Find Nearby Plumbers In Lincoln, Nebraska

This contractor shows significant weaknesses in project completion and pricing practices. Multiple reviews (5 mentions) document incomplete work, failed callbacks, and unresolved issues after service—including a sewer backup that recurred within 2 weeks and an unsealed lid that caused additional water damage. Pricing concerns are severe: one customer was charged $100 for a 7-minute drive time, contradicting posted rates. Professionalism is mixed—some customers praised personable service and punctuality, while others reported late arrivals and poor communication about damage. The business demonstrates technical capability but fails consistently on follow-through and fair billing.

• CRITICAL: Multiple project completion failures documented across 3 separate reviews (2022-2024), including incomplete work, failed callbacks, and recurring issues within warranty period
• CRITICAL: Deceptive pricing practice flagged—customer charged $100 for 7-minute drive time despite posted hourly rates; company uses half-hour proration not disclosed online
• CRITICAL: Warranty service refusal—company refused overtime callback to fix their own failed work, blaming customer instead
• RECENCY CONCERN: 2 of 6 reviews are from 2016 and 2021 (3+ years old); most recent reviews (2022-2024) are predominantly 1-star with serious complaints
• PATTERN: 4 of 6 reviews are 1-star; the 2 five-star reviews lack specificity and are significantly older, suggesting potential selection bias in recent feedback

This score should be trusted with moderate confidence. The WW Score of 42.3 is driven by consistent, detailed complaints about project completion and pricing across recent reviews (2022-2024), but the small sample size (6 reviews) and age disparity limit absolute certainty. The contractor shows a clear pattern of incomplete work and billing disputes that warrants serious caution.

This contractor's review set is small (6 reviews) and spans nearly a decade, making recency a significant concern — only one review is from the past 12 months. Professionalism is the most-mentioned dimension and is deeply mixed: positive reviews praise friendliness and responsiveness, while multiple negative reviews cite poor communication, unreturned calls, and unprofessional phone staff. Project completion is a serious concern, with two explicit reviews describing incomplete or abandoned work and one describing a failure to diagnose or fix a problem across multiple visits. Experience scores are similarly split, with one strong positive account of skilled repair work offset by reviews describing poor pipe installation requiring a second plumber and repeated diagnostic failures. Pricing drew one negative mention — a customer was charged for a service call despite no repair being made.

• Only 1 of 6 reviews is from the past 12 months (2024); 4 of 6 reviews are older than 3 years and 2 are older than 8 years. Score reliability is significantly reduced by data staleness.
• Two reviews explicitly describe work being left incomplete or requiring correction by another plumber — a serious project completion red flag.
• One review describes being charged for a service call where no diagnosis, repair, or replacement was performed — a potential ethical/pricing concern.
• The single recent 5-star review (2024) is brief and generic ('honest and trustworthy, knowledgeable and friendly') with no job-specific detail, which warrants mild caution though it is not conclusively fake.

This WW Score should be treated with low confidence due to the very small review sample (6 total), heavy skew toward outdated reviews, and a mixed record that includes multiple explicit accounts of incomplete work and poor communication.

Only 3 usable reviews were analyzed, which is below the minimum threshold for reliable scoring. The single recent review (July 2024) explicitly documents severe professionalism failures including an 8-day callback delay, unilateral appointment changes without customer consent, and defensive behavior when criticized. Two older reviews from 2019 praise Mike's technical skill and responsiveness, but these are 5+ years old and lack specificity. The fourth review contains only a period and is unusable. The stark contradiction between recent and historical data, combined with insufficient volume, prevents a trustworthy WW Score calculation.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 recent review (within 12 months); 2 positive reviews are 5+ years old and may not reflect current operations
• RECENCY CONCERN: The most recent review (July 2024) is highly negative and contradicts older praise, suggesting possible service quality decline
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Total of 4 reviews with only 3 usable; minimum 5 reviews recommended for reliable scoring
• REVIEW QUALITY: One review is blank (only a period); two older reviews lack specific detail about work performed
• CONTRADICTION: Positive reviews mention 'Mike' and immediate response; negative review does not name individual and describes 8-day delay — unclear if same company or personnel change

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 5 usable reviews) and a critical recency problem: the only recent review is severely negative, contradicting much older positive reviews, suggesting either service degradation or inconsistent performance that cannot be assessed with confidence.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3+ reviews needed for reliable scoring. While all three reviews are positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience, the sample size is too small to produce a trustworthy overall score. Additionally, pricing is not mentioned in any review, leaving a critical dimension unmeasured.

• Sample size of only 3 reviews is insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation
• Two of three reviews are older than 5 years (2018, 2019), limiting recency relevance
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions — cannot assess value for money or fairness of quotes
• All reviews are positive (4-5 stars) with limited specificity; no critical feedback to balance assessment

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 reviews required, but confidence requires 5+ mentions per dimension). Do not rely on any aggregate score until additional recent reviews are collected.

All three reviews are severely negative and date from 2016–2018, making them 6+ years old and potentially stale. However, they consistently document serious failures across professionalism (rude behavior, disrespect, poor communication), project completion (repeated callbacks, unresolved issues, incomplete work), and pricing (billing errors, refund disputes). The professionalism dimension is most heavily documented with explicit complaints about attitude and responsiveness. With only 3 reviews and all from the distant past, confidence in any aggregate score is inherently limited, and the company's current operations may differ substantially.

• All three reviews are 6+ years old (2016–2018); no recent data available to assess current performance
• Sample size is very small (n=3); insufficient for reliable statistical inference
• Two reviews (2016) describe serious unresolved billing disputes and customer service failures; one (2018) describes repeated callback issues and poor workmanship
• No positive reviews present; cannot triangulate or validate claims against counterexamples
• Recency bias: these reviews may not reflect current business practices or management changes

This score should be treated with extreme caution due to the very small sample size (3 reviews), their age (6+ years), and the complete absence of recent data; any conclusions drawn are not reliable for assessing current contractor performance.

Only two reviews contained usable data, making any scoring highly tentative. One review (2009) was strongly positive across all dimensions, praising honesty, promptness, professionalism, and quality of work. The other review (2011) described a significant failure in responsiveness and follow-through — the contractor advertised same-day service but refused to honor it for a repeat customer with an active leak, ultimately causing the customer to defect to a competitor. The unknown review from 2015 provided no usable text. The mixed signals across dimensions — particularly the broken service promise — drag scores down meaningfully, especially for professionalism and project completion.

• One of three reviews has no text content (listed as 'unknown') and could not be analyzed — this reduces the usable data pool significantly.
• All reviews are older than 10 years (2009, 2011, 2015). These scores reflect contractor performance from over a decade ago and should not be considered representative of current service quality.
• With only 2 usable reviews, all dimension scores carry very low statistical reliability. Do not treat any score as definitive.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the extremely small sample size makes pattern analysis impossible.

This WW Score cannot be reliably calculated due to fewer than 3 usable reviews, all of which are over a decade old — treat any dimension scores as illustrative only and seek more recent reviews before making a hiring decision.