Find Nearby Plumbers In Paterson, New Jersey

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer describes the contractor as reliable and professional, and references a broad range of completed projects including HVAC, plumbing, boiler, and electrical work, suggesting reasonable competence across trades. However, the praise is largely generic with no specific detail about workmanship quality, timeliness, or communication, which constrains confidence in the professionalism and experience scores. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored. All dimension scores have been kept conservative in line with the limited evidence available.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The single review uses broad, generic praise ('great, reliable, very professional') without specific details, reducing scoring confidence.
• Review is dated January 2022, making it over 2 years old — recency weighting is a concern if this contractor is still active.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension returned as null.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — it is based on a single, somewhat generic review from over two years ago, providing insufficient data across all dimensions.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. This single review documents a no-show appointment and failure to follow up on communication, indicating severe deficiencies in professionalism and project completion. However, a single review cannot establish a reliable overall score for this contractor.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from October 2021 — over 2 years old, outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• No data available on pricing, experience, or technical quality
• Critical service failure documented (no-show and non-responsive follow-up)

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 reviews required). The single available review is dated and documents serious professionalism issues, but does not provide enough evidence to assess overall contractor performance.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer noted Caesar was prompt and did a good job fixing a gas fireplace by correctly diagnosing a pilot wire and pilot flame assembly issue, suggesting reasonable technical competence. The job appears to have been completed successfully. Pricing at $260 for the repair is noted but no explicit opinion on value or fairness was expressed, so the pricing score is conservatively low. All dimension scores are kept conservative due to the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• No explicit pricing sentiment expressed — reviewer stated the cost but did not comment on whether it was fair, reasonable, or a good value. Pricing score is speculative.
• Cannot rule out recency bias or isolated experience — a single positive review does not establish a reliable pattern.
• WW Score calculation suppressed due to insufficient review volume.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's consistent quality, pricing, or professionalism can be drawn from one data point.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The one review is a 1-star complaint focused on the owner's attitude toward a vulnerable senior customer and the perceived lack of empathy or accommodation in pricing. Professionalism received a low score due to the described unsympathetic attitude toward an elderly, handicapped customer on a fixed income. Pricing was also scored low, as the reviewer found the $160/hour rate charged twice to be unreasonable given the customer's circumstances, with only a conditional 10% discount offered. No information was provided about whether the work was completed or about the contractor's technical skill level.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from December 2017, which is more than 7 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current business practices.
• Scoring is based entirely on a single negative review. No positive or neutral reviews exist to provide balance or context.
• Project completion and experience dimensions have no data and could not be scored.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of overall contractor quality — it is based on a single, heavily dated review covering only two dimensions, with no corroborating data from other customers.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across all four dimensions. The owner's communication was hostile and dismissive, hanging up on the customer after threatening retaliation, which drives the professionalism score to near zero. The contractor refused to honor a callback on a repair that failed within 3 months, indicating a serious lack of project completion integrity and no warranty or follow-through. The pricing dimension is penalized because the customer was charged for a repair that did not hold, representing poor value. The experience score is also very low given that the repair failed within 3 months of completion, suggesting substandard workmanship.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• The review is dated 2015 — this data is over 9 years old and may not reflect current business practices.
• No positive reviews are present to provide balance; this report reflects a one-sided data set.

This score is based on a single review from 2015 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of overall contractor quality — significantly more recent and varied reviews are needed before any confident assessment can be made.

This single review describes a catastrophic service failure across all dimensions. The contractor demonstrated severe unprofessionalism through rudeness, poor communication, unresponsiveness, and failure to return calls or honor promised timelines. The pricing was unfair—the customer paid $50 for incomplete and ultimately abandoned work. Project completion was entirely absent; the job was never finished and was ultimately reassigned to a competent contractor after one week of delays. Technical experience was severely lacking, with the crew unable to properly diagnose or address a broken sewer pipe. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews to be statistically meaningful.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from April 2018 (6+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: While this review is detailed and credible, a single data point cannot establish reliable scoring across dimensions.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score. This single review, while detailed and damaging, cannot be generalized to represent current contractor performance.