Find Nearby Plumbers In Tacoma, Washington

Only one substantive review was available for analysis (the first review contains no text). The single detailed review from March 2015 documents severe deficiencies across all dimensions: poor workmanship (motor installed incorrectly, tub damaged, improper installation causing structural concerns), non-responsive communication (missed appointments, ignored calls/texts), incomplete project work (old piping not removed as promised), and pricing issues (low initial estimate doubled without written agreement). This review is nearly 9 years old and represents a single data point, making any aggregate score unreliable.

• Insufficient data: only 1 substantive review available; cannot calculate reliable WW Score
• Review recency issue: the single detailed review is from March 2015 (9+ years old); no recent data available
• First review contains no text content and cannot be analyzed
• Single review with extreme negative ratings (1.0) across all dimensions; no corroborating or contrasting data

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (only 1 usable review) and extreme age of available data; any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Only one review contains substantive usable data. The 2016 positive review mentions affordable pricing, successful project completion across multiple jobs (apartment remodel, home theater installation, toilet repair, garbage disposal repair), and quality workmanship. However, the review exhibits multiple red flags suggesting potential fabrication: repetitive phrasing ('thank u' repeated multiple times), generic praise without specific technical details, excessive enthusiasm with inconsistent capitalization and spelling errors, and suspiciously perfect outcomes across diverse service categories. The 2016 fraud allegation cannot be verified but raises serious concerns about company legitimacy. With only one review and significant authenticity concerns, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW: The 5-star review from 2016-04-23 exhibits multiple fabrication indicators including repetitive thank-you phrases, generic praise lacking specifics, inconsistent capitalization/spelling, and suspiciously perfect outcomes across unrelated service types (remodeling, electrical, plumbing repairs).
• SERIOUS ALLEGATION: The 1-star review from 2016-07-09 alleges fraud, non-bonding status, and payment theft. This is a severe claim that cannot be independently verified but warrants caution.
• EXTREME RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from 2016 (8+ years old). No recent reviews available to assess current business practices or legitimacy.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews total, with 1 flagged as potentially fake, leaves only 1 potentially authentic review. This is below the minimum threshold for reliable scoring.
• PROFESSIONALISM DIMENSION: Not mentioned in any review; cannot score.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient data (only 1 potentially authentic review), suspected review fabrication, serious unverified fraud allegations, and complete absence of recent reviews. Any decision regarding this contractor should not be based on this analysis and should include independent verification of licensing, bonding, and recent customer references.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The second review provides detailed, specific praise across all four dimensions (professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience), while the first review is generic with no substantive detail. Each dimension is mentioned in only 1 review, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all metrics.

• Insufficient review volume: only 2 reviews analyzed; minimum 3 required for reliable scoring
• First review is suspiciously generic ('Great job happy with results') with no specific details — potential low-effort or fake review
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback; no negative or balanced perspectives present
• All dimension mentions come from a single detailed review; no corroboration across multiple independent sources
• Review dates are from November 2023 (approximately 13 months old); recency is borderline acceptable but limited

This score cannot be calculated or trusted due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required). Even if calculated, confidence would be critically low given that all substantive data derives from a single detailed review with no independent corroboration.

Only one review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The single reviewer noted that Cam arrived on time as promised and completed the job promptly, suggesting solid punctuality and follow-through. Pricing was described as fair, indicating reasonable value. No specific mention of technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability was made, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored. All dimension scores are conservative due to the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Experience dimension has no data and cannot be scored.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be treated as representative of overall contractor quality.
• Review is from July 2023 — over 12 months old at time of analysis; no recent reviews available to confirm consistency.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review data; the single available review provides only a preliminary and low-confidence signal across three of four dimensions.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review explicitly mentions professionalism (friendly, funny, good communication), project completion (timely manner, job completed), and experience (quality of waterline installation work). However, pricing is not addressed. With only one data point, confidence in any dimension is severely limited and cannot support a reliable overall WW Score.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring (minimum 3 reviews recommended)
• Review is from 2023 (over 1 year old) — recency is a concern
• No pricing information mentioned — cannot assess Price Friendly dimension
• Single positive review with no negative details — cannot validate against potential selection bias

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1). At least 3 independent reviews are required to calculate a reliable score.

This single review provides explicit positive mentions across all four dimensions: Jacob demonstrated professionalism through punctuality, communication, politeness, and respectfulness; pricing was fair with no hidden charges; project completion was thorough with quick turnaround; and experience was evident in his skilled workmanship and problem-solving approach to a challenging 1940s valve replacement. 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. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Single review is 5-star with enthusiastic language but lacks comparative context.
• No negative feedback or challenges mentioned; cannot assess how contractor handles problems or complaints.
• Review date is recent (March 2024), which is positive for recency.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A single review, regardless of quality, cannot provide statistically meaningful assessment of contractor performance. Minimum 3 reviews required.