Find Nearby Plumbers In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

This single review touches on all four dimensions but provides minimal detail for any of them. The reviewer notes the contractor is well-priced, knowledgeable, and reliable in showing up, which speaks positively to professionalism and pricing. Project completion is supported by the mention of two completed jobs — a toilet fix, a new toilet installation, and a water heater install — all described as looking good and working well. Scores are kept conservative across the board given the extremely limited evidence base of just one review with brief, general commentary.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be treated as representative of overall contractor quality.
• Review language is positive but generic with minimal specifics — moderate caution advised when interpreting praise.

This score is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable — significantly more review data is required before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn about this contractor.

The single review available is a detailed, highly negative account from a customer who hired Rob Molnar for electrical and plumbing work on a house flip. Professionalism scored near zero due to repeated no-shows, failure to honor scheduled appointments, and an aggressive, dismissive response when confronted — including cursing out the customer. Project completion scored near zero as all electrical work failed borough inspection, required a second licensed electrician to remediate, and plumbing work also had to be redone by a separate contractor. Experience scored near zero given documented failures including reversed polarity on outlets, improperly run wiring into junction boxes, and substandard plumbing work — all requiring professional correction. Pricing data was entirely absent from the review and could not be scored.

• Only 1 review exists — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All scored dimensions are based on a single review, making all confidence levels LIMITED. Scores should be interpreted with extreme caution.
• The reviewer references text messages and an invoice as documentation, which adds credibility to the account and reduces likelihood of a fabricated complaint.
• No fake review patterns detected — the review contains specific, verifiable details (failed inspection, reversed polarity, junction box drywall repair, separate contractor remediation) consistent with a genuine negative experience.

This score is based on a single detailed negative review and cannot be considered statistically reliable; however, the specificity and documentation referenced in the review lend it credibility as an individual data point.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer noted the plumbers who contacted them seemed 'capable, respectful and helpful,' which provides limited signals for professionalism and experience. The reviewer expressed satisfaction with the outcome of a plugged toilet emergency, suggesting the job was completed successfully. However, no pricing information was mentioned at all, and the review describes a referral/dispatch service (Home Advisors) rather than a direct contractor relationship, which adds ambiguity to the data. Scores have been kept conservative given the extremely limited evidence base.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.
• This review appears to describe a referral/dispatch service (Home Advisors) rather than a specific individual contractor, which may mean the review reflects the dispatch experience rather than the plumber's own performance.
• No pricing or cost information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review data set — treat all dimension scores with significant caution.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable assessment of this contractor's overall quality; at least 3 reviews are required for a meaningful WW Score.

This single review from 2013 provides positive feedback across all dimensions. The reviewer highlights 20+ years of service history, responsive emergency support, thorough diagnostic work, and fair pricing practices (no additional service charges for follow-up work). However, with only one review and data over 11 years old, confidence in any calculated score is severely limited. The review lacks sufficient detail on specific technical quality or pricing transparency to support higher confidence scoring.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient data to calculate reliable WW Score. Minimum 3 reviews required.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review is from January 2013 (11+ years old). No recent data available to assess current service quality or business practices.
• LIMITED SCOPE: Single review cannot establish patterns or validate consistency across multiple customer experiences.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and extreme age of available data. At minimum 3 recent reviews are needed for any meaningful assessment.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The single review praises Gary's professionalism (responsiveness, knowledge, communication) and technical expertise (water systems, well/septic knowledge), but provides no information about pricing or detailed project completion timelines. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a statistically meaningful WW Score.

• Only 1 review available — far below the 3-review minimum threshold for reliable scoring
• No pricing information mentioned in the review
• Review is from 2021 (over 3 years old) — recency is a concern for current contractor assessment
• Cannot assess patterns of fake reviews with only a single data point

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment of the contractor. A minimum of 3 reviews spanning recent months is required to calculate a meaningful WW Score.

Only one review was provided and it contains no actionable information about any of the four scoring dimensions. The reviewer notes a prior positive relationship with Mr. Moore but provides no specifics about professionalism, pricing, project completion, or workmanship quality. The review primarily raises a concern that the contractor may no longer be in business, as all phone numbers are reported as out of service. No WW Score can be calculated from this data.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score.
• The sole review suggests the contractor may be retired or out of business, with all contact numbers reported as disconnected as of February 2019.
• The review is dated February 2019, making it over 5 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current service quality.
• Despite a 5-star rating, the review contains zero substantive detail about any scoreable dimension — the rating cannot be used to infer scores.

This score report is entirely unreliable for decision-making purposes due to insufficient review data, complete absence of dimension-specific evidence, and strong indications that the contractor may no longer be operating.