Find Nearby Plumbers In Yakima, Washington

With only 3 reviews, this dataset is too small to produce a reliable WW Score. The reviews show extreme polarization: one 5-star review praising the owner's listening skills, vision, and artistic execution, versus two 1-star reviews citing severe communication failures, job abandonment, and unresponsiveness. Professionalism scores are heavily dragged down by explicit mentions of ignored calls/emails and poor customer service across two reviews. Project completion is compromised by documented job cancellations and scheduling failures. The single positive review mentions strong experience and workmanship, but this is outweighed by the pattern of non-completion in the negative reviews.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews total — insufficient for reliable scoring. Minimum 5 reviews recommended.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: 1 five-star vs. 2 one-star reviews suggest either inconsistent service delivery or potential data quality issues.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2020 and 2022 (older than 12 months); only one review from 2023. Older reviews may not reflect current operations.
• JOB ABANDONMENT PATTERN: Two separate reviews document jobs being declined or cancelled after initial commitment, indicating systemic project completion issues.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Multiple explicit mentions of ignored calls, delayed responses (1-month delays), and poor follow-through across negative reviews.

This score should NOT be trusted for decision-making. The sample size is too small, the reviews are polarized, and most data is older than 12 months. Collect at least 5 additional recent reviews before drawing conclusions about this contractor's reliability.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. The reviews are contradictory: one 1-star complaint citing slow completion, poor workmanship (seal failure, caulking mess), and billing opacity; one 5-star praise citing speed, professionalism, and affordability. Both reviews mention professionalism and pricing, but with opposite conclusions. The extreme polarity and small sample size make any aggregate score unreliable. All dimension scores are based on LIMITED mentions (1–2 reviews each), and the conflicting narratives prevent confident scoring.

• Only 2 reviews provided — statistically insufficient for reliable WW Score calculation
• Extreme polarity: 1-star and 5-star reviews with contradictory claims (one says 'slow,' other says 'quick'; one says poor workmanship, other says 'thorough')
• Reviews are 6+ years old (2017–2018) — no recent data to assess current performance
• 5-star review uses generic praise language ('more than pleased,' 'strongly recommend') with minimal specific detail
• 1-star review provides specific complaints (seal failure in 3 days, caulking mess, billing issues) — more credible detail
• Insufficient data to calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 protocol

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2), extreme rating polarity, and age of reviews (6+ years). Do not rely on any aggregate score; instead, investigate the specific complaints in the 1-star review independently.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, experience, and fair pricing, but the sample size is too small to establish confidence in any dimension. The reviews lack specificity about project completion timelines and follow-through on larger jobs.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — consider monitoring for review authenticity as sample grows
• No explicit mentions of project completion, timeliness, or callbacks in either review
• Review dates span 5 months (Feb 2024 to Jul 2024) — both within past 12 months but limited temporal diversity

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews). Do not use this score for decision-making; collect additional customer reviews before drawing conclusions about contractor performance.

Only a single review is available, which describes a strongly negative experience. The contractor (Ken) called on the day of the scheduled appointment to refuse the job due to unwillingness to work with the home warranty provider (American Home Shield), which the reviewer explicitly labeled as unprofessional. Project completion scores very low because the work was abandoned before it even began. No information was provided regarding pricing, workmanship quality, or technical skill, so those dimensions cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.
• The sole review is dated 2015-05-07, making it over 9 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current business practices.
• Pricing and Experience dimensions have no data whatsoever and are excluded from any scoring.
• The contractor refused to perform the job on the scheduled day, which is a serious project completion and professionalism concern explicitly stated in the review.

This score is based on a single review from 2015 and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn from this data alone.

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer indicates the worker encountered an unexpected complication with the drain problem and handled it calmly, suggesting reasonable problem-solving ability and follow-through. Project completion is supported by the phrase 'finished the work' and the enthusiastic closing remark. Professionalism is inferred from the worker's composed attitude when faced with a more complex issue than anticipated. Pricing is not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All scored dimensions are based on a single mention each, resulting in LIMITED confidence across the board.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — that dimension is entirely unscored.
• Review is relatively brief and lacks specific detail, limiting the depth of analysis possible.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance — significantly more review data is required before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The single review explicitly mentions poor professionalism (rudeness toward customers during consultation), but provides no information about pricing, project completion, or technical experience. A reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews with substantive data across multiple dimensions.

• Only 1 review available — far below minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2022 (over 2 years old) — recency is poor
• No data on pricing, project completion, or experience dimensions
• Cannot calculate composite WW Score with confidence

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment of contractor quality; only one dated review with limited dimensional coverage is available.