Find Nearby Plumbers In Spokane, Washington

With only two reviews, the dataset is far too small to draw reliable conclusions. The negative review is highly detailed and damning: the contractor failed inspection, attempted to deceive the inspector by asking the customer to artificially pressurize the system, then abandoned the job and deflected all blame onto the customer. This single review raises serious concerns across professionalism, project completion, and experience. The sole positive review is extremely brief and generic, offering no specifics about the work performed, which limits its evidentiary value and raises mild authenticity concerns.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. A minimum of 3 is required for a reliable WW Score. Results should not be used for decision-making.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW CONCERN: The 5-star review is suspiciously brief, generic, and contains no specific details about the job, contractor behavior, or workmanship. It cannot be weighted heavily.
• SERIOUS INTEGRITY FLAG: The 1-star review alleges the contractor explicitly asked the customer to fraudulently manipulate a plumbing system to pass inspection. If accurate, this represents a significant ethical and legal violation.
• ABANDONMENT FLAG: The 1-star review describes the contractor refusing to return calls, abandoning an incomplete and failed job, and blaming the customer for his own defective work.
• RECENCY NOTE: Both reviews are from early-to-mid 2022, making them over two years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.

This WW Score cannot be calculated due to insufficient review volume; the two available reviews are sharply contradictory, one is potentially generic or inauthentic, and the detailed negative review describes conduct serious enough to warrant significant caution before hiring this contractor.

This single review paints a genuinely positive picture of Reuben across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is supported by specific mentions of clear communication, phone-based diagnostics, and strong responsiveness. Pricing is noted as 'very reasonably priced,' though no specific figures or comparisons are provided. Project completion is implied through references to handling multiple projects over time, though no detail is given about specific job outcomes or timelines. Experience is suggested by the reviewer's confidence in his diagnostic ability and their declaration that he is the best plumber they have ever worked with, though this is a subjective and unverified claim from a single source.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis. Treat all scores as highly provisional.
• Review is enthusiastic and positive but lacks granular specifics on pricing figures, project timelines, or technical details — limiting scoring precision.
• No fake review patterns detected; the review contains personal context, specific behavioral details, and a geographic narrative that suggest authenticity.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be used as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — at least 3 reviews are required for a meaningful WW Score calculation.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While this single review is highly positive across all dimensions (punctuality, professionalism, cleanup, fair pricing, and owner expertise), a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews to account for variability and reduce the risk of outlier bias. All dimension scores are based on LIMITED evidence from a single data point.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Single review is uniformly 5-star with no critical details or specific challenges mentioned — could indicate limited sample bias rather than fake review pattern
• Recent review (July 2024) is positive, but no comparative data exists

This score cannot be trusted for decision-making. Minimum 3 reviews required before a WW Score can be calculated and reported with any confidence.

The single review analyzed is a 1-star account describing a serious incident involving a leak attributed to faulty workmanship that required the reviewer to call 911 and evacuate their family at 4am. Professionalism scored extremely low due to the owner threatening legal action, expressing indifference to negative feedback, and exhibiting hostile communication. Pricing scored near the bottom as the reviewer explicitly states the company overcharges and cannot explain what charges are for, including a follow-up charge of nearly $900 for unclear remediation work. Project completion scored marginally above zero because the company did return the next day and performed some corrective work, though the technicians themselves were uncertain what they had fixed, indicating deeply incomplete and unreliable follow-through. Experience scored very low given the faulty work that caused an emergency situation, though a fractional point is retained because some form of return visit and attempted repair did occur.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2016-11-16, making it over 8 years old. This data is significantly outside the recommended 12-month recency window and should be weighted accordingly.
• The reviewer explicitly states the 1-star rating was given only because the platform requires a minimum of 1 star, indicating their true sentiment is below the lowest available rating.
• Alleged faulty workmanship resulted in a 911 emergency call and family evacuation — this is a serious safety concern that warrants heightened scrutiny of this contractor.
• Owner allegedly threatened to sue the customer and add fees for negative reviews, which may indicate a pattern of intimidation rather than good-faith dispute resolution.

This score is based on a single review that is over 8 years old, making it statistically and temporally unreliable as a representation of current contractor performance — treat all dimension scores with extreme caution and seek more recent, multiple-source data before drawing conclusions.

A single review from August 2024 describes a highly positive experience with technicians Amanda and Ernie. The reviewer explicitly praised their persistence in solving a difficult problem, returning with different equipment until the issue was resolved, which speaks to both project completion and technical experience. Pricing was directly called out as 'very low,' indicating strong value. Professionalism was implied through prompt callbacks and a positive service attitude. However, with only one review, all scores carry very low confidence and should be treated as directional only.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single data point and carry LIMITED confidence. These scores should not be used for contractor evaluation without additional reviews.
• Cannot assess fake review patterns with only one review, but the review contains specific names and situational detail, which is a positive authenticity signal.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable assessment of this contractor's overall performance — significantly more reviews are required before any dimension score can be trusted.

Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. The single review mentions positive experience with crew friendliness and knowledge (experience dimension), favorable pricing compared to competitors (pricing dimension), and friendly demeanor (professionalism dimension). However, no information is provided about project completion, timeliness, or follow-through. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review available — insufficient sample size for reliable scoring
• No mention of project completion, timeliness, or callbacks — critical dimensions missing
• Review is generic in nature with no specific project details or outcomes described

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required). Collect additional reviews before making contractor selection decisions.