Find Nearby Plumbers In Albany, New York

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The positive review praises responsiveness, politeness, and professionalism over a long relationship, while the negative review describes arrogance, poor design work, and a complete failure to follow through on fixing a broken pump. The negative review is particularly damaging for project completion and experience, as the pump system failed entirely and the contractor made no attempt to remedy the situation. Pricing received a modest score based on one mention of 'reasonable' rates in the positive review. The most recent review is from 2022, while the negative review dates back to 2007, introducing significant recency uncertainty.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• The negative review is from 2007 (over 17 years old) and may not reflect current business practices.
• The positive review is from 2022 but lacks specific project detail, limiting its evidentiary weight.
• Extreme rating split (5-star vs 2-star) with only two data points makes scoring highly volatile — treat all dimension scores with caution.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews spanning 15 years and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or consistency.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. Both reviews are severely negative, citing non-completion of work, poor communication/responsiveness, and abandonment of the project. One review acknowledges good workmanship quality despite project failure. No pricing information was mentioned in either review.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — minimum 3 required for reliable scoring
• Review 2 is from 2013 (11+ years old) — severely outdated and not representative of current performance
• Both reviews are 1-2 star ratings with serious allegations: project abandonment, non-responsiveness, and potential fraud (false permit claim)
• Professionalism, Project Completion, and Experience scores are all based on LIMITED mentions (1-2 reviews each) and should not be trusted individually
• No pricing data available to assess Price Friendly dimension

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews, need minimum 3). Additionally, one review is over a decade old. The available evidence suggests serious performance issues, but a proper WW Score assessment requires at least 3 recent reviews with adequate data distribution across dimensions.

With only two reviews, meaningful scoring is extremely limited. The first review describes a technician who was friendly and completed the job in under 45 minutes, but raises serious concerns about pricing transparency — the customer was charged fees that felt unjustified and excessive for the scope of work performed. The second review is brief and generic, praising responsiveness and the plumber but offering no specific detail to substantiate quality claims. Professionalism receives a modest score due to mixed signals: friendly demeanor noted in both reviews, but a lack of upfront pricing communication in the first review is a professionalism concern. Project completion and experience scores are tempered by the first reviewer's implication that the job was incomplete relative to what the fees suggested.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review 2 (2018) is over 6 years old and carries significantly reduced recency weight.
• Review 1 (2020) is also over 3 years old; no recent reviews within the past 12 months were provided.
• Review 2 is very brief and generic with no specific details about the work performed — limited evidentiary value.
• Significant pricing concern flagged in Review 1: customer was charged a 'Difficult to Access' fee for what they described as standard manual labor, and was not given an upfront estimate before work began.
• Hidden or unexpected fees pattern detected in Review 1 — customers should request itemized estimates before authorizing any work.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are more than 3 years old, making it highly unreliable as a representation of current contractor performance — treat all dimension scores with extreme caution.

Both reviews describe successful drain clearing jobs with positive outcomes, suggesting competent workmanship and follow-through on the work promised. Pricing is explicitly called fair and reasonable in both reviews, including one emergency Sunday call-out where a high charge was anticipated but not delivered. Professionalism is supported by prompt callbacks and clear communication about the problem, though specific details on appearance or attitude are sparse. All four dimensions are based on only two reviews, making every score low-confidence and conservative by rule. The older review dates from 2016, meaning neither review falls within the past 12 months, further limiting reliability.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are older than 12 months: one from June 2022 and one from June 2016. Neither reflects recent performance.
• The 2016 review is approximately 8–9 years old and should be treated with very low weight as a signal of current service quality.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive but limited specifics. While not conclusively fake, the lack of detail reduces confidence in all dimension scores.
• All dimension scores are conservative due to LIMITED confidence (1–2 mentions each).

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both older than one year and one nearly a decade old, making it insufficient to reliably assess current contractor performance — treat all scores as preliminary indicators only.

Both reviews describe severe failures across all dimensions. The first review criticizes poor workmanship (no shut-offs, improper drain pitch). The second review details catastrophic project failure including structural damage, refusal to address defects, and incomplete work requiring full bathroom redo. Professionalism is undermined by dismissive attitude and refusal to correct problems. Pricing is criticized as exploitative given the damage caused. However, with only 2 reviews total, all from 2014 or earlier, the sample size is critically insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable scoring (minimum 3 required)
• RECENCY ISSUE: One review is from 2014 (10+ years old); only one review from past 12 months
• SEVERE QUALITY CONCERNS: Both reviews are 1-star with explicit allegations of major defects, structural damage, and refusal to remedy work
• SECOND REVIEW CONTAINS SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Claims of ripped-off elderly/disabled customer, structural damage, mold risk, and BBB complaint filed
• NO POSITIVE REVIEWS: 100% negative sentiment with no counterbalancing positive feedback

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews). The overwhelmingly negative feedback and serious allegations of defective work and customer harm are deeply concerning, but a proper WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews. The recency of data is also problematic, with most feedback predating 2024. Any decision should not rely on this analysis alone.

With only 2 reviews, reliable scoring is impossible. The first review (2023) praises reasonable pricing and problem-solving on a Sunday emergency, suggesting some professionalism and pricing competence. However, the second review (2022) describes severe failures: no estimate provided, no-show without advance notice, unverified excuses about truck breakdown and partner injury, and complete lack of follow-up communication. The contractor failed to complete the work and demonstrated unprofessional behavior. These reviews are contradictory and insufficient in volume to establish a trustworthy pattern.

• Only 2 reviews total — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Extreme polarity: one 5-star and one 1-star with no middle ground
• Second review contains serious allegations (lying, no-show, unverified excuses) that suggest potential reliability issues
• First review is from March 2023; second is from March 2022 — one year apart with no recent data
• No dimension has sufficient mention count (5+) to achieve HIGH confidence
• Contractor name 'Plumbing God' appears in first review only; unclear if same business in second review

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2). The extreme rating disparity and serious allegations in the negative review warrant caution, but a single positive review and a single negative review do not provide enough evidence to draw trustworthy conclusions about contractor performance.