Find Nearby Plumbers In Hempstead, New York

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions punctuality and competence (professionalism), cost-effectiveness (pricing), and general competency (experience), but provides no specific details about project completion, timeline adherence, or workmanship quality. The review is generic and lacks concrete examples. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review available — insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from January 2019 (5+ years old) — recency is a concern
• Review lacks specific details and examples — generic praise without substantiation
• No mention of project completion, callbacks, or follow-through
• Cannot calculate WW Score with fewer than 3 reviews per protocol

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required). Collect additional recent reviews before relying on any scoring.

This single review from November 2024 speaks positively to Anthony's professionalism, noting he was polite and efficient, and to his technical ability, described as knowledgeable. Project completion is inferred from the reviewer expressing satisfaction with the installation, though no detail is given about timeline, follow-through, or complexity. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored. All three scoreable dimensions are treated conservatively given the extremely limited data from just one review.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are LOW CONFIDENCE due to single-review basis; treat all figures as indicative only.
• Review is generic in nature with no specific project details, which limits the ability to validate claims of quality workmanship.
• Pricing dimension has zero data and is excluded entirely from scoring.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — a single review provides far too little data to draw meaningful conclusions about any dimension.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While this single review is highly positive and mentions all four dimensions (professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience), a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews to establish meaningful patterns and confidence. Each dimension is based on only 1 mention, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all categories.

• Only 1 review available — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2022 (over 2 years old) — recency is a concern
• Single review with generic praise and no specific technical details — cannot validate claims independently

This score cannot be calculated or trusted. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a reliable WW Score. Please provide additional customer reviews.

This single review from 2012 describes severe failures across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. The reviewer reports excessive labor charges ($1000 for removal work), misrepresentation (master plumber not performing work), poor site cleanup, incomplete work, and refusal to honor commitments. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as this violates the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for statistical validity.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from June 2012 — over 12 years old. Does not reflect current business practices.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot establish pattern or trend from one data point. Score is not representative.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and extreme age of the single review (2012). At least 3 recent reviews are required to generate a reliable score.

Only a single review was available for analysis, making any scoring highly unreliable. The reviewer speaks positively about responsiveness and availability, which touches lightly on professionalism, and mentions a referral to a septic company suggesting some follow-through on project needs. However, no specific details about pricing, workmanship quality, or technical skill were provided. The review is also over 5 years old, further reducing its relevance to current performance.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated November 2019, making it over 5 years old. Current performance may differ significantly.
• Praise is generic with no specific job details, limiting the ability to score dimensions accurately.
• Pricing and Experience dimensions have zero data and cannot be scored.

This score is not reliable — with only one vague, dated review, no meaningful conclusions can be drawn about this contractor's overall quality or consistency.

This single review presents a mixed picture. The job was completed the same day and the plumber arrived and finished the work quickly, suggesting adequate project completion. However, the reviewer explicitly criticized the price as excessive for a simple job ($456 for a shower head replacement taking under 10 minutes), driving the pricing score very low. Professionalism is penalized because the plumber arrived earlier than the agreed window without warning, and notably requested payment made out to cash — a red flag for legitimacy and transparency. Workmanship appeared functional but no detail was given about quality beyond the job being done quickly.

• Plumber requested payment made out to cash — this is a significant red flag suggesting possible off-the-books operation or lack of proper business registration.
• Plumber arrived outside the agreed time window (arrived at 2:30 despite customer requesting after 3:00), causing inconvenience.
• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Reviewer noted the contractor had no prior reviews on Angie's List at time of hire, indicating very limited public track record.
• Pricing of $456 for a sub-10-minute shower head replacement was flagged as unreasonably high by the reviewer.

This score is based on a single review from 2015 and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn from this data alone.