Find Nearby Plumbers In Albany, New York

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While this single review is highly positive and detailed, describing excellent professionalism (friendly, professional demeanor), strong project completion (problem solved in 90 minutes, bathroom left clean), fair pricing (bill lower than expected), and demonstrated experience (skilled diagnosis and execution), a single review cannot provide statistically reliable scoring. All dimension scores are based on LIMITED evidence and should not be treated as representative of typical performance.

• Only 1 review provided — insufficient sample size for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is from April 2022 — over 2 years old, outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• Cannot assess consistency, patterns, or reliability of contractor performance with single data point

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a meaningful score.

This single review paints a severely negative picture of Matthew's reliability and professionalism. He agreed to a job, failed to show up on the scheduled day, and went completely unresponsive to texts and calls — a direct failure of both communication and follow-through. Project completion scores at 0 because the work was never started, let alone finished. Professionalism scores near zero due to the no-show and total lack of communication. Pricing and experience cannot be assessed as neither was mentioned in the review.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No data available for pricing or experience dimensions — these could not be scored.
• Scores are based on a single 1-star review; treat all dimension scores with extreme caution due to very limited data.

This report is based on a single review and should not be used to draw firm conclusions about this contractor — more reviews are needed before any reliable assessment can be made.

This single review describes severe failures across all dimensions. The contractor (Corey) misrepresented pricing terms, failed to complete work over a 2+ month period, did not obtain required permits, and produced substandard work that other plumbers refused to remediate due to code violations. Communication was poor and commitments were not honored. However, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated from a single review, as one customer's experience—while detailed and credible—does not provide sufficient data to establish patterns or confidence in overall contractor performance.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews to be statistically meaningful.
• RECENCY: Review is from August 2019 (4+ years old). Does not reflect current contractor practices or quality.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: While detailed and specific, one review cannot establish contractor reliability. Positive reviews or recent work samples would be needed to balance assessment.
• SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS: Review alleges code violations, permit non-compliance, and substandard workmanship. These are critical safety and legal issues that warrant investigation but cannot be verified from review text alone.

This assessment is unreliable for decision-making. A single detailed negative review from 2019 provides no basis for calculating a trustworthy WW Score. At minimum 3 reviews spanning recent months are required; ideally 5+ reviews to establish meaningful confidence in any contractor rating.

This single review describes a contractor who made a positive first impression — the estimator arrived promptly and was personable — but then failed to follow through on a promised estimate. After two weeks and two follow-up calls from the customer, the contractor ultimately declined the job without proactive communication. This represents a significant failure in both professionalism and project completion, as the customer was left waiting and had to chase the contractor for a response. Pricing and experience cannot be assessed as neither was mentioned in the review.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and should be treated with very low confidence.
• No pricing or experience data available — two of four dimensions are entirely unscored.

This score is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer noted the plumbers who contacted them seemed 'capable, respectful and helpful,' which provides limited signals for professionalism and experience. The reviewer expressed satisfaction with the outcome of a plugged toilet emergency, suggesting the job was completed successfully. However, no pricing information was mentioned at all, and the review describes a referral/dispatch service (Home Advisors) rather than a direct contractor relationship, which adds ambiguity to the data. Scores have been kept conservative given the extremely limited evidence base.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.
• This review appears to describe a referral/dispatch service (Home Advisors) rather than a specific individual contractor, which may mean the review reflects the dispatch experience rather than the plumber's own performance.
• No pricing or cost information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review data set — treat all dimension scores with significant caution.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable assessment of this contractor's overall quality; at least 3 reviews are required for a meaningful WW Score.

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 workmanship quality positively but provides no explicit detail on professionalism, pricing, or project completion. The review is also from 2017, making it over 6 years old and not reflective of current service standards.

• Only 1 review analyzed — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review date is from October 2017 — over 6 years old, outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• Review is generic and lacks specific details about the work performed, timeline, or pricing
• Insufficient data across all four dimensions to calculate a meaningful WW Score

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume and age of available data. At least 3 recent reviews with substantive detail are needed to produce a trustworthy WW Score.