Find Nearby Plumbers In Dayton, Ohio

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The single positive review praises responsiveness, fair pricing, and quality workmanship, but it dates back to 2013 — over a decade ago — and carries very limited weight. The negative review from 2019 describes a refusal to service a customer only 10 minutes away, which is a direct professionalism concern that significantly drags down that dimension. The conflicting signals across just two reviews, combined with the age of both, mean no meaningful WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• The positive review is from 2013 (over 10 years old) and should be treated with very low recency weight.
• The negative review from 2019 is also more than 5 years old — no recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• The positive review uses somewhat generic praise ('amazing level of service', 'high quality service and expertise') with limited specific detail, which slightly reduces its evidential value.
• The contractor refused service to a customer only 10 minutes away — this is a notable professionalism and business conduct concern.

This score report is not reliable — with only 2 reviews, both older than 5 years and pointing in opposite directions, no trustworthy assessment of this contractor's current performance can be made.

Both reviews are positive and suggest Moore and Son performed competent diagnostic and repair work. The first review highlights accurate diagnosis of a capacitor issue rather than a more expensive blower motor replacement, indicating honest and skilled technical work. The second review from a VFW post praises quick response, effective problem resolution, and cost savings compared to a prior contractor. However, with only 2 reviews spanning 2020–2021, all scores are conservative and carry very limited confidence. The note in Review 1 about Morris not getting back in touch introduces a minor professionalism concern that tempers that dimension slightly.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are over 3 years old (2020 and 2021) — no recent data available to confirm current service quality.
• Review 1 contains an ambiguous negative note ('Thank you Morris for not getting back in touch with me') which may indicate sarcasm or a genuine complaint about follow-up communication — this introduces minor uncertainty in the professionalism score.
• Sample size is too small to detect fake review patterns, but both reviews appear genuine with specific details and distinct writing styles.

This score should be treated as highly unreliable due to only 2 reviews, both of which are more than 3 years old, providing insufficient data to draw meaningful conclusions about current service quality.

These two reviews present a stark and irreconcilable contradiction regarding the same contractor (Joel Robertson). The 2016 review praises professionalism, fair pricing, and quick problem-solving. The 2014 review alleges serious legal violations, non-responsiveness, discriminatory behavior, and refusal to honor agreements. The 2014 review is dated earlier and contains specific allegations of illegal practices (unlicensed work, missing permits in Ohio, NDA coercion). The extreme polarity, combined with the serious nature of allegations in the negative review and the temporal gap (2 years between reviews), suggests either significant business practice changes or fundamental credibility issues. With only 2 reviews and direct contradiction, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• CRITICAL: Extreme contradiction between reviews — one 5-star praising the contractor, one 1-star alleging illegal business practices, licensing fraud, permit violations, and refusal to refund.
• The negative review (2014) contains specific allegations of illegal conduct (operating without license, skipping permits in Ohio, coercing NDAs). These are serious claims that, if true, would be disqualifying.
• The positive review (2016) is dated 2 years after the negative review, suggesting either the business changed dramatically or the reviews describe different experiences entirely.
• Insufficient review volume (n=2) to establish reliable patterns or confidence in any dimension.
• The negative review includes a personal email address, which is atypical and may indicate a dispute resolution attempt rather than a standard review.
• Cannot determine which review is more representative of current business practices due to age and contradiction.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient data (only 2 reviews) and direct contradiction between them regarding fundamental business practices and legality. Any score would be meaningless. Potential customers should investigate the specific allegations in the 2014 review independently, particularly regarding licensing status and permit compliance in Ohio, before engaging this contractor.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a trustworthy WW Score. The reviews present contradictory signals: one 1-star review from June 2023 documents severe scheduling failures and poor communication, while one 5-star review from May 2019 (over 4 years old) praises professionalism and expertise. The recency gap and small sample size make any aggregate score unreliable.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable scoring
• SEVERE RECENCY BIAS: Positive review is from May 2019 (4+ years old); negative review is from June 2023 (recent). Recent performance appears significantly worse.
• CONTRADICTORY SIGNALS: One review reports excellent professionalism and service quality; the other reports multiple scheduling failures, miscommunication, and poor business practices. Cannot reconcile without additional data.
• PROJECT COMPLETION CONCERN: Only 1 mention of project completion, and it was negative (scheduling failure, appointment confusion, cancellation). No evidence of successful project completion in dataset.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required). The two reviews present contradictory assessments separated by 4 years, with the most recent review being highly negative regarding scheduling and communication. Any aggregate score would be meaningless without additional recent reviews.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy composite score. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience, but the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about overall contractor performance.

• Insufficient review count (n=2) — WW Score calculation suppressed per protocol
• Extreme age disparity: Review 1 from June 2022 (recent), Review 2 from November 2005 (19 years old) — recency weighting cannot be meaningfully applied
• Both reviews are 5-star with generic praise language ('outstanding', 'fantastic', 'highly recommend') and minimal specific detail — pattern consistent with potential fake reviews, though sample too small to confirm
• Review 2 is from 2005 and likely not representative of current service quality

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment of current contractor performance due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required) and extreme temporal inconsistency in review dates.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. Both reviews are severely negative and dated (2009 and 2017), with explicit mentions of no-shows, missed appointments, code violations, unpermitted work, and substandard materials. However, the extreme age of these reviews and the minimal sample size prevent confident generalization about current performance.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are older than 5 years (2009 and 2017); no recent reviews provided
• SEVERE PERFORMANCE ISSUES: Both reviews document serious failures including no-shows, code violations, unpermitted work, and material defects
• LICENSING CONCERN: Second review references State Licensing Board complaint filed; recommend verification of current licensing status
• INSURANCE ISSUE: Review from 2009 explicitly states contractor did not carry General Liability Insurance at that time
• No pricing data available for evaluation

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required). The available reviews are extremely negative and very old, making them poor predictors of current service quality. Before engaging this contractor, verify current licensing status with state board, confirm active General Liability Insurance, and request recent references.