and thoroughness in work (experience). However, project completion is not explicitly addressed. With only 1 mention per dimension, confidence is severely limited and cannot support a composite score.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old). No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• Project completion dimension has no explicit mention in the single review.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review vs. minimum 3 required) and age of data (2019). Do not rely on this assessment for contractor evaluation.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. This single review documents severe failures in professionalism (missed appointment, failure to communicate, incorrect information provided) and project completion (appointment never completed, customer left waiting). However, with only one review and no data on pricing or experience, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated. This review is dated 2020 (over 3 years old) and may not reflect current operations.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEWS: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• REVIEW RECENCY: Review is from September 2020 — over 3 years old. Does not reflect current service quality.
• LIMITED DIMENSION COVERAGE: Only 2 of 4 dimensions have data. Pricing and experience not mentioned.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and age of the single review. Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While this single review is highly positive across all dimensions (praising responsiveness, communication, transparency on costs, speed of completion, timeliness, and quality of work), a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews to account for variability and reduce the risk of outlier bias.

• Only 1 review provided — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2023 (over 1 year old) — recency is limited
• Single 5-star review with enthusiastic language but lacks comparative context
• Cannot assess consistency or detect patterns with single data point

This score cannot be trusted for decision-making. A minimum of 3 independent reviews spanning recent months is required to produce a valid WW Score.

This single review paints a strongly positive picture of Dee across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is well-supported by explicit mentions of responsiveness, clear communication, punctuality in coming to assess the problem, and a values-driven attitude. Project completion is evidenced by the job being resolved and the extra effort of cleaning up the affected area, suggesting thorough follow-through. Experience is supported by the reviewer describing the work quality as exceptional and noting Dee's ability to assess the problem and present solutions. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. Because only one review exists, all scores are conservative and carry very limited confidence.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension scored as null.
• All scores are based on a single reviewer's account and should be treated with significant caution until more reviews are available.

This score is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance — significantly more reviews are needed before any confident assessment can be made.

Insufficient data — only one review available. The single review addresses pricing practices only, specifically criticizing a $95 estimate fee and lack of upfront disclosure. No information is provided about professionalism, project completion, or technical experience. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review.

• Only 1 review provided — insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2015 (9+ years old) — not recent
• Review does not address job completion, professionalism, or workmanship quality
• Customer did not use the contractor, so assessment is based on estimate fee policy only

This score cannot be calculated reliably with only one review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required for meaningful analysis.