Nearby Toilet Installation In Columbus

David Glasmeier's plumbing service demonstrates strong professionalism across all usable reviews, with consistent praise for punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior. Pricing is competitive and transparent, with multiple customers noting better value than competitors. Project completion is solid, though one review mentions a callback was needed to finish grounding work, suggesting occasional follow-up requirements. Technical skill and workmanship are well-regarded, with customers noting the team 'knew what they were doing.' The service excels in responsiveness, with the owner personally handling calls and same-day service.

• Two reviews contain 'unknown' text with no substantive content (2016-08-11, 2014-07-08) — these were excluded from scoring
• All 5 usable reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback, which is atypical; however, reviews contain specific details (names, situations, follow-up work) that suggest authenticity rather than fake reviews
• Review dates span 2014–2023 (9 years); most recent review is from May 2023, but older reviews (2014–2017) comprise 60% of usable data. Recency is moderate.
• Sample size is small (5 usable reviews); confidence is solid but not robust

This WW Score of 88.2 is reliable for assessing professionalism and general service quality, but the small sample size and lack of negative feedback limit ability to identify weaknesses; scores should be considered representative of typical customer experience but not definitive.

Proficient Plumbing presents a deeply mixed picture. Several positive reviews praise professionalism, politeness, and reasonable pricing, but two detailed 1-star reviews — one of which appears to be a near-duplicate submission — describe serious failures: a botched water heater installation with unresolved follow-up, the owner hanging up on a customer seeking warranty repairs, and a subcontractor situation that left another customer with unexpected out-of-pocket repair costs. These negative reviews directly and explicitly describe failures in professionalism, project completion, and workmanship, which significantly drag down the scores in those dimensions. The positive reviews, while numerous, are largely older (2016–2021) and several lack specific detail, reducing their evidentiary weight. The most recent reviews (2023–2024) include both a brief positive and the serious negative complaints, making the current reliability of this contractor uncertain.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Two reviews dated 2023-04-03 are nearly word-for-word identical, submitted by what appears to be the same reviewer. One has been counted once for scoring purposes to avoid double-weighting.
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPICION — MODERATE: Several positive reviews (2018, 2021) are extremely brief and generic ('Best plumber,' 'Fantastic service! Great price! Very professional!!!') with no specific details about the work performed, technician, or job scope. These may be inflated or solicited reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The majority of positive reviews are from 2016–2021. The most substantive and recent negative reviews are from 2022–2023, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• OWNER CONDUCT FLAG: Multiple reviews explicitly name the owner (Jerry Dezard) as personally hanging up on a customer seeking warranty repair and failing to address a subcontractor's defective work. This is a serious professionalism and project completion red flag.
• SUBCONTRACTOR RISK: One review explicitly states work was subcontracted without customer knowledge, resulting in rude behavior, incomplete work, and unreimbursed repair costs — indicating a systemic quality control issue.

This WW Score carries MODERATE overall reliability due to a small review pool, the presence of a duplicate negative review, several suspiciously generic positive reviews, and a meaningful gap between older glowing feedback and more recent detailed complaints about owner conduct and job follow-through.

Kidd Plumbing demonstrates strong technical competence and project completion capability, with multiple reviews praising workmanship quality and timely job delivery. Pricing is consistently noted as fair and competitive, often significantly lower than competitors. However, professionalism scores are pulled down substantially by one detailed 2021 review documenting poor communication, lack of follow-up, and dismissive attitude from Russell, which directly contradicts the reliability claims in other reviews. The company shows inconsistency in customer service quality across different interactions.

• RECENCY CONCERN: Most positive reviews are from 2016–2019 (5–8 years old). Only 2 reviews from 2021 onward, with the most recent positive review from April 2024 but the most recent negative review from December 2021. Older reviews may not reflect current operations.
• PROFESSIONALISM INCONSISTENCY: One detailed negative review (Dec 2021) explicitly documents poor communication and unprofessional behavior from Russell, directly contradicting the 'reliable' and 'professional' claims in other reviews. This suggests inconsistent service quality or potential personnel issues.
• GENERIC PRAISE PATTERN: Several reviews use very similar phrasing ('amazing,' 'highly recommend,' 'the only plumber to use') with minimal specific technical detail, though the 2019 and 2017 reviews do provide concrete examples (pricing comparisons, specific work done), reducing but not eliminating concern about authenticity.

This score should be treated with caution due to significant recency bias (most data is 5+ years old), a documented professionalism failure in 2021 that contradicts other claims, and a small sample size (7 reviews). The WW Score reflects historical strength in technical work and pricing, but current reliability is uncertain given the communication issues documented in the most recent negative review.

Based on a single review, Jason demonstrates solid professionalism — arriving on time, communicating well, and adapting to an unexpected installation challenge with the quartz backsplash and mirror. Project completion appears strong as the job was finished and the reviewer expressed intent to rehire. Pricing was described as within the reviewer's budget, though no specific figures or comparisons were provided, warranting a conservative score. Experience is suggested by his licensed and certified status and his ability to problem-solve on the fly, but one review is insufficient to draw firm conclusions about workmanship quality across varied projects.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as highly preliminary.
• Pricing score is conservative as 'in our ballpark' is vague and provides no objective benchmark for value assessment.

This score carries very low reliability due to the extremely limited sample size of one review; no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's consistent performance can be drawn until significantly more reviews are available.

Both reviews speak positively about Mike's honesty, punctuality, and communication, supporting a reasonable professionalism score despite the very small sample. His technical knowledge is praised in both reviews — one reviewer noted he diagnosed a basement leak quickly and also assessed an unrelated shower issue, suggesting solid experience. Project completion is scored conservatively at 80 because while the basement leak repair appears to have been completed successfully, the shower issue mentioned in Review 2 was not resolved during the visit, leaving some ambiguity. Pricing was not mentioned in either review, so no score can be assigned for that dimension. With only 2 reviews, all scores carry very limited confidence and should not be treated as reliable indicators of consistent performance.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated 2019, making them over 5 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability — contractor's current quality and practices are unknown.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback. While the reviews contain specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the small sample size and age of reviews mean this pattern cannot be meaningfully evaluated.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the Price Friendly dimension has been assigned null and excluded from scoring.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both from 2019, and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of the contractor's current or consistent performance.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer describes the contractors as 'nice guys' and notes they completed the requested service, suggesting adequate professionalism and project completion. A mention of 'a lot of skills' implies some confidence in their experience, though no specifics are provided. Pricing was not mentioned at all, leaving that dimension entirely unscored. All scores are deliberately conservative given the extreme lack of data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review language is vague and generic with no specific details about the work performed, tools used, or problems solved — limits scoring precision.
• Pricing dimension has zero data and cannot be evaluated.
• Single 5-star review with minimal detail — cannot rule out bias or a non-representative sample.

This score should not be trusted for any decision-making purposes — a single vague review provides almost no reliable signal about this contractor's true performance across any dimension.