Find Nearby Plumbers In Dublin, Ohio

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, both extremely old (1999 and 2004). The negative review explicitly documents poor professionalism (no callbacks, failed communication) and incomplete project completion (safety hazard with mantle overheating). The positive review provides no substantive detail. Data is too sparse, outdated, and imbalanced to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

• CRITICAL: Both reviews are 20+ years old (1999 and 2004). No recent data available to assess current contractor performance.
• Extreme imbalance: 1 detailed 1-star review vs. 1 generic 5-star review with zero specifics. Generic praise without detail raises authenticity concerns.
• The 1-star review documents serious issues: safety hazard (overheating mantle) and complete communication failure (no callbacks). These are severe red flags.
• Insufficient review volume (n=2) and extreme age make any scoring unreliable.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and extreme age of all data (20+ years old). Do not rely on this assessment for current contractor evaluation.

With only two reviews, the picture is sharply divided. The positive review describes a highly professional, punctual, and tidy contractor who completed a drywall job on schedule and at a competitive price. The negative review, however, describes abandoned work, left trash on the property, and a damaged light fixture that was not repaired — serious concerns around project completion and workmanship. The conflicting accounts prevent any reliable scoring, and all dimension scores are heavily discounted due to the extremely low mention counts. Until more reviews are available, no dimension can be assessed with meaningful confidence.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Directly conflicting accounts: one review praises completion and professionalism while the other reports unfinished work, property damage (non-functional light), and trash left behind.
• The negative review raises a potential liability concern — damage to an electrical fixture during soffit removal that was not remediated.
• Both reviews are from early 2022 — no recent reviews available to assess current performance trends.
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be used as a basis for hiring decisions without additional review data.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and is not statistically reliable — prospective customers should seek additional references or reviews before making a hiring decision.

This single review describes a serious financial dispute involving alleged theft of a $2,000 deposit. The customer reports the owner became unresponsive after the deposit was provided and has not returned calls or texts since January 1st, 2022. Professionalism is severely compromised by non-responsiveness and alleged breach of trust. Pricing integrity is questioned due to the deposit retention allegation. Project completion never occurred. However, with only one review and no corroborating data, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• CRITICAL: Single review only — insufficient data for reliable scoring (minimum 3 reviews required)
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: Customer alleges theft/retention of $2,000 deposit with no response since January 2022
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from January 2022 (nearly 3 years old) — does not reflect current business practices
• UNVERIFIED CLAIM: Allegation of theft is serious but unverified; no response from contractor provided
• NO CORROBORATION: Only one customer perspective; no other reviews to validate or contextualize this claim

This score is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A single review, especially one alleging serious misconduct from over 2 years ago, cannot establish a trustworthy WW Score. Additional recent reviews are essential before drawing any conclusions about this contractor.

This single review paints a strongly positive picture across all four dimensions. The reviewer explicitly praises the team's honesty, reliability, and integrity, and highlights how mistakes were handled with kindness — supporting a high professionalism score. Pricing is noted as 'very competitive in bidding,' justifying a solid but not perfect pricing score. Project completion is well-supported: a full bathroom and kitchen ceiling replacement were carried out start to finish following a water emergency, with no abandoned work. Experience is evidenced by the quality of workmanship described, the seamless insurance coordination, and the fact that a corporate client (Hilton) selected them over dozens of competitors for a large follow-on project. However, all scores are based on a single review and must be treated with significant caution.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Single review is highly detailed and specific (named team members, specific project types, third-party validation via Hilton), which reduces fake review suspicion, but independent corroboration is still absent.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis — treat all dimension scores as directional only, not definitive.
• No negative signals or counterbalancing reviews exist in this dataset, which may reflect selection bias rather than a true performance picture.

This score is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable indicator of overall contractor performance — additional reviews are required before any meaningful trust can be placed in these dimension scores.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture of both professionalism and project completion. The crew missed two consecutive scheduled appointment windows without proactive communication, arriving five hours late on day one and failing to appear at all on day two. The reviewer describes what appears to be a deliberate avoidance tactic — claiming to retrieve tools and never returning — followed by complete non-responsiveness to calls. No actual work was performed, so pricing and experience cannot be assessed. The office staff were noted as professional and courteous, which slightly tempers the professionalism score but does not offset the field crew's conduct.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No work was completed, so project_completion score reflects abandonment of the job rather than quality of finished work.
• Pricing and experience dimensions have NO DATA and are excluded from any scoring.
• Review is dated December 2018 — over 6 years old. This data may not reflect current business practices.
• Contradiction noted between professional office staff and unprofessional field crew — score reflects the overall customer experience, not just one element.

This score is based on a single review from 2018 and should be treated with very low confidence — it reflects one customer's experience and cannot be considered representative of the contractor's overall performance.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across multiple dimensions. Professionalism was severely lacking — the technician made the customer uncomfortable by commenting on the value of their possessions, failed to use shoe protection on freshly cleaned carpet, and used the bathroom without washing his hands. Project completion was also poor, as the job took far longer than expected with only one worker present when more were apparently needed. The quality of workmanship is implicitly questioned given the procedural errors made during the cleaning process. No pricing information was mentioned, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• All scores are based on a single review and should be treated with very low confidence.
• Review is from 2013, making it over 10 years old — recency weighting is extremely low and this data may not reflect current contractor performance.

This score is based on a single review from 2013 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or performance.