Find Nearby Plumbers In Green Bay, Wisconsin

This single review paints a deeply concerning picture of both professionalism and project completion. The contractor explicitly agreed to a job, claimed via text that it was completed, and then invoiced for work that was never performed — a serious integrity failure. Professionalism is scored near zero due to the deceptive communication and failure to follow through on a commitment. Project completion is scored at 2 rather than 0 only to reflect that the job was at least agreed upon and scheduled, though it was never executed. Pricing and experience cannot be assessed as neither was mentioned in the review.

• CRITICAL: Contractor allegedly lied about completing work and attempted to invoice for a job that was never performed — this is a potential fraud indicator.
• Only 1 review is available. WW Score cannot be reliably calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.
• No data available for pricing or experience dimensions — these could not be scored.
• Recency note: Review is from August 2023. No additional reviews exist to establish a trend or pattern.

This score is based on a single review and should be treated as highly preliminary — however, the nature of the complaint (alleged deception and non-performance) is a serious red flag that warrants significant caution when considering this contractor.

Only a single review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The one review mentions 'reasonably priced,' which provides limited evidence for the pricing dimension, scored conservatively at 80 due to the vague phrasing and single data point. No explicit information was provided about professionalism, project completion, or experience, so those dimensions cannot be scored. The review is generic in nature and lacks specific detail, further limiting its analytical value.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• Review is vague and lacks specific detail (e.g., no mention of technician behavior, job outcome, or technical skill), reducing its usefulness across most dimensions.
• Review is over 3 years old (dated May 2021) — recency concern applies; this data may not reflect current service quality.

This score report is not reliable for decision-making purposes, as it is based on a single, older, and detail-sparse review that provides usable data for only one of the four scoring dimensions.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review praises Andy's responsiveness and quick turnaround on a septic tank cover replacement, demonstrating strong professionalism and project completion. However, pricing is not discussed, and experience/workmanship quality is not explicitly evaluated. A minimum of 3 reviews is required for meaningful scoring.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review provided; minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is from 2020 (4+ years old); recency is a concern for current contractor assessment
• No pricing information mentioned; cannot evaluate price-friendly dimension
• No explicit discussion of technical skill or workmanship quality

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume; at least 3 reviews are needed to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer praised responsiveness and same-night availability, suggesting solid professionalism. Pricing was described as fair given the late-night emergency context, earning a conservative but positive pricing score. The sewer line cleaning was completed the same night, indicating follow-through on project completion. No information was provided about technical skill or workmanship quality, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Single review cannot be cross-validated for authenticity or consistency.
• Experience dimension has no data and was excluded from scoring entirely.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated with very low confidence.

This score is not reliable and should not be used for decision-making — it is based on a single review with no corroborating data across any dimension.

This single review comes from a self-described retired plumber who observed the installation firsthand, lending some credibility to the technical praise offered. The reviewer highlights conscientiousness, attention to detail, and a refusal to cut corners — all pointing to strong workmanship and experience. Professionalism is implied through the workers' diligent conduct during the job, though no explicit mention is made of punctuality, communication, or pricing. Project completion is inferred from the water heater install being observed through to a satisfactory finish, but no detail is given about timelines or follow-up. With only one review, all scores carry very low confidence and should not be treated as reliable indicators of consistent performance.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Pricing dimension has zero data and cannot be scored.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• Review is dated July 2022 — over 2 years old at time of analysis. No recent reviews available to confirm current performance trends.

This score profile is based on a single review from 2022 and should be considered highly unreliable — far more reviews across all dimensions are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn about this contractor's overall quality.

This single review provides explicit praise across all four dimensions: Brian demonstrates professionalism through perfectionism and honest communication; pricing is described as reasonable and fair with transparent guidance on value; project completion is evidenced by successful work on multiple properties over time; and experience is reflected in his technical knowledge and problem-solving ability. However, with only one review, confidence in these scores is severely limited and cannot support a reliable overall WW Score calculation.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old) — recency is a concern for current contractor assessment
• Single review with uniformly high praise across all dimensions may not represent typical customer experience distribution

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable WW Score; a minimum of 3 reviews is required, and ideally reviews should be from the past 12 months to reflect current service quality.