Find Nearby Plumbers In Rochester, New York

Only two reviews are available, making any scoring highly tentative. Professionalism is the best-supported dimension, with both reviews touching on it — one noting the contractor took time to educate the customer and did not rush, and the other implying a smooth experience. Pricing is mentioned briefly in one review as 'reasonable,' and project completion is referenced in one review as 'done on time.' Experience is loosely implied by the mention of avoiding costly mistakes and quality work, but no technical specifics are provided. All scores are conservative due to the extremely small sample size.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated August 2022, making them over 2 years old. No recent reviews are available to confirm current performance.
• Reviews are generically positive with limited specific detail, which reduces confidence in all dimension scores.
• Small sample size increases the risk that these reviews are not representative of overall contractor performance.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews exist, both are over 2 years old, and all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence at best.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for statistical reliability. Both reviews are extremely negative (1-star ratings) and describe serious failures in project completion, workmanship, and follow-through. The first review cites excessive pricing ($2,500 for a $1,500 unit plus $1,000 labor). The second review documents a furnace installation that never functioned properly, caused property damage, created a gas safety hazard, and the contractor failed to honor repeated promises to fix the issues over 10+ months. These reviews alone suggest severe operational and quality problems, but the sample size is too small to produce a defensible overall score.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring. WW Score cannot be calculated.
• Both reviews are 1-star ratings with detailed, specific complaints (not generic praise or fake review patterns). Authenticity appears high.
• Review 2 documents serious safety issues: gas leak detected by fire department and RGE utility company, furnace non-functional from installation, property damage (scratches to flooring and walls), and contractor non-responsiveness over 10+ months.
• Review 1 documents significant pricing concern: customer charged $2,500 for equipment worth $1,500 with $1,000 labor markup, which appears excessive.
• Contractor (Rob/Ron Williams & Sons) explicitly avoided BBB complaint resolution and failed to honor multiple written and verbal commitments to remediate.
• Both reviews are from 2022–2023 (recent, within past 12 months), increasing relevance.
• No positive reviews present to balance assessment. Contractor reputation appears severely damaged based on available evidence.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required). However, the available evidence strongly suggests serious deficiencies in project completion, professionalism, and workmanship. Any decision regarding this contractor should await additional independent reviews or direct verification of remediation efforts.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While this single review is positive and mentions professionalism (punctuality, communication, estimate provided, cleanliness), pricing (transparent estimate), and project completion (job finished), a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews. All dimension scores are based on extremely limited evidence and should not be considered representative.

• Only 1 review available — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-mention basis
• Cannot assess patterns, consistency, or reliability with single data point

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only 1 review; minimum 3 reviews required for any meaningful assessment.

This single review paints a consistently positive picture across all four dimensions. The reviewer explicitly praises punctuality and responsiveness (less than 24-hour turnaround), friendliness and courtesy, technical competence, and value of workmanship. The technician's habit of explaining everything to the customer reflects strong professionalism and experience. However, with only one review available, all scores are conservative estimates and carry very limited statistical weight.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as highly preliminary.
• Cannot assess fake review patterns with a single data point, but the review contains specific details (3-year relationship, same-day inspection, technician explanation behavior) that reduce suspicion of inauthenticity.

This score is based on a single review and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of overall contractor performance — significantly more reviews are needed before any dimension score or WW Score can be considered meaningful.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While this single review is positive and mentions all four dimensions (professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience), a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews. The review explicitly praises timely arrival, reasonable rates, quick job completion (2 hours), and skilled workmanship on door frame/jamb repair. However, with only one data point, confidence in any aggregate score is extremely limited.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Single 5-star review with no negative feedback may indicate insufficient sample size rather than perfect performance
• Review is recent (August 2024) and specific in detail, reducing fake review concerns, but sample size remains critically small

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only 1 review; at least 3 independent reviews are needed to establish baseline reliability.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions project completion (faucet repair completed) but provides no explicit information about professionalism, pricing, or experience/workmanship quality.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is generic and lacks specific details about pricing, timeline, communication, or workmanship quality
• No data on professionalism, pricing transparency, or technical skill level

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to generate meaningful scoring.