Find Nearby Plumbers In Spokane, Washington

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The single review explicitly mentions professionalism (punctuality, communication, attitude), project completion (thorough assessment, follow-through), and experience (expertise, technical knowledge). However, pricing is not addressed. With only 1 review, confidence in any dimension is severely limited and cannot support a reliable overall WW Score.

• Only 1 review provided — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review contains generic praise language ('exceptional', 'commendable', 'highly recommend') with limited specific detail about actual work performed
• No pricing information mentioned — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• Cannot assess recency impact with single review

This score cannot be calculated reliably with only one review; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

This single review provides positive evidence across all four dimensions: the owner demonstrated professionalism through friendliness and clear communication; pricing was fair and transparent compared to a competitor's inflated quote; the project was completed successfully with verified results; and technical expertise was evident in the diagnostic approach and problem-solving. However, with only one review, confidence in any aggregate score is severely limited and cannot reliably represent contractor performance.

• Insufficient data: only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• Single positive review may not be representative of typical customer experience.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required). The single review is positive but too dated and limited in sample size to draw meaningful conclusions about overall contractor performance.

Only one review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The single reviewer speaks positively about the Boucher crew completing a drainage project, noting good communication, patience in answering questions, and ensuring customer satisfaction. Project completion and professionalism are both touched on, and the mention of addressing concerns and keeping the customer informed suggests reasonable technical competence. However, no pricing information is mentioned at all, and with only one review, no dimension can be scored with meaningful confidence.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated 2018 — over 6 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• No pricing or value-for-money information mentioned in any review.
• Single review with no corroborating data — scores should be treated as illustrative only, not reliable indicators of contractor quality.

This score is not reliable and should not be used for decision-making, as it is based on a single review that is over six years old with no pricing data and no corroborating evidence across multiple customers.

Only a single review is available, dated August 2015, making it over 9 years old and of very limited reliability. The reviewer briefly mentions fair pricing, a great job, and experience, but provides no specific details to substantiate any of these claims. Professionalism dimensions such as punctuality, communication, and responsiveness are entirely unaddressed. Scores have been kept conservative given the vague, generic nature of the praise and the age of the review.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from August 2015, over 9 years old. Recency is extremely poor and this data may not reflect current performance.
• Review language is generic and brief with no specific details ('great job', 'very fair', 'really experienced'). This limits scoring confidence significantly.
• Single 5-star review with no specifics raises mild concern about representativeness, though fake review pattern cannot be confirmed from one review alone.

This score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — it is based on a single, vague, nearly decade-old review with no specific details across any dimension.

This single review paints a deeply concerning picture of a contractor who has become unresponsive and unreliable. The reviewer explicitly describes repeated no-shows after confirmed commitments, unanswered calls and voicemails, and a complete breakdown in communication — driving professionalism and project completion scores very low. A small acknowledgment that the contractor did good work in a prior engagement prevents the experience score from bottoming out entirely, but that positive history is overshadowed by the current failure to follow through. With only one review available, no pricing data exists, and all scores carry very limited confidence. The overall pattern is one of abandonment of an existing customer relationship.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from July 2020, which is more than 1 year old. Recency weighting is not applicable but current contractor behavior may differ.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.
• The reviewer notes the contractor performed well previously, suggesting a possible decline in service quality or capacity over time rather than a consistently poor operator.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable as a general assessment of this contractor — seek additional reviews before drawing conclusions.