Find Nearby Plumbers In Yonkers, New York

This single review documents serious failures across professionalism, pricing, and project completion. The contractor overcharged significantly for sewer cleaning (nearly double prior year pricing), exhibited unprofessional behavior by requesting a check rewrite under the boss's personal name rather than the company name, and completely failed to follow up on a promised kitchen plumbing quote despite multiple commitments. The reviewer waited three days without contact and had to initiate outreach themselves, only to receive no response. However, with only one review available, this score cannot be reliably generalized and should not be treated as representative of the contractor's typical performance.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per protocol (minimum 3 reviews required).
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from December 2019 (4+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: While the complaints are specific and detailed (not generic), a single review—especially one this old—cannot establish a reliable performance baseline.
• PAYMENT IRREGULARITY: Request to rewrite check under personal name rather than company name raises potential business practice concerns.

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Only one review is available, falling well below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score. Additionally, the review is over 4 years old and may not reflect current operations.

This single review describes a positive emergency plumbing experience with Crosby Plumbing. The plumber Nick arrived within the promised one-hour window on a Saturday morning, demonstrating responsiveness and punctuality. Price quotes were provided upfront before work began, suggesting transparent pricing practices. The job was completed within an hour to the customer's satisfaction, indicating solid follow-through on project completion. All dimension scores are conservative given only one review exists, and no WW Score can be reliably calculated with fewer than three reviews.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated with very low confidence.
• Cannot rule out recency bias — only one data point from February 2024 is available.
• No pattern analysis for fake reviews is possible with a single review, though the review contains specific names, a plumber's name, and situational detail, which are positive authenticity indicators.

This WW Score cannot be calculated and should not be trusted for decision-making purposes, as only one review was provided — the minimum required is three reviews, and meaningful confidence requires five or more.

This single review describes a severely negative experience with poor professionalism (contractor became angry and walked out mid-job), unclear pricing communication (hidden disposal fees), and incomplete project delivery (toilet left in living room, work abandoned). No evidence of technical skill or experience is mentioned. 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 provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from August 2021 (3+ years old) — recency is poor.
• Single negative review cannot establish contractor pattern or reliability.

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a trustworthy WW Score.

Only a single review was provided, making any scoring highly unreliable. The review briefly mentions 'high-end quality work' and 'very good workers,' which touches on experience and workmanship, and 'understandable communication' which relates to professionalism. No information was provided regarding pricing, project completion, punctuality, or follow-through. Scores assigned are conservative given the extremely limited data and vague, generic phrasing in the review.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review language is brief and generic with no specific details about the job, location, or contractor name — possible low-quality or unverified review.
• All praise is non-specific ('high-end quality,' 'very good workers') with no concrete examples, reducing confidence in authenticity.
• Review is over 12 months old (June 2023) — recency weighting is reduced.

This score should not be trusted for any decision-making purposes, as it is based on a single vague review with no pricing, completion, or detailed workmanship data available.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly unreliable. The reviewer mentions a fair price and a great job on a leaking sink faucet, which provides minimal but positive signals for pricing and project completion. No details were provided regarding professionalism, punctuality, communication, or technical skill, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The review is also over 13 years old, significantly reducing its relevance to current performance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated October 2011, making it over 13 years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• Review language is vague and generic ('great job', 'fair price') with no specific details, limiting scoring confidence.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review data (only 1 review) and the extreme age of that review; no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current performance can be drawn.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. This single review documents severe failures in professionalism (no-show, no callback) and project completion (work never started). However, a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews to establish meaningful patterns and confidence.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2013 (over 10 years old) — recency is severely compromised
• No data on pricing or experience dimensions
• Single negative review cannot be generalized to current contractor performance

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and extreme age of the single review; at minimum 3 recent reviews are required for reliable assessment.