Find Nearby Plumbers In Yonkers, New York

This single review paints a broadly positive picture across all four dimensions. The reviewer explicitly praises responsiveness, punctuality, and honesty, supporting a strong but conservative professionalism score. Pricing is described as fair and costs were communicated transparently, warranting a solid but cautious pricing score. Project completion is implied through the mention of clean-up and follow-through, though no complex multi-stage job details are provided. Workmanship quality is described as 'stellar,' supporting a moderate experience score, though no technical specifics are given to fully validate this claim.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• Review is dated 2017-03-07, making it over 7 years old. Recency weighting is significantly reduced — this review may not reflect current service quality.
• Review language is enthusiastic and broadly positive with limited technical specifics, which slightly reduces confidence in workmanship and completion claims.

This score report is based on a single review from 2017 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of current or consistent contractor performance — significantly more recent reviews are needed before any dimension score can be trusted.

Only a single review is available, making any aggregate scoring unreliable. That one review explicitly describes the contractor as unprofessional and rude, and specifically calls out hostile behavior when the customer requested text-based communication. This is a direct, specific complaint about attitude and communication — core components of professionalism — warranting a very low professionalism score. No data exists for pricing, project completion, or experience, so those dimensions cannot be evaluated at this time.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• No data available for pricing, project completion, or experience dimensions.
• The sole review is recent (October 2024) and carries a 1-star rating with a specific, credible complaint about rude behavior and poor communication.
• Cannot assess fake review risk with only one review present.

This score is not reliable — with only one review and three dimensions entirely lacking data, no meaningful WW Score can be calculated for this contractor.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review mentions professionalism (quick response, professional team), pricing (reasonable price), and experience (quality work), but with only 1 mention per dimension, confidence is severely limited. No data exists regarding project completion or follow-through on callbacks.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Review is generic and lacks specific details about the work performed, timeline, or outcomes.
• Cannot assess reliability of contractor based on single data point.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data — a minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a reliable overall score.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is highly positive, praising Jake's promptness, problem-solving ability, and willingness to go above and beyond by discovering hidden water damage. However, with only one data point, there is no basis for confidence in any dimension score, and no information about pricing was mentioned.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• No pricing data available: The review contains no information about cost, value, or pricing fairness.
• Single positive review bias: Cannot assess consistency or identify patterns with only one review.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; a minimum of 3 independent reviews is required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, which is strongly negative. The reviewer explicitly cites a bad attitude from the owner, directly impacting the professionalism score. The complaint that work was paid for but never completed properly is a serious project completion failure and has been scored accordingly. Pricing and experience dimensions had no usable data and could not be scored. Due to the single-review limitation, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is over 5 years old (dated June 2019) — recency weighting is very low; this data may not reflect current contractor performance.
• No positive or neutral reviews exist to balance assessment — score is based entirely on one negative data point.

This score report is based on a single review from 2019 and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or consistency can be drawn.

The single review available is a 1-star complaint describing serious failures across all four dimensions. The plumber allegedly used old/recycled parts to cut costs without the customer's knowledge, resulting in a failing AC system and a $695 repair bill paid to a third party — indicating poor workmanship, dishonest pricing practices, and incomplete/defective project delivery. The contractor was unresponsive for an entire week when the customer attempted to report the problem, demonstrating a significant failure in professionalism and follow-through. Additionally, the reviewer noted property damage (a ruined antique chair), further compounding the professionalism concerns. Because only one review exists, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, but all available signals are strongly negative.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from July 2019, making it over 5 years old. Recency weighting is very low — contractor performance may have changed significantly since this date.
• Allegation of deliberate use of old/used parts to cut costs without customer disclosure — if accurate, this represents a serious ethical and workmanship violation.
• Contractor was completely unresponsive to callback attempts for one week following a reported system failure — a significant red flag for post-job accountability.
• Property damage reported (antique chair ruined by coffee cup) — suggests careless conduct on-site.
• Cannot assess fake review risk with only one review present, but the review contains specific details (named plumber 'Jim', specific repair cost of $695, specific item damaged) that are consistent with a genuine experience rather than a fabricated complaint.

This score is based on a single review from 2019 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of the contractor's current or overall performance — no meaningful conclusions can be drawn without additional recent reviews.