Find Nearby Plumbers In Kenosha, Wisconsin

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. While both reviews are positive and mention professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience, the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about contractor performance.

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Both reviews are from 2019-2020 (4-5 years old). No recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• Review 1 contains generic praise language ('Top of the line expertise', 'Highly recommended') with limited specific detail about the work performed.
• Insufficient data to detect patterns or validate authenticity with confidence.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and age of reviews (4-5 years old with no recent data). Any score derived would be unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews describe a completed basement finishing project and speak positively about communication, updates, and customer satisfaction, supporting moderate professionalism and project completion scores. One review explicitly mentions reasonable pricing and superior craftsmanship, providing limited but positive signals for those dimensions. However, with only 2 reviews total, no dimension reaches even a MODERATE confidence level, and no WW Score can be reliably calculated. All reviews are from 2020, meaning they are over 4 years old and may not reflect current performance. The positive tone is noted but cannot be weighted heavily given the extremely small sample size.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• Both reviews are from 2020 (4+ years old) and do not reflect recent performance. Recency weighting is a concern.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive language. While not conclusively fake, the small sample and uniformly glowing tone warrant caution.
• Review 1 lacks specific detail beyond general praise, which limits its evidentiary value per scoring rules.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews were available, all are over 4 years old, and every dimension is rated at LIMITED confidence; significantly more recent reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. Both reviews document severe failures in professionalism (missed appointments, broken promises, poor communication) and project completion (technician no-shows on multiple scheduled dates). No information provided regarding pricing or technical experience. The pattern of repeated no-shows and unresponsiveness is consistent across both reviews.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably
• Both reviews are from 2022-2023 (older than 12 months) — recency is limited
• Severe and consistent pattern of no-shows and broken commitments across both reviews suggests systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents
• No positive reviews present to balance assessment

This assessment cannot be trusted as a comprehensive WW Score due to insufficient review volume; however, the consistent pattern of missed appointments and broken promises across both available reviews indicates serious reliability concerns with this contractor.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews analyzed, both from June 2022 (over 2 years old). Both reviews are severely negative, citing no-shows, missed deadlines, poor communication, material cost misquotes, and substandard workmanship. The first review explicitly documents a broken commitment and ghosting after a deposit was made. The second describes incomplete work requiring professional correction. While the evidence of poor performance is clear within these two reviews, the sample size is too small and the recency is too distant to produce a reliable WW Score.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews available — insufficient for reliable scoring (minimum 3 required)
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are from June 2022 (2+ years old) — no recent performance data
• SEVERE PERFORMANCE CONCERNS: Both reviews document critical failures in professionalism, project completion, and pricing transparency
• DEPOSIT DISPUTE: First review indicates potential financial dispute and ghosting after customer cancellation
• NO POSITIVE REVIEWS: 100% of available reviews are 1-star with explicit negative language

This assessment cannot be trusted as a WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews minimum threshold not met) and extreme age of data (2+ years). However, the available evidence suggests serious and consistent performance problems across multiple dimensions.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Review 1 (June 2024) praises the technician's demeanor and problem-solving but criticizes pricing as expensive. Review 2 (October 2022) is highly positive about responsiveness, first-time fixes, and competence, but is over 1.5 years old. All dimension scores are based on 1–2 mentions only, resulting in LIMITED confidence across the board. The conflicting signals on pricing (one complaint vs. no mention in the positive review) and the age gap between reviews prevent reliable scoring.

• Only 2 reviews total — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review 2 is from October 2022 (over 1.5 years old) — recency is weak
• Conflicting signals on pricing: one explicit complaint of 'pretty expensive' vs. no pricing mention in positive review
• All dimension mentions are at 1–2 level, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all dimensions

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=2). Any scores derived would be highly speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

With only two reviews, the data is highly limited and no reliable WW Score can be produced. The first review (2018) describes a positive experience with prompt, friendly service and satisfactory workmanship on a scraping and skim coating job. However, the second review (also 2018) is a serious negative account describing missed start dates, broken promises, no-shows, and an unfinished job after a deposit was paid — constituting a significant project completion failure. The two reviews are in direct conflict, and the severe allegations in the negative review heavily drag down project completion and professionalism scores. Experience receives a modest score due to one positive workmanship mention offset by one account of apparent incompetence or dishonesty.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score. Results should not be trusted for hiring decisions.
• Both reviews are from 2018, making all data over 6 years old. No recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• The negative review describes what may constitute fraud — taking a deposit and abandoning the job with repeated lies. This is a serious red flag.
• Pricing dimension has zero data — no reviews mentioned cost, value, or quotes in any direction.
• The stark contrast between a 5-star and 1-star review with no middle-ground data makes scoring highly unreliable.

This score should not be trusted for any hiring decision — only 2 reviews exist, both are over 6 years old, and they present completely contradictory experiences including one serious allegation of deposit fraud and job abandonment.