Find Nearby Plumbers In Yonkers, New York

Only one review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The review explicitly describes Kevin and his colleague successfully restoring a gas fireplace to safe working condition after years of disuse, and after a previous specialist had failed — this speaks positively to both project completion and technical experience. No information was provided regarding pricing, punctuality, communication, appearance, or other professionalism indicators, so those dimensions cannot be scored. Scores for project completion and experience are intentionally conservative given the single-review basis.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No data available for Professionalism or Pricing dimensions — these could not be scored.
• Single review basis means all scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be treated as representative of overall contractor performance.

This report is based on a single review and should be considered highly preliminary — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn until significantly more reviews are analyzed.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The review mentions professionalism (prompt, friendly, professional) and experience (knowledgeable), but provides no specific details about pricing, project completion, timeliness of delivery, or quality of workmanship. The review is generic praise without concrete examples or evidence of actual work performed.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review contains generic praise without specific examples or details about actual work performed
• No mention of pricing, project completion, or specific technical accomplishments
• Suspiciously formal language ('utmost sincerity', 'highest rating') with no concrete details suggests possible template or generic review

This score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and lack of specific, verifiable details about the contractor's actual performance.

Only one review is available, which severely limits scoring reliability. The single reviewer praised Basel and his two helpers for arriving late at night (10 p.m.), completing the drain pipe cleaning quickly and efficiently, and being respectful and mindful of the clean bathroom. Project completion is supported by the job being finished in approximately 20 minutes with clean workmanship noted. No mention of pricing or value was made in the review, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension cannot be evaluated.
• Single review from September 2024 — recency is good, but sample size is critically insufficient.
• Cannot assess fake review risk with only one data point, though the review contains specific details (time of visit, number of helpers, task performed) which are positive authenticity indicators.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes, as it is based on a single review and falls well below the minimum data threshold required for a reliable WW Score.

This single review from 2014 provides limited evidence across three dimensions. The reviewer explicitly mentions responsive communication (called back right away, came same day) and rates the service as dependable with good rates. However, with only one review spanning nearly a decade old, no specific technical skill details are mentioned, and the review lacks concrete project specifics. A reliable WW Score cannot be calculated from a single data point.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient data for reliable scoring (minimum 3 reviews required)
• Review is from January 2014 — over 10 years old; does not reflect current service quality
• Generic praise language without specific project details or technical accomplishments
• No mention of experience/workmanship quality — dimension cannot be scored

This score cannot be trusted for decision-making. A minimum of 3 recent reviews is required to produce a meaningful WW Score.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer describes Alan as knowledgeable, reliable, prompt, and reasonable — touching on all four dimensions at a surface level. However, no specific details are provided about project scope, pricing figures, or technical challenges overcome, limiting the depth of evidence. Scores have been kept conservative across all dimensions in accordance with the low-evidence rules. The reviewer also notes surprise that no prior reviews exist, which is consistent with the absence of any review history.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2016 (over 8 years old) — recency weighting significantly reduced; this data may not reflect current performance.
• All praise is generic with no specific project details, dollar amounts, or technical descriptions — limits scoring confidence across all dimensions.
• Single 5-star review with broad positive language — cannot rule out bias, though no clear fake review pattern is detectable with only one data point.

This score should be treated as essentially unreliable — it is based on a single, nearly decade-old review containing only vague, general praise and no verifiable specifics.

Only a single review is available, dated December 2015, making this data nearly a decade old and of very limited reliability. The reviewer speaks positively about punctuality, affordability, and a pleasant demeanor, supporting moderate-to-good scores across professionalism and pricing. Project completion is supported by the mention of multiple repairs successfully handled with little hassle, and the reviewer's intent to rehire suggests satisfaction with workmanship. However, all scores are conservative due to the single-review basis and the significant age of the data. No patterns of fake reviews are detected, but the review is generic enough in parts to warrant caution.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated December 2015 — approximately 9+ years old. Data may not reflect current business quality or practices.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as LOW CONFIDENCE estimates only.
• Review contains some generic praise ('Five star business', 'community reputation is very solid') without third-party verification, though specific job details (broken bath drain, leaky laundry valve) add some credibility.

This score report is based on a single review from 2015 and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality — significantly more recent and numerous reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.