Find Nearby Plumbers In Salem, Oregon

Only a single review is available, which severely limits scoring reliability across all dimensions. The reviewer explicitly praised Philly's polite demeanor, clear communication, and professional appearance, supporting a moderate-high professionalism score. Pricing was described as 'very reasonable' with a transparent phone estimate followed by a detailed quote, justifying a moderate price-friendly score. Project completion was noted as timely — work started the same week and finished in a few hours — though no mention of follow-up or callbacks was made. Experience was positively referenced through mention of current tools and a 'wealth of knowledge,' but this is a single subjective account with no corroborating reviews.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• Review is dated December 2019, making it over 5 years old. Recency weighting is a significant concern — contractor quality and practices may have changed substantially since then.
• Review is highly positive with no criticisms. While the detail level (pipe type, timeline, language note, smell observation) suggests authenticity, the absence of any negative feedback from a single source cannot be treated as a balanced assessment.

This WW Score report is based on a single review from 2019 and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current performance can be drawn without substantially more recent and varied review data.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions punctuality and efficiency (professionalism), successful completion of two tasks (project completion), and quality workmanship (experience). However, pricing is not addressed, and a single review cannot reliably establish contractor performance across all dimensions.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review provided. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2021 (over 3 years old) — recency is a concern for current performance assessment.
• Generic praise language with no specific details about pricing, communication challenges, or follow-up work.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

This single review paints a broadly positive picture of Calvary's responsiveness and professionalism — Rae responded within 10 minutes, communicated well by phone, and Allen arrived on time. Pricing is noted as reasonable with a transparent $50 consult fee, which the reviewer found worthwhile. However, the job was not fully completed in the traditional sense — the issue was identified but deferred, and the reviewer themselves located the source of the problem, which tempers the project completion and experience scores. With only one review, all scores carry very low confidence and should not be treated as reliable indicators of consistent performance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence. These scores should not be used to make hiring decisions without additional review data.
• The plumbing issue was not fully resolved during this visit — the faucet was shut off as a temporary measure and full repair was deferred. This limits the project completion score.
• The reviewer themselves identified the leak location, which slightly reduces the experience score for diagnostic skill.

This WW Score report is based on a single review and is not statistically reliable — treat all dimension scores as preliminary indicators only until more reviews are available.

Only a single review is available, dated December 2012, making this data over a decade old and of very limited reliability. That review does speak positively across all four dimensions: the contractor arrived quickly (within 45 minutes), completed the water main repair in 2 hours, charged only $10 for parts plus a reasonable hourly rate, and demonstrated competent hands-on skill in diagnosing and repairing the break. Scores are kept conservative across all dimensions due to the single-review basis and the significant age of the data.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated December 28, 2012 — over 12 years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• With only one review, there is no way to detect patterns, consistency, or fake review signals. Treat all dimension scores with extreme caution.

This score report is based on a single review from 2012 and should not be trusted as a meaningful indicator of current contractor quality or consistency.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation. The single review explicitly mentions fair pricing (great price), successful project completion (fixed leak quickly, water running again), and technical competence (diagnosed and solved the problem efficiently). However, professionalism dimensions such as punctuality, communication, and attitude are not explicitly addressed. With only one data point, confidence across all dimensions is limited.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Single review is 5-star with enthusiastic language but lacks specific details about punctuality, communication style, or appearance/politeness.
• No data on professionalism dimension (punctuality, communication, attitude, responsiveness).

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score with only one review. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels across dimensions.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer praised Andy's responsiveness via text communication, timely arrival, and prompt delivery of results and invoice, supporting moderate professionalism and project completion scores. The price of $30 was explicitly described as 'very reasonable,' justifying a strong pricing score. No information was provided about technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored. All scores are treated conservatively due to the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from September 2022, which is more than 12 months old. Recency weighting is reduced.
• Single review with generic positive language and no granular detail about technical work — cannot confirm or rule out fake review, but no strong red flags detected.
• Experience dimension has NO DATA — technical skill and workmanship quality are entirely unassessed.

This score report is based on a single review from over two years ago and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality or consistency.