Find Nearby Plumbers In Rochester, Minnesota

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. While this single review is positive and mentions all four dimensions (punctuality/professionalism, reasonable pricing, knowledgeable service/experience, and on-time completion), a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single data point. The review is also nearly 9 years old (February 2015), which significantly limits its relevance to current service quality.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review date is February 2015 — nearly 9 years old and outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• Generic positive language with minimal specific detail about the work performed

This score cannot be calculated reliably with only 1 review. At least 3 recent reviews are required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Only one review was available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review explicitly mentions punctuality (arrived ahead of schedule), efficient project completion (both projects finished satisfactorily), and technical competence (diagnosed issues quickly). However, pricing is not addressed, and all dimensions are based on a single data point, making any aggregate score unreliable.

• Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review provided; minimum 3 reviews required for meaningful analysis.
• Review is from 2023 (over 1 year old); recency is limited.
• No pricing information mentioned; cannot assess Price Friendly dimension.
• Single review with generic positive language; cannot validate patterns or detect fake reviews with only one data point.

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable score due to insufficient review volume (n=1). At least 3 reviews are needed to establish meaningful patterns and confidence in any dimension.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review praises the contractor's professionalism (described as a 'great guy') and pricing (no charge for the diagnostic visit). However, project completion cannot be assessed as the job was not completed by this contractor. Technical experience is not explicitly mentioned.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably
• Review is from 2013 (over 10 years old) — recency is a significant concern
• Project completion dimension has no data — the contractor did not complete the work
• Cannot assess overall contractor reliability with only one review

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 reviews required) and the age of the single available review.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, dated August 2016, making any score highly unreliable. The one review explicitly describes poor attitude, lousy communication, and abandoned work, which directly and severely impacts both the Professionalism and Project Completion dimensions. Pricing and Experience were not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. Because fewer than 3 reviews are present, a WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from August 2016, which is more than 8 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current contractor performance.
• Work abandonment explicitly described ('Left us high and dry') — a serious red flag for Project Completion.
• Pricing and Experience dimensions have zero data and cannot be evaluated.

This score is not reliable — it is based on a single, nearly decade-old review and cannot represent a meaningful or current assessment of this contractor's performance.