Find Nearby Plumbers In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. This single review documents severe professionalism failures (dismissive attitude, rudeness, hanging up on customer) and complete project non-completion (refused to visit the site). However, a single review cannot establish a reliable WW Score. Pricing and experience dimensions are not mentioned.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2017 (7+ years old) — does not reflect current business practices
• No data on pricing, value, or technical experience
• Cannot calculate weighted WW Score with fewer than 3 reviews

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable score. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a meaningful WW Score, and this single dated review provides insufficient evidence of current contractor performance.

Only one review was available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is positive across all dimensions, praising Keith's technical ability (solving a problem others couldn't), reasonable pricing, engaging communication, and helpful advice. However, a single data point cannot establish reliable patterns or confidence in the contractor's overall performance.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from January 2021, over 3 years old. No recent performance data available.
• SINGLE REVIEW BIAS: One positive review does not establish consistent performance patterns.

This analysis cannot be trusted for decision-making purposes; a minimum of 3 recent reviews is required to generate a statistically meaningful WW Score.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer explicitly praises William as professional and knowledgeable, and expresses satisfaction with both the cost and the results of a tree removal job. Pricing is noted as significantly better than competing tree service companies, suggesting strong value. However, the reviewer mentions that photos are still forthcoming, meaning full verification of the completed work quality is not yet confirmed. All four dimensions receive conservative scores due to the extremely limited data pool.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from August 2023, which is over 12 months old depending on current date — recency weighting is reduced.
• The reviewer mentions 'Pictures to come' suggesting the review may have been submitted before full project documentation was available, slightly reducing confidence in project completion assessment.
• Single review with no corroborating reviews — all dimension scores should be treated as preliminary estimates only.

This score is not reliable and should not be used for decision-making, as it is based on a single review with no corroborating data across any dimension.

The single review available paints an extremely negative picture across nearly every dimension. The reviewer explicitly describes the contractor as late every day, rude, unprofessional, and rotating through different workers with minimal daily output (approximately 3 hours per day). The job was left incomplete after three weeks despite a one-week promise, which is a severe project completion failure. No pricing information was provided beyond a warning about potential losses exceeding $10,000, so pricing cannot be scored. With only one review, all scores carry very limited confidence and should be interpreted with caution.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single reviewer and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• No pricing dimension data available — this dimension was excluded from scoring entirely.
• The review is strongly negative and highly detailed, suggesting authenticity, but independent corroboration is absent.

This score is based on a single 1-star review and should not be considered statistically reliable — seek additional reviews before making any hiring decision.

Only one review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. That single review is strongly positive, highlighting Dan's courteous and professional demeanor, prompt response on a holiday weekend, and clear communication — all pointing to high professionalism. Project completion is supported by the reviewer noting the water heater was replaced and additional repairs were made in a timely manner. Experience is inferred from the successful emergency repair and the reviewer's enthusiastic endorsement, though no technical specifics are described in depth. Pricing was not mentioned at all, leaving that dimension entirely unscored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2016, making it over 8 years old. Recency weighting is a significant concern — this review may not reflect current service quality.
• With only one review, fake review detection is not possible. The review is specific enough (holiday weekend, water heater burst, named technician 'Dan') to appear genuine, but no pattern analysis can be performed.

This score should be treated as highly preliminary and largely unreliable — it is based on a single review from 2016, providing insufficient data to draw meaningful conclusions about current service quality.

Only a single review is available, dated July 2010, making this analysis extremely limited in reliability. The review speaks positively about Tom's team's professionalism — notably their care for a visually impaired passerby and their effort to replace a damaged sidewalk tile, which suggests strong customer-facing conduct. Project completion is scored conservatively at 78 because while the job was completed, a gas line was struck during digging — an incident that required a third-party utility crew (PECO) to return and repair, indicating a notable complication during execution. Experience is similarly scored conservatively at 72, as the gas line strike raises a mild concern about site awareness, even though the reviewer ultimately expressed satisfaction and acknowledged the line was mismarked by PECO. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated July 2010 — over 14 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• A gas line was struck during excavation. While the reviewer attributed the mismark to PECO, this is a safety-relevant incident that warrants note.
• No pricing, value, or cost information was mentioned anywhere in the review — that dimension cannot be scored.

This score is based on a single review from 2010 and carries very low reliability — it should not be used as a meaningful indicator of this contractor's current quality or consistency.