Find Nearby Plumbers In Green Bay, Wisconsin

FLUSH Septic Tank Service shows severe deficiencies across all measured dimensions based on limited review data. Two 1-star reviews document serious issues: non-transparent pricing with charges disclosed only after work completion, failure to complete a simple drain-clearing task requiring customer intervention, and lack of follow-up communication from management. One 5-star review from 2017 praised professionalism and reasonable pricing, but this positive feedback is heavily outweighed by recent complaints (2021, 2018) indicating systemic problems with pricing practices and technical competence. The stark contradiction between reviews and recency of negative feedback suggests deteriorating service quality.

• CRITICAL: Two 1-star reviews document explicit price gouging and non-disclosure of costs until after service completion — this is a serious business practice violation
• CRITICAL: Review from 2018 documents failure to complete basic drain-clearing work that customer completed easily with standard tools — raises serious questions about technical competence
• CRITICAL: 2018 review reports complete lack of follow-up from management (no callback after 6 weeks) — indicates poor accountability
• Recency concern: Most recent negative review is from March 2021; positive review is from May 2017 (4+ years old). Pattern suggests service quality has deteriorated significantly
• Only 3 reviews total — sample size is very small and limits reliability of any conclusions
• Positive review lacks specificity about pricing details and does not address the pricing transparency issues raised in negative reviews

This WW Score should be treated with extreme caution due to only 3 reviews analyzed. However, the consistency of serious complaints across two independent 1-star reviews regarding pricing practices and technical competence, combined with the age gap between positive and negative feedback, suggests genuine service quality concerns that warrant investigation before engaging this contractor.

This contractor's reviews paint an overwhelmingly negative picture across all four scored dimensions. Professionalism is critically low, with 8 of 9 reviews explicitly describing no-shows, broken promises, ghosting, lying, and threatening behavior including lien threats. Project completion is nearly nonexistent in the review record — multiple reviewers describe paid work that was never finished, abandoned mid-job, or completed so poorly that customers had to hire others to fix or finish it. Experience scores are also very low, with reviewers noting confusion on basic tasks, poor workmanship, and leaving messes. Pricing concerns center on demands for upfront payment followed by non-performance, which reviewers characterize as scam behavior. The single positive review (5-star, 2019) describes a responsive and knowledgeable visit for a furnace issue, but it is isolated, nearly 5 years old, and vastly outweighed by the volume and consistency of negative accounts.

• STRONG NEGATIVE PATTERN: 8 out of 9 reviews are 1-star. The consistency of complaints across independent reviewers — no-shows, ghosting, upfront money demands, incomplete work, lien threats — suggests a genuine and serious pattern of misconduct rather than isolated incidents.
• LIEN THREAT PATTERN: Multiple reviewers (at least 2) independently mention the contractor threatening to place liens on their homes and claiming to have 7 existing liens on other properties. This is a significant legal and ethical red flag.
• RECENCY NOTE: The most recent reviews (2023) are among the most severe, indicating the problematic behavior has not improved over time and may be worsening. The only positive review dates to December 2019, over 4 years before the most recent reviews.
• UPFRONT PAYMENT SCAM PATTERN: Multiple reviewers explicitly warn against paying upfront, describing a pattern where money is collected before work begins and then the contractor disappears or fails to perform.
• FAKE REVIEW CHECK: No fake review patterns detected. Reviews are varied in language, specific in detail, and span multiple years. The single positive review is brief but plausible. The negative reviews contain unique, specific details that suggest genuine independent experiences.
• LOW REVIEW VOLUME WARNING: Only 9 total reviews were analyzed. While confidence is HIGH due to strong directional consistency, a larger review base would further validate these findings.

This WW Score is considered highly reliable given the strong directional consistency across 9 reviews spanning multiple years, with specific and independently corroborated complaints — this contractor should be approached with extreme caution or avoided entirely.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews are available, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The reviews mention professionalism (promptness, friendliness) and pricing (reasonable, transparent, no hidden charges), but lack sufficient detail and volume to establish reliable patterns. No explicit mention of technical skill or experience level was found.

• Only 2 reviews available — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are from 2012 (12+ years old) — recency is severely compromised; no recent customer feedback available
• Generic praise language with minimal specific detail (e.g., 'great,' 'pretty good job') limits confidence in assessment
• No explicit mention of experience, skill level, or technical quality in either review
• Insufficient data to detect patterns or validate consistency

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and severe recency issues (all reviews from 2012). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be trusted for decision-making.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a trustworthy WW Score. The reviews present sharply contradictory experiences: one highly positive account praising reliability and fair pricing, and one highly negative account citing poor communication, missed appointments, unprofessional behavior, and questionable technical decisions. With such limited and conflicting data, no reliable overall score can be computed.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Extreme polarity: one 5-star and one 1-star review with no middle ground
• Significant time gap between reviews (2023-02-11 vs 2022-04-17) — older review may reflect past service quality
• Professionalism dimension shows severe contradictions: first review praises reliability; second review documents 2-week communication delay, missed appointment, rude dismissal, and apology
• Technical concern raised in negative review: water heater set to 137°F (unusually high; typical is 120°F) — suggests possible experience/quality issue
• Positive review lacks specificity on professionalism details; negative review provides detailed, credible examples of failures

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and extreme contradictory evidence; any score derived would be meaningless and should not be used for decision-making.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Review 1 (2022) praises honesty and fair assessment but provides no detail on professionalism or completion. Review 2 (2019, over 4 years old) reports incomplete work, poor responsiveness, avoidance of phone calls, and unresolved refund requests, severely damaging scores for professionalism and project completion. The extreme contradiction between reviews and recency concerns prevent reliable WW Score calculation.

• Only 2 reviews total — insufficient for reliable scoring
• Review 1 is generic praise with no specific details about work quality or professionalism dimensions
• Review 2 is from July 2019 — over 4 years old and outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• Extreme polarity between reviews (5-star vs 2-star) with no middle ground suggests potential data quality issues
• Review 2 documents serious red flags: incomplete work, phone avoidance, unresponsiveness to email, and unresolved refund — these are critical failures

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and recency concerns; however, the documented project completion failures and communication avoidance in the 2019 review represent serious contractor red flags that warrant caution regardless of the positive 2022 review.

Both reviews are from 2019 and contain exclusively positive feedback with no critical details or complaints. Review 1 explicitly praises professionalism, reasonable pricing, thorough work, and problem-solving. Review 2 highlights professionalism, technical competence, and customer education. However, with only 2 reviews total—both 5-star, both from over 4 years ago, and both containing generic praise patterns—the sample size is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The data lacks recency and diversity of experience.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are from 2019 (4+ years old). No recent data available to assess current service quality.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW PATTERN: Both reviews are 5-star with no specific complaints, similar enthusiastic tone, and generic praise structure. Lack of critical detail or balanced feedback is atypical of authentic reviews.
• SAMPLE SIZE TOO SMALL: Cannot establish confidence in any dimension with only 1-2 mentions per category.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews), complete lack of recency (all reviews from 2019), and suspicious uniformity in tone and rating. Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.