Find Nearby Plumbers In Schenectady, New York

Only a single review is available for this contractor, dated August 2012, making it over a decade old and of very limited reliability. The sole reviewer explicitly states that the contractor did not complete the entire job as promised, which is a direct and serious negative indicator for project completion. No information was provided regarding professionalism, pricing, or experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The project completion score of 20 reflects a clear failure to deliver on stated commitments, scored conservatively given only one data point.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The sole review is from August 2012, making it over 12 years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to draw current conclusions about contractor quality.
• Three of four scoring dimensions have no data whatsoever — the score is based on an extremely narrow evidence base.
• No fake review concerns detected, but the single review provides insufficient data to assess patterns.

This score report is not reliable — it is based on a single review from over a decade ago, covering only one of four scoring dimensions, and falls well below the minimum review threshold required for a trustworthy WW Score.

Only a single review is available, dated December 2018, making it over 6 years old and well outside the preferred 12-month recency window. The reviewer praises dependability and value, which loosely maps to professionalism and pricing, and implies follow-through with phrases like 'a man of his word.' However, no specific details about workmanship, technical skill, or project outcomes are provided. Scores have been kept conservative across all dimensions due to the vague, generic nature of the praise and the extremely limited data set.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The sole review is dated December 2018, making it more than 6 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability.
• Review language is generic and non-specific ('cannot go wrong,' 'cares about you') with no concrete details about the job performed, which is a mild indicator of low-information or potentially unverifiable feedback.
• Experience dimension returned null due to zero explicit mentions of skill, workmanship, or technical ability.

This score report is based on a single, generic, and significantly outdated review — it should not be trusted as a meaningful indicator of current contractor performance.

This single review is a detailed, highly negative account of three failed repair attempts on a hot water baseboard heating system. The contractor misdiagnosed the root cause repeatedly, charged over $500 without resolving the issue, and was ultimately shown to have missed a basic diagnostic step (monitoring the pressure gauge) that a competing technician identified and fixed immediately. The reviewer also raises serious concerns about possible dishonesty, including a potentially unreplaced part billed as replaced and contradictory explanations about equipment settings. The contractor's response to being questioned was described as a hostile tirade, reflecting poorly on professionalism and communication. All four scored dimensions are severely impacted by the explicit negative evidence in this review.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2018-02-03, making it over 6 years old. Current performance may differ significantly.
• Reviewer explicitly alleges possible fraud or deception regarding a part (Aquastat) that may not have been replaced despite being billed for it — this is a serious integrity concern.
• Contractor responded to customer questioning with a hostile tirade rather than professional resolution, indicating a significant professionalism failure.
• Three separate service visits failed to diagnose a problem that a competing technician resolved on the first visit using a basic diagnostic step, suggesting significant technical deficiency.
• No positive reviews were provided for comparison — this report reflects only one strongly negative data point and should not be treated as a comprehensive contractor profile.

This score is based on a single review from 2018 and should be treated as highly preliminary — it reflects one customer's detailed negative experience but cannot be considered statistically representative of the contractor's overall performance.

This single review paints a positive picture across all four dimensions. The contractor demonstrated strong professionalism by responding same-day, communicating clearly throughout the process, and completing the full installation — inspection in the morning, full install by afternoon — suggesting solid project completion and follow-through. The reviewer explicitly praised the quality of work and described the team as extremely knowledgeable, supporting a reasonable experience score. Pricing was described as extremely reasonable, earning a moderate pricing score. However, all scores are heavily discounted due to the single-review basis, and no WW Score can be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis. Treat all scores as directional only.
• Review is broadly positive with no specific criticisms — while not conclusive evidence of a fake review, it cannot be verified as representative without additional reviews.
• Review is from June 2024, which is within the past 12 months and therefore carries full recency weight.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be used to make any meaningful assessment of this contractor — at least 3 reviews are required for a minimally reliable WW Score.

Only a single review exists, making any scoring highly provisional. The reviewer explicitly praised punctuality, friendliness, and a willingness to accommodate multiple mind-changes, supporting a moderate-to-good professionalism score. Pricing was mentioned in the context of comparing three estimates and choosing Above All Handymen, suggesting competitive but not standout pricing. The project — a roof with a barrel ceiling — was described as completed to the customer's satisfaction with no abandoned work, supporting a reasonable project completion score. Workmanship quality was praised as 'fantastic,' indicating solid experience, though no technical detail was provided to justify a higher score under conservative rules.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review contains several typographical errors and informal phrasing (e.g., 'doof', 'itchas', 'a vol times', 'Top knot has carpenters') which may indicate an authentic but hastily written review — no fake review pattern detected.
• Review is dated 2022-06-18, which is more than 12 months old. Recency weighting is reduced accordingly.
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis. These scores should not be used for contractor evaluation without additional reviews.

This score is not reliable for decision-making purposes — it is based on a single review from over two years ago, and all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence with no corroborating data.