Find Nearby Plumbers In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Both available reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of serious service failures. Professionalism is critically low: one reviewer describes a no-show appointment and inability to reach the contractor, while the other documents six-plus months of ignored callbacks. Project completion is also critically low, with the one job described resulting in a persistent leak that was never properly resolved, ultimately requiring a third party to fix. Experience is scored very low based on the single completed job, where the contractor failed to obtain a required permit and the repair work did not resolve the underlying issue. Pricing data is entirely absent from both reviews, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated 2015–2017, making them over 7 years old. Current contractor performance may differ significantly and cannot be assessed from this data.
• Review 1 references a contractor named 'Bill' while Review 2 references 'Phil' — it is unclear if these reviews are about the same individual. If they are different people, the data may be mixed and unreliable.
• No positive reviews are present in this dataset. This may reflect selection bias in the reviews submitted, or may accurately reflect contractor performance. Interpret with caution.
• One review explicitly notes a permit violation (failure to obtain required township permit), which is a serious legal and safety concern beyond standard service quality issues.

This score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, both of which are over 7 years old and may reference two different contractors — no meaningful WW Score can be produced from this data.

These two reviews present a stark contradiction that prevents reliable scoring. The first review (Jan 2021) describes severe professionalism failures including unannounced visits, lack of communication, poor handyman skills, and alleged illegal conduct (mail theft, welfare fraud). The second review (Dec 2020) praises reasonable pricing, efficiency, and trustworthiness. The extreme polarity, combined with only 2 total reviews and the first review's focus on landlord conduct rather than contractor work, makes it impossible to calculate a meaningful WW Score. The data is insufficient and contradictory.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• EXTREME POLARITY: First review is 1-star with serious allegations (mail theft, welfare fraud, poor workmanship); second is 5-star with high praise. No middle ground.
• CONTEXT CONFUSION: First review primarily addresses landlord-tenant disputes and alleged federal crimes, not contractor/plumber services. Relevance to workmanship assessment is unclear.
• ALLEGED CRIMINAL CONDUCT: First review alleges mail theft (federal offense) and welfare fraud. These are serious claims but fall outside typical contractor evaluation scope.
• WORKMANSHIP DETAIL LIMITED: Only one specific job mentioned (washing machine repair) in first review, described as 'lousy' and 'easy fix.' Second review provides no specific work details.
• DATE PROXIMITY: Both reviews from late 2020/early 2021 — over 3 years old. Recency is poor.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Mention counts for all dimensions are 1-2, indicating very limited evidence base.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient reviews (n=2, minimum 3 required), extreme contradictory ratings, and unclear relevance of the primary complaint to contractor services. Do not rely on any scoring from this dataset.

Only a single review is available, which severely limits scoring reliability. The reviewer praises Chad as pleasant, patient, and honest, supporting a reasonable professionalism score. Pricing is explicitly called 'very reasonably priced' with a contrast to industry overcharging, supporting a moderate-to-high pricing score. Project completion is implied by work being performed on two homes, but no specific detail about timelines, callbacks, or follow-through is provided, so the score is kept conservative. Experience/workmanship quality is not explicitly discussed, so no score can be assigned for that dimension.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from April 2019, which is over 5 years old. Recency weighting is a significant concern — contractor quality and business practices may have changed substantially since then.
• Single review with no corroborating reviews makes it impossible to detect patterns, consistency, or fake review signals. Treat all scores with extreme caution.
• Experience dimension returned NO DATA — workmanship quality was not explicitly described in the available review.

This score report is based on a single review from 2019 and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality — significantly more recent reviews are needed before any meaningful assessment can be made.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review praises project completion (prompt installation) and experience (knowledgeable, expert work, superior diagnostic capability), but provides no explicit information about professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, attitude) or pricing (value, fairness, transparency). A meaningful score requires substantially more review data.

• Only 1 review provided — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2014 (10+ years old) — recency is a significant concern
• No data on professionalism or pricing dimensions
• Cannot calculate weighted WW Score with confidence below 3 reviews

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 review was provided, and it is over a decade old. Do not rely on any aggregate score until substantially more recent reviews are available.

This single review describes severe service failures across professionalism and project completion. The customer reports a week-long delay in propane delivery despite payment, unresponsive communication when contacted, and failure to fulfill service commitments until cancellation prompted immediate action. However, with only one review and no data on pricing or technical experience, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• This appears to be a propane delivery service, not a plumber/contractor — review may be miscategorized
• Single negative review does not establish pattern; additional reviews required for trustworthy assessment

This analysis is unreliable for decision-making purposes; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a valid WW Score, and this single review suggests a service category mismatch.

This single review provides explicit praise for pricing ('great prices'), project completion (multiple jobs completed successfully including complex electrical panel replacement), and technical skill (solved tripping GFCIs, fixed lighting issues, tackled work that 'scared away other electricians'). However, with only one review, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per methodology requirements. The review contains no specific mentions of professionalism dimensions such as punctuality, communication, or responsiveness.

• Insufficient data: only 1 review analyzed. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliable calculation.
• Review is from 2018 (6+ years old) — does not reflect current service quality.
• Generic praise language ('Great company. Great people. Great prices.') with limited specific detail on professionalism, communication, or punctuality.

This score cannot be trusted for decision-making. A single review from 2018 is insufficient to establish a reliable WW Score; minimum 3 recent reviews are required.