Find Nearby Plumbers In Scranton, Pennsylvania

Only a single review is available, which describes severely substandard workmanship — specifically that nothing was level and a second contractor had to be hired to remediate the work. This directly and negatively impacts both Project Completion and Experience scores, both of which are scored at 10 to reflect near-total failure rather than zero, as the job was at least attempted. No data exists for Professionalism or Pricing, so those dimensions cannot be scored. With only one review, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review available — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from May 2021, which is over 3 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• The sole review is a 1-star complaint describing work so poor that a second contractor was required to fix it — this is a significant quality red flag.
• Absence of reviews for Professionalism and Pricing means 45% of the weighted scoring model has no data and cannot be evaluated.

This score report is highly unreliable due to a single review with limited dimensional coverage and data that is over three years old — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or consistency can be drawn.

Only a single review from 2010 is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer praises Mike Burke for showing up personally rather than sending inexperienced workers, which speaks modestly to both professionalism and experience. Pricing is noted positively, with the reviewer stating he consistently quotes lower than competitors. Project completion is not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. All scores are conservative given the extremely limited data and the age of the review (over 14 years old).

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2010-05-12, making it over 14 years old. This data is significantly outdated and should be weighted very low.
• With only one review, it is impossible to detect fake review patterns, but the single data point provides no statistical reliability.
• Project completion dimension has no data and was excluded from scoring entirely.

This score report is based on a single review from 2010 and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality or performance.

This review describes a product sale transaction (air conditioner via Facebook Marketplace) rather than a contracting or plumbing service. The reviewer documents severe professionalism failures including non-responsiveness (7+ unanswered calls), hostile communication (yelling, accusations), and refusal to address a legitimate complaint about receiving a used, damaged unit instead of the advertised new item. Project completion is critically compromised as the transaction was never resolved and the customer received no remedy. However, with only 1 review and a context mismatch (product sales vs. contracting/plumbing services), a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• CRITICAL: This review describes a product sale (air conditioner purchase on Facebook Marketplace), not a contracting or plumbing service. The WW Score engine is designed for contractor/plumber service reviews and is not applicable to retail product transactions.
• Insufficient review volume: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• The review describes alleged fraud (bait-and-switch with used/damaged unit) and severe communication breakdown, but these are product-sale issues, not service-delivery issues.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (1 review, minimum 3 required) and fundamental context mismatch—the review describes a product sale transaction rather than a contracting or plumbing service engagement.

Only one review was provided and its text is listed as 'unknown', meaning no usable content exists to evaluate any of the four scoring dimensions. A star rating of 5.0 was recorded but cannot be used as a substitute for written evidence under the WW scoring rules. No dimension scores could be calculated, and therefore no WW Score can be produced. This contractor's profile requires substantially more review data before a meaningful assessment is possible.

• Insufficient Data — only 1 review provided; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a WW Score reliably.
• Review text is 'unknown' — no written content available for any dimension analysis.
• Review is dated 2016-04-18, which is more than 8 years old. Even if text were available, recency weighting would significantly reduce its reliability.
• A single 5-star rating with no review text is a common pattern in low-quality or placeholder review data. No fake review flag is raised definitively, but the data is not usable.

This score report cannot be trusted for any decision-making purpose as there is zero usable review content and only a single data point from over 8 years ago.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer praises Rob for listening to their needs, providing a fair estimate, and delivering an energy-efficient solution that outperformed competing bids in both concept and timeline alignment. Professionalism is supported by mentions of honesty, attentiveness, and communication. Pricing is noted as fair, and the project appears to have been completed successfully given the reported reduction in energy bills. Experience is implied through Rob's creative, green-focused problem-solving approach, though no technical specifics are described.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2016, making it over 8 years old. Recency weighting is very low — this data may not reflect current performance.
• All praise is positive with no critical feedback, but given it is a single review this is not sufficient to flag as fake — simply insufficient data.
• No specific technical details are provided, limiting confidence in the Experience dimension score.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single review that is over 8 years old, providing far too little data to draw meaningful conclusions.

This single review documents severe failures in professionalism and project completion. The contractor failed to show up on the scheduled date, was 7+ hours late, and subsequently rescheduled indefinitely without resolution. No information is available regarding pricing, technical skill, or experience. With only one review and critical gaps in dimensional coverage, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• Only 2 of 4 dimensions have data; 2 dimensions have no mentions
• Review is from 2018 (6+ years old) — recency is poor
• No positive data points across any dimension

This assessment is unreliable for decision-making purposes due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required), poor recency, and incomplete dimensional coverage.