Find Nearby Plumbers In Albany, New York

This single review paints a strongly positive picture of Lewis and Priority Sewer across several dimensions. On professionalism, he demonstrated excellent responsiveness by answering the call and accommodating a same-day visit despite a tight schedule, and his attitude was persistent and customer-focused. On project completion, he saw a difficult job through to the end — including physical labor such as digging, clearing weeds, and climbing — where two other plumbers had already failed. On experience, his ability to diagnose and resolve a complex drain clog that stumped other professionals suggests a high level of technical skill and problem-solving ability. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. All dimension scores are conservative given the single-review basis.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and carry very low statistical weight. Treat all scores as highly provisional.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — this dimension cannot be assessed.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be used as a reliable indicator of overall contractor quality — significantly more review data is needed before any dimension score or WW Score can be trusted.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions customer service and responsiveness positively, but provides no explicit information about pricing, project completion, or technical experience. A comprehensive assessment requires substantially more data.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2016 (8+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality
• No specific details about work performed, pricing, or completion timeline
• Generic praise without concrete examples limits confidence in any dimension

This score cannot be calculated and should not be used for decision-making; additional recent reviews are essential to establish a reliable WW Score.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review mentions professionalism (efficient, professional), pricing (well priced), and project completion (problem fixed quickly on short notice). However, with only one data point, confidence in any dimension is severely limited, and no meaningful overall score can be derived.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• Single review cannot establish patterns or validate consistency of service quality.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data volume. At least 3 reviews are required to begin establishing confidence in any dimension.

This single review paints a strongly positive picture across all four dimensions. On professionalism, the technicians Jason and Charlie were described as incredibly kind, helpful, and patient with repeated rescheduling requests. Pricing stands out as a clear strength — Rotor-Matic did not charge for an initial diagnostic visit, then completed the job for hundreds less than a competitor quoted, suggesting transparent and fair pricing. Project completion was solid: the jetting was completed in roughly 30 minutes with video footage provided as confirmation, and the problem was fully resolved. Experience is also evident in that the team correctly diagnosed a jetting solution where a competitor had repeatedly failed and pushed for unnecessary pipe replacement. However, all scores carry very low confidence as they are based on a single review.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• With only one data point, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be used as a definitive assessment of this contractor.
• Review is dated November 2021, which is more than 12 months old. No recent reviews are available to confirm current performance.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism is present, which is expected given the single-review sample but limits balanced assessment.

This score report is based on a single review from over two years ago and should be considered highly preliminary — far more reviews are needed before any dimension score or overall assessment can be trusted with reasonable confidence.

Only one review was available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review demonstrates positive professionalism (quick response, follow-up callback), successful project completion (leak fixed, wax seal replaced), and adequate technical experience. However, pricing is not mentioned, and all scores are based on extremely limited data from a single customer experience.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from October 2023 (over 1 year old). Recency is limited.
• No pricing information provided in the single review.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data (minimum 3 reviews required). Individual dimension scores should be treated as anecdotal only and not used for contractor evaluation.

This single review praises the contractor's emergency responsiveness, punctuality (arrived within promised 30 minutes), and technical problem-solving ability. However, with only one review available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The review contains no information about pricing or value for money. All dimension scores are based on extremely limited data and should not be considered representative of overall performance.

• Insufficient data: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from 2021 (over 3 years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• No pricing information mentioned in review.
• Single positive review cannot establish pattern or reliability.

This analysis is unreliable and cannot produce a valid WW Score. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 review was provided. Additionally, the review is significantly outdated (2021), providing no insight into current service quality.