Find Nearby Plumbers In Albuquerque, New Mexico

This single review from 2018 provides limited evidence across three dimensions. The reviewer explicitly mentions minimal mess and inconvenience (professionalism), successful completion of a bathtub-to-shower conversion and appliance repairs (project completion), and quality workmanship evidenced by the beautiful final result (experience). However, with only one review and no mention of pricing, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated. The review is too old (6+ years) and too sparse to establish meaningful confidence in contractor performance.

• Insufficient data: only 1 review analyzed — WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews
• Review is significantly outdated (November 2018) — does not reflect current performance
• No pricing information mentioned — cannot assess price-friendly dimension
• Single review cannot establish reliable patterns or confidence in any dimension

This analysis is unreliable for decision-making purposes; a minimum of 3 recent reviews is required to calculate a trustworthy WW Score.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. The single review provided documents severe failures in professionalism (missed appointment, false assurances, no follow-up) and project completion (job was never completed, customer forced to seek alternative contractor at premium rates). However, with only one data point and no information on pricing or experience quality, no meaningful overall score can be generated.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2011 (13+ years old) — recency is severely compromised
• No data on pricing dimension
• No data on experience/workmanship dimension
• Single negative review cannot establish contractor pattern without additional data

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review vs. minimum 3 required) and extreme age of the single review (2011). Do not rely on this assessment to make contractor decisions.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. The single review mentions project completion (bathroom remodel and water heater installation completed) and experience (quality of work implied by 'great job'), but provides no explicit information on professionalism or pricing. The review is also from 2015, making it over 8 years old and not representative of current service quality.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review date is from August 2015 — over 8 years old, does not reflect current service quality
• Review is generic and lacks specific details about workmanship, timeline, communication, or pricing
• Insufficient data to assess professionalism or pricing dimensions

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (1 review vs. minimum 3 required) and extreme age of the single review provided.

This single review reflects a generally positive experience with notable strengths in responsiveness, scheduling flexibility (working on a holiday), and adherence to the original estimate. Project completion was strong — the job was finished in under two hours with no apparent issues. Professionalism scores slightly lower due to a communication gap around the same-day payment deadline and penalty charge, which the customer felt should have been disclosed upfront. Pricing scores conservatively positive since the contractor honored the estimate, but the undisclosed penalty clause introduces a transparency concern. No information was provided about technical skill or workmanship quality, so Experience cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Transparency concern flagged: customer was not informed upfront about a same-day payment deadline with a penalty charge, which undermines full pricing transparency.
• No workmanship or technical skill details mentioned — Experience dimension has no data.

This score is based on a single review and should be considered highly preliminary — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn until more reviews are analyzed.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The review explicitly mentions professionalism (polite and courteous staff) and pricing concerns (quote deemed too high). No information was provided regarding project completion or technical experience. A minimum of three reviews is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• No project completion data available — cannot assess follow-through or timeliness
• No experience/workmanship data available — cannot assess technical quality
• Review is dated 2024-07-19 (recent), but single data point limits confidence

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor performance; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a valid WW Score.

This single review paints a concerning picture across multiple dimensions. The contractor arrived promptly for the initial installation, which is a minor positive for professionalism, but then became largely unresponsive when a callback was needed — repeatedly promising to return and never doing so. Project completion is scored very low because the installed toilet was defective (rocking front to rear) and the contractor never returned to fix it, forcing the customer to resolve the issue themselves. Experience is also scored low given that the toilet was improperly installed from the outset. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be evaluated.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Callback failure is a significant red flag: contractor promised to return multiple times over two weeks and never did.
• Faulty installation (rocking toilet) suggests a workmanship issue that was not remedied by the contractor.
• No pricing data available — Price Friendly dimension cannot be scored.

This score is based on a single review and should be treated with very low confidence — it may not be representative of the contractor's overall performance, but the issues described (failed callback, defective installation) are serious and should not be dismissed.