Find Nearby Plumbers In Gresham, Oregon

All three reviews are strongly negative, painting a consistent picture of a contractor who abandons jobs, ignores callbacks, and leaves work incomplete or defective. Professionalism is critically poor across the board, with multiple reviewers citing no communication, cancelled appointments without notice, and an abrupt walkoff mid-job. Project completion is equally alarming, with one reviewer describing a cracked tub and an abandoned bathroom, and another reporting unresolved leaks after payment. The single pricing mention is negative, referencing an unexpected $650 invoice for incomplete work with no prior communication. Workmanship concerns are noted in two reviews, including a cracked tub from improper installation and persistent leaks after a repair.

• All reviews are 1-star with no positive reviews present — this may reflect a genuine pattern of poor service, but the absence of any positive reviews means the dataset is one-sided and should be interpreted cautiously.
• The most recent review is from May 2022, meaning all reviews are older than 12 months relative to a typical current analysis window. Performance may have changed since then, though no recent data exists to confirm improvement.
• Only 3 reviews total — WW Score is at the minimum threshold for calculation and should be treated as low reliability.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details (cracked tub, $650 invoice, named contractor 'Brian'), varied language, and consistent but independently described complaints, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score is based on only 3 reviews, all negative and all more than 12 months old, making it directionally informative but statistically unreliable — treat with caution and seek additional recent data before drawing firm conclusions.

This contractor presents an extremely polarized profile with one exceptional 5-star review from June 2024 contrasting sharply against three damaging 1-star reviews from 2022–2023. The positive review praises professionalism, fair pricing ($64k vs. $53k–$122k quotes), on-time delivery, and skilled workmanship. However, three separate reviews document serious failures: incomplete work with year-long delays, poor craftsmanship (flooring gaps, cracked drywall, failing grout), abandonment of projects, non-responsiveness, and refund disputes totaling $25,000+ in customer losses. The pattern suggests either dramatic recent improvement or inconsistent service quality. The recency of the positive review (June 2024) versus older negative reviews (2022–2023) cannot fully reconcile the severity of documented project abandonment and financial harm.

• CRITICAL: Three reviews document project abandonment, non-responsiveness, and significant financial losses ($7k, $18k deposits). These are not minor complaints but serious contractual failures.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The single positive review is from June 2024, while negative reviews span 2022–2023. Insufficient time has passed to determine if recent behavior represents genuine change or isolated exception.
• INCONSISTENCY PATTERN: One review describes exceptional professionalism and quality; three others describe poor workmanship, incomplete demolition-only work, and broken promises. This extreme polarization suggests either highly variable service or potential for selective positive review.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: Two reviews explicitly describe abandoned projects with extended delays (months to 1.5 years). One review documents only demolition work completed with no actual construction.
• FINANCIAL RISK: Documented pattern of deposit collection followed by non-delivery or incomplete work. Refund disputes required extended follow-up.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to extreme polarization and insufficient data volume (4 reviews). The single recent positive review cannot outweigh documented patterns of project abandonment, poor workmanship, and financial harm across three separate customer accounts. Extreme caution is warranted; recommend requesting references from projects completed in past 6 months and verifying completion before payment.

Both reviews highlight strong responsiveness and willingness to service customers during emergency situations, including a severe weather event, which speaks positively to professionalism and reliability. Pricing is noted favorably in both reviews — one explicitly mentions a competitor quoted significantly higher, and the other describes Bill as 'super fair' — though no specific figures are provided. Project completion is partially supported: one review describes a temporary fix with a promised return for full replacement, which is a positive sign but stops short of confirming full job completion. Technical skill and workmanship are not discussed in either review, leaving the Experience dimension entirely unscorable. With only two reviews, all scores carry very low confidence and should be treated as directional only.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star and written in an emotionally enthusiastic tone with limited technical specifics, which is a mild pattern to monitor as the review base grows.
• Review 1 contains a typo ('coiukd') suggesting it may be an authentic, unedited customer submission — slight positive signal for authenticity.
• No reviews mention workmanship quality, materials used, or technical problem-solving, making the Experience dimension entirely unscorable.
• Review dates span from September 2023 to January 2024 — both are older than 12 months from a mid-2025 evaluation date, so recency weighting is reduced.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — no meaningful conclusions about contractor quality can be drawn until a substantially larger review sample is available.

With only two reviews spanning a wide date range (2014 and 2018), the data is too limited to produce a reliable WW Score. The positive review praises professionalism, punctuality, communication, and thorough workmanship. However, the negative review — which is highly detailed — describes a serious and sustained failure in communication, scheduling, responsiveness, and follow-through, including a false report made to the warranty company. These two reviews directly contradict each other across key dimensions, making any aggregate score highly uncertain. No pricing information was mentioned in either review.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Reviews are from 2014 and 2018 — both are more than 5 years old. No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• The negative review (1-star, 2014) is highly detailed and credible, describing a pattern of missed callbacks, scheduling failures, and a false report to the warranty company. This significantly weighs against professionalism and project completion scores.
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — no score can be assigned.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict with each other, making confidence in any dimension score very low.

This score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — only 2 reviews are available, both are over 5 years old, and they present contradictory accounts of service quality with no recent data to resolve the conflict.

With only two reviews, the data is highly insufficient to draw reliable conclusions. One review is a strong positive from 2021, praising communication, workmanship, fair pricing, and problem-solving ability. The other is a recent 2024 review describing a no-show appointment and complete failure to follow up via email over a two-week period, which is a serious professionalism and project completion failure. The recency rule applies here: the negative review is from 2024 and therefore carries more weight than the positive review from 2021. The contrast between these two reviews creates significant uncertainty across all dimensions.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• Recency concern: The positive review is from July 2021 (over 3 years old). The negative review is from August 2024 and is the most recent data point, suggesting a possible decline in service quality over time.
• The 2024 review describes a no-show and complete communication breakdown — a critical failure in both professionalism and project completion that significantly drags down scores in those dimensions.
• Scores for pricing and experience are each based on a single positive review from 2021 and should be treated with extreme caution.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews spanning 3+ years and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor performance; prospective customers are strongly advised to seek additional references before hiring.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review praises pricing (40% below competitors), on-time delivery, and workmanship quality for a tankless water heater installation. However, with only one data point, no dimensions can be scored with confidence, and the overall WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Possible promotional review: review includes business contact information (email and phone) and reads as a testimonial rather than organic customer feedback.
• No data on professionalism dimension: communication, punctuality, attitude, and responsiveness not explicitly mentioned.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; at least 3 independent reviews are required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.