Find Nearby Plumbers In Bend, Oregon

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews mention professionalism (punctuality, organization, customer service) and project completion (timely problem resolution), with one mentioning competitive pricing. However, with fewer than 3 reviews, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per methodology. No technical experience or skill level is explicitly discussed in either review.

• Total review count is below minimum threshold of 3 — WW Score calculation suppressed
• One review is from 2021 (3+ years old); only one recent review from 2024
• Both reviews are 5-star with generic praise language ('Awesome service', 'perfect') and lack specific technical details
• No explicit mention of workmanship quality, technical knowledge, or problem-solving complexity
• Insufficient data to assess experience dimension

This score cannot be reliably calculated with only 2 reviews. Collect at least 3 additional reviews before generating a trustworthy WW Score.

Both reviews are highly positive and mention Keith's responsiveness, communication, skill, and fair pricing. Review 1 highlights multiple completed jobs and excellent follow-through across various plumbing tasks. Review 2 emphasizes his technical knowledge, courtesy, speed, and transparent pricing. However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. All dimensions show strong performance but are based on very limited evidence.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• POTENTIAL BIAS: Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback or areas for improvement mentioned. No negative or neutral reviews present to balance assessment.
• RECENCY MIXED: One review from March 2024 (recent), one from March 2023 (1 year old). Limited recent data.
• GENERIC PRAISE RISK: While Review 2 contains specific details (Irish accent, woman-owned business, laundry room sink leak), Review 1 is somewhat generic in its praise structure.

This assessment cannot be considered reliable due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews). A minimum of 3-5 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score. The uniformly positive ratings without any critical feedback also suggest limited perspective on potential weaknesses.

Both reviews are positive and speak to Ken's responsiveness, punctuality, and follow-through on completing repairs correctly. Review 1 explicitly praises his timeliness and quality of repair work, while Review 2 highlights a successful drain fix and good value. Pricing is only mentioned in one review with a brief 'good value' comment, making that dimension particularly low-confidence. All dimension scores are conservative given the very small sample size of only two reviews.

• Only 2 reviews provided — this is below the minimum threshold of 3 for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• Both reviews are 5-star with generally positive but limited detail, which reduces scoring precision.
• No negative feedback present, but this cannot be interpreted as a strong quality signal with only 2 data points.
• Review dates are from 2023 — both are over 12 months old as of mid-2025, so recency weighting is reduced.

This score should be treated as highly preliminary and not relied upon for decision-making — only 2 reviews were available, all dimensions carry LIMITED confidence, and the WW Score formula requires a minimum of 3 reviews to produce a meaningful result.

Only two reviews exist, making any score statistically unreliable. The one substantive review (1-star, August 2024) describes a serious failure: the contractor did not deliver promised water test results, ignored dozens of phone calls, an email, and a website inquiry, and left clients in a legally precarious situation during a real estate transaction. This directly and severely impacts both professionalism and project completion scores. The second review (5-star, April 2024) is vague, generic, and contains no specific details about the work performed, the contractor's name, or any identifiable situation, making it of very low evidentiary value.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW: The 5-star review ('Best and fast service! The most helpful staff. They solved all my problems! Will recommend and use for future projects.') contains no specific details, no mention of the contractor by name, no description of the actual work done, and reads as a generic template. This pattern is consistent with fabricated or incentivized reviews. Confidence in this review has been reduced to near zero.
• CRITICAL COMPLAINT — NON-RESPONSIVENESS: The 1-star review documents repeated failed contact attempts (dozens of calls, email, website inquiry) with zero response from the contractor. This is a serious red flag for reliability and professionalism.
• CRITICAL COMPLAINT — INCOMPLETE WORK: The contractor failed to deliver promised water test results for a real estate transaction, causing direct harm to the client's legal and financial situation.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW VOLUME: Only 2 reviews total. Per scoring rules, a minimum of 3 reviews is required for a reliable WW Score. No WW Score has been calculated.
• RECENCY NOTE: Both reviews are from 2024 and therefore within the past 12 months, but the sample size is too small to draw meaningful conclusions.

This score report has extremely low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, one of which is suspected to be fake, leaving a single credible and severely negative review as the primary basis for assessment — prospective customers should exercise significant caution.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism (responsiveness, attitude, going above and beyond), project completion (jobs finished, proactive problem-solving), and experience (quality workmanship, technical judgment). However, neither review addresses pricing or value for money. The extremely limited sample size and absence of any critical feedback prevent reliable WW Score calculation.

• Only 2 reviews provided — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language and similar structure (opening superlative + specific incident + emotional appeal)
• Older review dates (2018 and 2021) — no recent data within past 12 months
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• Suspiciously uniform positive tone and lack of any balanced or critical feedback raises concern about review authenticity or selection bias

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and lack of recent data. The uniformly positive tone and absence of pricing feedback further limit trustworthiness. A minimum of 5-10 recent reviews with varied perspectives is required for a credible WW Score.

Both reviews are positive and speak to Mike's responsiveness, punctuality, and communication, with one reviewer specifically noting he was on time and walked them through their options. The first review highlights his ability to handle a complex multi-unit drain issue quickly, suggesting competent technical skill. However, with only 2 reviews total, confidence across all dimensions is strictly LIMITED. Pricing was not mentioned in either review, leaving that dimension entirely unscored. Scores have been kept conservative in line with the low review volume.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated on the same day (2022-08-30), which is a mild flag for potential coordinated or prompted submissions. No definitive evidence of fake reviews, but worth noting.
• All reviews are from 2022 — over 2 years old at time of analysis. No recent reviews available to confirm current service quality.
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — this dimension cannot be scored.

This score should be treated with very low confidence due to the critically small sample size of only 2 reviews, both dated over two years ago and submitted on the same day, making it impossible to draw reliable conclusions about this contractor's current or consistent performance.