Find Nearby Plumbers In Valley Stream, New York

Only one review is available, which limits scoring reliability significantly. That single review is positive and detailed, describing Saul as attentive, communicative, and thorough — he listened to the customer, cleaned up after digging, walked the customer through completed work, and tested everything before leaving. Project completion is well-supported by the review, as the reviewer notes all requested fixes and changes were completed and the system finally worked correctly. Experience is evidenced by the reviewer's acknowledgment that Saul succeeded where their own DIY attempts had failed on a severely neglected system. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from December 2012, making it over 12 years old. Recency rule applies — this data should be treated as significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension has no data and was excluded from scoring.

This score report is based on a single review that is over 12 years old, making it insufficient and unreliable for drawing meaningful conclusions about current contractor performance.

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 (satisfaction with work completion) but provides no explicit evidence regarding professionalism, pricing, or experience dimensions. The review is dated November 2022, over 1 year old.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is dated November 2022 (over 1 year old) — recency is limited
• Review contains generic praise without specific details about work performed, timeline, or pricing
• No data on pricing, professionalism, or technical experience — cannot assess these critical dimensions

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review vs. minimum 3 required) and lack of dimensional coverage.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable assessment. The single review mentions project completion (leak detection and repair follow-up) and experience (diagnostic skill and drywall/insulation work), but provides no information on professionalism or pricing. A meaningful WW Score cannot be calculated from a single data point.

• Only 1 review provided; minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2023 (over 1 year old); recency is limited
• No data available for professionalism or pricing dimensions

This assessment cannot be considered reliable due to insufficient review volume; at least 3 reviews are required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

This single review documents severe failures across all dimensions. The plumber caused water damage during the initial service, failed to complete the original clog-clearing job, provided an unexplained $1,800 estimate without details, and became unresponsive after the customer requested clarification. The reviewer explicitly noted lack of professionalism and attention despite acknowledging politeness. No refund or damage compensation was offered. With only one review, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Minimum 3 reviews required.
• Severe service failure documented: property damage caused by plumber's work, incomplete primary job, unresponsive follow-up, and no resolution offered.
• Customer explicitly questions contractor licensing and credentials — suggests potential regulatory concerns.
• High-value estimate ($1,800) provided with no itemization or explanation, then no further communication.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only 1 review. While the documented issues are serious and specific, a single negative review does not establish a pattern. At least 3 reviews are required to begin assessing contractor reliability.

Only one review is available, dated October 2010, making this analysis over 14 years old and of very limited reliability. The single reviewer noted a rapid response to an emergency sewage backup, neat work, and a stated intention to use the company again. Professionalism is supported by the quick arrival and tidy workmanship. Project completion is evidenced by the blockage being resolved. Experience is inferred from the successful resolution of an urgent, messy plumbing emergency. Pricing was not mentioned at all.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated October 2010 — over 14 years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current service quality.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• Single review with no corroborating reviews — all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence only.

This score report is based on a single review from 2010 and should not be trusted as a meaningful indicator of current or consistent service quality.

Only one review was available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review praises professionalism (neat work), project completion (job done right, no subsequent problems), and experience (quality workmanship). However, pricing is not mentioned. With only 1 mention per dimension, confidence is severely limited and cannot support a composite score.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• Review is from 2015 (9+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• No pricing information provided in the single review.

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a meaningful WW Score; only 1 review was available, and it is significantly outdated.