Find Nearby Plumbers In Spokane, Washington

Only one review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The single reviewer praises Dana Fleming's 40 years of experience and describes him as extremely knowledgeable, supporting a moderately high experience score. The job was completed — a leak was fixed and a garbage disposal was sourced and installed — indicating solid project follow-through. Professionalism is inferred from the reviewer's strong intent to use him again, though no specific details about punctuality or communication were provided. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• Score should not be used for contractor comparison or recommendation without additional reviews.

This score is based on a single review and should be considered highly preliminary — it reflects one customer's experience only and cannot be treated as a reliable indicator of overall contractor performance.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly provisional. That review is positive and specific, praising Stephen's rapid response time (within an hour, on-site within 15 minutes), professional demeanor, and honest troubleshooting approach without upselling. The reviewer explicitly noted technical competence in diagnosing a well pump issue. Pricing was indirectly praised through the mention of not overselling or fixing things that are not broken, suggesting transparent and fair service. However, with only one data point from 2019, no reliable pattern can be established.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The sole review is dated 2019-06-17, making it over 5 years old. Recency weighting heavily penalizes this data point as it does not reflect current performance.
• With only one review, there is no way to detect patterns, consistency, or fake review signals — treat all dimension scores with extreme caution.
• Scores assigned are conservative given the LIMITED confidence level across all dimensions.

This score report is based on a single review from 2019 and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality — seek additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

Only one review is available for analysis. The review mentions honesty and upfront communication (professionalism dimension), which is positive. However, no information is provided about pricing, project completion, or technical experience. With only a single data point and three dimensions lacking evidence, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• Insufficient review volume — only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Three of four dimensions have no data. Score is not representative of contractor performance.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data; at least 3 reviews are required for meaningful assessment.

This single review paints a strongly positive picture across all four dimensions. The reviewer explicitly praises Doug's responsiveness, helpfulness, and genuine attitude, supporting a high professionalism score. Pricing is directly addressed — described as competitive and roughly half the cost of competitors — warranting a strong but conservatively capped pricing score. Project completion is supported by the reviewer noting Doug scheduled and completed the backflow test within 2 days when others were booked over a month out, though no detail is given about the actual job outcome beyond scheduling. Experience is implied through the reviewer's confidence in Doug's guidance and troubleshooting ability, but no specific technical detail is provided, keeping that score conservative.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis. No dimension should be treated as validated.
• Review was self-submitted to Yelp by the reviewer specifically because the business lacked an existing profile — this is unusual and warrants mild scrutiny, though the review itself contains specific, credible detail that reduces fake review concern.
• Review is dated 2018-05-17 — this is over 6 years old. Business quality and practices may have changed significantly since then. Recency weighting is not applicable with only one review.

This score report is based on a single review from 2018 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of overall contractor quality — additional reviews are strongly needed before any meaningful trust can be placed in these scores.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. Additionally, the single review contains only generic praise ('usually pretty good', 'do good work') with no specific evidence tied to any of the four scoring dimensions (professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience).

• Only 1 review provided; minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is extremely vague with no specific details about punctuality, communication, pricing, project completion, or workmanship
• Review date is from 2013 (11+ years old); recency cannot support current assessment
• No actionable evidence present to score any dimension

This assessment cannot be trusted; insufficient data and review age make any scoring impossible.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided. This single review contains severe allegations regarding professionalism (non-responsiveness, ghosting), project completion (incomplete work, wrong installation, refusal to address defects), and experience (installation defects causing property damage). However, a single review cannot establish a reliable WW Score.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old) — recency is a concern
• Single negative review cannot be validated against other data points
• No opportunity to assess consistency or detect patterns

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; at least three reviews are required to establish baseline reliability.