Find Nearby Plumbers In Kenosha, Wisconsin

This single review paints a positive picture across all four dimensions, but the extremely limited data set prevents reliable scoring. Professionalism is supported by mentions of easy contact, same-day service, respectfulness, and patient explanation. Pricing is referenced only briefly with the word 'reasonable,' warranting a conservative score. Project completion is implied through the successful fix of the sump pump issue and a long-term relationship since 2011 with no stated disappointments, though this is one reviewer's account. Experience is evidenced by the technician diagnosing the problem, demonstrating it to the customer, and resolving it, but again this rests on a single data point.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2018-12-03, making it over 6 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability as it may not reflect current service quality.
• All dimension scores are LOW CONFIDENCE due to single-mention basis. Treat all scores as directional indicators only, not reliable benchmarks.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — it is based on a single review that is over six years old, providing insufficient data across all dimensions.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly unreliable. The review is broadly positive, mentioning good work, good price, and a clean and professional crew, but it lacks specific detail on any dimension. Scores have been kept conservative across all dimensions due to the generic nature of the praise and the complete absence of corroborating reviews. Additionally, this review is from February 2019, making it over five years old, which significantly reduces its relevance to current performance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated February 2019, which is more than 5 years old. Current contractor quality cannot be assessed from this data.
• Review language is generic and lacks specific detail (e.g., no job type mentioned, no specifics on pricing or workmanship). This pattern is consistent with low-information reviews that may not reflect true customer experience.
• With only one review, fake review detection is inconclusive, but the vague, all-positive phrasing warrants caution.

This WW Score should not be trusted for decision-making purposes — it is based on a single, vague, and outdated review that provides insufficient evidence to evaluate this contractor across any dimension with meaningful confidence.

Only one review is available for analysis, which severely limits the reliability of any scoring. The single reviewer praised quick responsiveness to texts and phone messages, and noted same-day service completion, which informs limited scores for professionalism and project completion. No information was provided regarding pricing, value for money, or technical skill and workmanship quality. Per scoring rules, conservative scores have been applied given the extremely low mention count, and a WW Score cannot be calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Single review is generic in nature with no specific details about the job type, scope, or technical quality — treat with caution.
• Pricing and Experience dimensions have zero data and cannot be scored.

This score should not be trusted as a meaningful indicator of contractor quality — a single review provides insufficient evidence to draw any reliable conclusions.

This single review describes a severely failed service experience. The plumber arrived unprepared (insufficient equipment), failed to complete the job (clog remained), and refused to honor a callback without additional payment. All four dimensions show critical failures: poor professionalism in follow-up, unfair pricing practices, incomplete project delivery, and inadequate technical execution. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• RECENCY: Review is from March 2023 (approximately 2 years old). Current performance may differ.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot establish patterns or trends from one data point.

This analysis is unreliable for decision-making. A single negative review, while concerning, does not provide sufficient evidence to calculate a trustworthy WW Score. Minimum 3 reviews required.

This single review paints a severely negative picture across the dimensions that can be assessed. The contractor failed to show up for a scheduled appointment and then rescheduled six times over three days without resolution, indicating a near-total breakdown in both professionalism and project completion. Communication was reactive and inadequate — the customer was never proactively contacted before missed windows. No work was ever performed, so pricing and experience cannot be evaluated. The scores assigned are intentionally very low given the explicit and detailed account of repeated failure.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• No pricing or experience data present in any review — those dimensions scored as null.
• Review is from May 2022, which is over 12 months old. Recency weighting is a concern if used in isolation.
• Single data point only — all scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be used as a definitive assessment of this contractor.

This score is based on a single review from over two years ago and should be considered highly unreliable as a standalone assessment — additional reviews are essential before drawing any meaningful conclusions about this contractor.

This single review mentions all four dimensions positively: fast response time and friendly attitude (professionalism), pricing true to quote (pricing), issue fixed with no problem (project completion), and problem-solving ability (experience). However, with only one review, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per Step 4 guidelines. All scores are based on extremely limited data and should not be considered representative.

• Insufficient data — only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Single review is generic praise with minimal specific detail about the work performed.
• No way to assess consistency or patterns across multiple customer experiences.

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.