Find Nearby Plumbers In Scranton, Pennsylvania

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one substantive review was analyzable (the second review contains only the word 'as' and provides no usable information). The single usable review praises punctuality and honesty (professionalism), confirms problem resolution (project completion), and demonstrates technical competence in diagnosing and fixing a boot leak (experience). However, with only 1 mention per dimension and 2 total reviews, confidence is severely limited and any score would be unreliable.

• Only 2 reviews total; 1 is essentially blank ('as'), leaving only 1 substantive review for analysis
• All reviews are from 2012 — over 11 years old with no recent data
• Insufficient review volume to calculate a trustworthy WW Score
• Single review cannot establish patterns or validate consistency

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 1 usable review) and extreme age of data (2012). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

With only two reviews spanning several years, meaningful scoring is extremely limited. Professionalism receives a below-average score due to one reviewer explicitly describing the owners as 'very cocky' and unwilling to negotiate, which directly undermines customer-facing conduct, partially offset by the first reviewer's positive service experience. Pricing is mixed — one reviewer notes decent prices relative to competitors, while the other implies a reluctance to offer discounts. Project completion and experience are each supported by only one review, where a successful faucet installation on a granite countertop suggests adequate workmanship, but this single data point cannot be treated as reliable evidence.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Most recent review is from March 2021, over 3 years old. No recent reviews available to assess current service quality.
• One review contains a serious unverified personal allegation about a named individual. This content is inflammatory and unsubstantiated and should not be treated as factual evidence about current business operations.
• Review volume is too low to detect fake review patterns, but the small sample size itself is a reliability concern.

This score profile should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — only 2 reviews exist, both are over 3 years old, and one contains unverified inflammatory content that distorts the overall picture.

Both reviews are positive and mention multiple relevant dimensions, including professionalism, pricing, and technical skill. The first reviewer specifically praised Matt's meticulousness, attention to detail, cleanliness, and willingness to communicate — strong indicators of professionalism and experience. The second review highlights quick response, reliability, friendliness, affordability, and knowledgeability. However, with only two reviews total, no dimension reaches even MODERATE confidence, and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated. Scores across all dimensions are conservative to reflect this limited data.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are 5-star with entirely positive language and no critical feedback. While the reviews do contain specific details (oil burner servicing, dishwasher repair, attention to detail, quick response), the small sample size and uniformly perfect ratings warrant caution.
• Review dates are from 2022, meaning all available data is more than 2 years old. No recent reviews are present to confirm current service quality.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, all older than 2 years, making it insufficient to reliably assess this contractor — significantly more review data is needed before the WW Score can be trusted.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are severely negative, citing unprofessionalism (no-shows, rudeness, hanging up on customers), problematic payment policies (demanding payment before work completion, credit card surcharges), and failure to complete scheduled appointments. One review is from 2018 (over 5 years old); only one review is recent (2024). No positive feedback or evidence of technical skill/experience is present in either review. A reliable WW Score cannot be calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY ISSUE: One review is from December 2018 (5+ years old). Only 1 recent review from 2024.
• SEVERE NEGATIVE PATTERN: Both reviews are 1-star with serious complaints about professionalism and business practices.
• NO EXPERIENCE DATA: No reviews mention technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability.
• PAYMENT DISPUTE: First review raises concerns about payment policies (upfront payment demand, credit card surcharges) that may indicate systemic business practice issues.

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. With only 2 reviews, one of which is 5+ years old, there is insufficient data to produce a trustworthy WW Score. The contractor should be evaluated only after accumulating at least 3-5 recent reviews with balanced feedback.

Only two reviews exist, making any scoring highly unreliable. The positive review (2016) praises responsiveness, punctuality, reasonable emergency pricing, and effective problem resolution. The negative review (2014) directly contradicts this, citing poor customer service, high prices, and chronic tardiness. The two reviews are in near-total opposition across every dimension, resulting in middling scores that reflect genuine uncertainty rather than average quality. The negative review is also older (2014) and the positive review is from 2016, but neither is recent enough to carry strong recency weight.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules. All dimension scores should be treated as illustrative only.
• The two reviews are diametrically opposed in sentiment, suggesting either significant service inconsistency over time or that one or both reviews may not be fully representative.
• Both reviews are older than 8 years (2014 and 2016). There is no recent data available. Current service quality is entirely unknown.
• The negative review lacks specific detail about the nature of the work performed, which slightly reduces its evidentiary weight, but its explicit mentions of pricing and punctuality issues are still scoreable.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the extremely small sample size makes any pattern analysis meaningless.

This WW Score report has very low reliability due to only 2 reviews being available, both of which are over 8 years old and directly contradict each other — no meaningful conclusions about current service quality can be drawn.

Both reviews are extremely negative with ratings of 1.0 stars. The first review documents a no-show appointment, lack of communication, and poor workmanship (cartridge failed after 4 months, furnace continued to drip). The second review alleges dishonesty, inconsistent explanations, failure to properly diagnose a heating system that failed inspection, and excessive pricing ($3,500 for a check). All four dimensions show severe deficiencies: professionalism is undermined by no-shows and hostile communication; pricing is criticized as excessive and unfair; project completion is incomplete with recurring issues; and experience is questioned due to misdiagnosis and poor technical work. However, with only 2 reviews, confidence in any score is inherently limited.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required)
• Both reviews are from 2019–2021 (2–4 years old) — recency is poor; no recent data available
• Second review contains extensive capitalization and emotional language, but specific allegations (failed inspection, circulating pump not functioning, air in lines, inconsistent explanations, $3,500 charge) are detailed and verifiable — not flagged as fake
• First review is also detailed with specific dates, amounts ($200), and timeline (cartridge failed after 4 months) — credible complaint pattern
• No positive reviews present to balance assessment
• Both reviews allege serious issues: no-show/no-call, dishonesty, misdiagnosis, and overcharging — pattern suggests systemic problems rather than isolated incidents

This assessment is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Only 2 reviews exist, both extremely negative and dated 2–4 years ago, providing insufficient data volume and recency to calculate a trustworthy WW Score. A minimum of 3–5 recent reviews is required before any score can be considered valid.