Find Nearby Plumbers In Woodbury, Minnesota

This single review describes severe failures across multiple dimensions. The contractor exhibited extremely poor professionalism (poor customer service, hostile response to complaint), failed project completion (repair lasted only weeks before failing), and questionable experience (backed up main line, tracked contamination through home). However, with only one review and no pricing information mentioned, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated. The review is dated 2018 (over 5 years old), which further limits its current relevance.

• Insufficient data: only 1 review analyzed. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• Review is from December 2018 — over 5 years old. Does not reflect current business practices.
• Severe allegations including sanitation issues and refusal to honor warranty. If accurate, represents critical failures, but single-source complaint cannot be independently verified.
• No pricing dimension data available.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (n=1). A single negative review, especially one from 2018, does not provide sufficient evidence to establish a trustworthy WW Score. At minimum 3 reviews are required.

Only a single review is available for analysis, dated October 2018, making it over 6 years old and of limited current relevance. The reviewer mentions promptness and courtesy, supporting a modest professionalism score, and explicitly calls out a fair price, supporting a modest pricing score. However, no details are provided about project completion quality, workmanship, or technical skill, so those dimensions cannot be scored. Given the vague and brief nature of the review, scores are kept conservative per scoring rules.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from October 2018, over 6 years old — does not reflect recent performance.
• Review is brief and generic with no specific details about the work performed, which limits scoring confidence.
• Possible generic praise pattern — phrases like 'prompt, courteous' and 'fair price' with no job-specific detail warrant caution.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single, vague, 6-year-old review with no data on project completion or technical experience.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer praises honesty and quality of work, which touches on professionalism, experience, and project completion in a general sense. Pricing is loosely implied through the mention of honesty, but no specific cost details are provided. All scores are conservatively set due to the vague, generic nature of the praise and the extremely limited sample size. No meaningful pattern or trend can be established from one review alone.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review language is generic and lacks specific details (no job type, no specifics on pricing, no description of work performed), which reduces evidentiary value.
• Cannot rule out that this is a promotional or solicited review given its brevity and unqualified praise.
• All dimension scores are speculative and should not be used for decision-making without additional reviews.

This score is not reliable and should not be used to evaluate this contractor — only 1 review was available, all confidence levels are LIMITED, and the review content is too generic to support meaningful scoring.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The single review praises Matt's professionalism (friendly, prompt arrival, thorough explanation), problem-solving ability (went extra mile, identified root cause), and follow-through (guided customer on next steps). However, pricing is not mentioned. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a statistically meaningful WW Score.

• Only 1 review provided — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• No pricing information mentioned — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• Review is from January 2023 — over 1 year old; recency is limited

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable score due to insufficient review volume (n=1). At least 3 reviews are needed to calculate a meaningful WW Score.

Only a single review is available, which describes a seriously negative experience across multiple dimensions. The contractor failed to show up for a scheduled appointment at 10 AM, did not make contact, and did not respond to three follow-up phone messages — a clear failure of both professionalism and project completion. Pricing was flagged as excessively high by the reviewer, citing $150 for a fan pull-switch repair and $200 for a dripping faucet repair, which are above typical market rates for such minor tasks. No workmanship or technical skill was observable since the contractor never arrived, leaving the Experience dimension with no scorable data. All scores are extremely low-confidence given the single data point.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Complete no-show reported: contractor did not arrive for a confirmed appointment and failed to respond to 3 voicemails — severe professionalism and reliability concern.
• Pricing flagged as excessive by reviewer for minor handyman tasks; however, this is a single opinion and cannot be fully validated without additional pricing reviews.
• No data available for Experience/Workmanship dimension — contractor never performed any work.
• Review is recent (May 2024) and carries full recency weight, but the extremely small sample size means no reliable pattern can be established.

This WW Score report is based on a single 1-star review and should be considered highly unreliable — at least 3 reviews are required for a meaningful score, and the findings here reflect only one customer's experience.

This single review paints a positive picture of Jesse across all four dimensions. Professionalism is supported by explicit mentions of prompt callback, punctuality, politeness, and cleanup. Pricing is noted as 'not cheap but reasonable and well worth the price,' suggesting fair but not budget value, warranting a conservative score. Project completion is strong — parts were ordered, follow-through was honored across multiple visits, and the job was verified working before departure. Experience is affirmed by the reviewer citing broad knowledge of appliances, furnaces, and AC, though this is one person's subjective assessment with no technical detail to validate it.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from October 2021, which is over 1 year old at most reference points — recency weighting is reduced.
• Single review limits all dimension confidence to LIMITED regardless of positive content — scores should be treated as directional only, not conclusive.

This score report is based on a single review from 2021 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of overall contractor quality — significantly more review data is needed before any dimension score can be trusted.