Find Nearby Plumbers In Madison, Wisconsin

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 5 reviews needed to produce a statistically meaningful WW Score. While the available reviews are uniformly positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience favorably, the sample size is too small to confidently represent the contractor's overall performance. Additionally, the reviews span a 10-year period (2013–2022), with the oldest review being over a decade old, limiting recency validity.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Minimum 5 reviews recommended for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Reviews span 2013–2022. The oldest review (2013) is over 10 years old and should carry minimal weight. Only 1 review is from the past 12 months (2022).
• UNIFORMLY POSITIVE PATTERN: All 3 reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback. While not necessarily fake, this lack of variance limits confidence in the assessment.
• LIMITED PRICING DATA: Only 1 review mentions pricing ("very reasonable"), insufficient for robust pricing assessment.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews, minimum 5 required). Any score derived from this data would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making. Additional recent reviews are needed to establish a trustworthy performance baseline.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for reliable scoring. While all three reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience favorably, the sample size is too small to produce a trustworthy aggregate score. Additionally, pricing is not addressed in any review, leaving that dimension completely unscored.

• Sample size of only 3 reviews is below minimum threshold for reliable WW Score calculation
• Two reviews are significantly dated (2019 and 2020), with only one review from 2024 — recency is limited
• All three reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language; no negative feedback or balanced perspectives present
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — cannot assess value for money or fairness of pricing
• Pattern of universal praise without any critical detail or mention of challenges could suggest selection bias rather than fake reviews

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (3 reviews minimum required). Any score calculated would be highly speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Analysis is severely limited by only 3 total reviews with conflicting narratives. Two positive reviews (2007, 2018) praise professionalism, fair pricing, quality workmanship, and timely completion. However, one highly negative 2019 review alleges long delays, messy work, and denial of service despite payment. The extreme contradiction between positive historical reviews and the recent complaint, combined with the very small sample size, makes any aggregate score unreliable. The 2019 dispute suggests potential serious issues that cannot be adequately assessed with current data.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews total — insufficient for reliable scoring. Minimum 5 reviews recommended.
• SEVERE CONFLICT: 2019 review describes serious allegations (delays, poor workmanship, denial of service) directly contradicting positive 2018 and 2007 reviews. This suggests either a significant service quality decline or a genuine dispute requiring investigation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are 12+ years old (2007, 2018). Only one recent review (2019) which is highly negative. Cannot assess current service quality.
• UNRESOLVED DISPUTE: The 2019 review references a cancelled check and denial of work — suggests unresolved customer complaint that warrants direct inquiry.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and irreconcilable conflict between historical positive reviews and a recent serious complaint. Do not rely on any aggregate score; investigate the 2019 dispute directly before engaging this contractor.

All three reviews are highly negative, with ratings of 1.0, 1.0, and 2.0 respectively. The first two reviews allege predatory sales tactics involving unnecessary repairs and pressure to install expensive septic systems. The third review documents poor project execution (incorrect installation despite provided specifications), unresponsive customer service, and disputed billing practices. While the third review acknowledges the installer's quality work and likeable demeanor, the overall pattern reveals systemic issues with follow-through, accountability, and customer service recovery. With only 3 reviews and all negative, reliable scoring is not possible.

• CRITICAL: All three reviews are 1-star or 2-star ratings with serious allegations of unethical business practices
• First two reviews allege predatory tactics targeting homeowners in vulnerable positions (home sales, state compliance)
• Third review documents installation errors, refusal to correct mistakes promptly, disputed billing, and dismissive customer service
• No positive reviews present to balance assessment; sample size is very small (n=3)
• Reviews span 2018-2021; no recent reviews available to assess if practices have changed
• Allegations suggest potential pattern of behavior rather than isolated incidents

This assessment is unreliable due to insufficient review volume (only 3 reviews) and uniformly negative sentiment. A WW Score cannot be calculated responsibly. The consistent pattern of serious complaints across different service types (inspections, pumping, installation) warrants caution, but a larger, more recent sample is essential before drawing firm conclusions about current business practices.

Analysis is severely limited by only 3 total reviews, with 2 being unusable (one is a duplicate reference and one is from 2011). The single substantive negative review from 2014 documents significant professionalism failures (2-hour lateness, technician errors requiring customer correction, incomplete promised work) and project completion issues (incorrect installations, wasted billable time). The 2011 positive review praises punctuality, coordination, and workmanship quality, but its age (13+ years) limits relevance. Pricing is never explicitly discussed in any review. The extreme polarity (1-star vs 5-star) and minimal dataset make any aggregate score unreliable.

• Only 3 reviews total; 1 is a duplicate reference ('see above for details'), leaving effectively 2 substantive reviews
• Reviews span 13 years (2011–2014); no recent data from past 12 months available
• Extreme rating polarity (1-star and 2-star vs 5-star) with no middle-ground reviews suggests potential selection bias or significant service inconsistency
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions; cannot assess value or fairness
• Second review is non-substantive and should not be weighted equally

This score should not be trusted for decision-making. The dataset is too small, too old, and too polarized to provide meaningful guidance. At minimum, 5–10 recent reviews (within 12 months) are needed to establish reliable confidence in any WW Score.

Only one review contains substantive, usable data. The positive review from 2018 (Scott Hamon) describes excellent professionalism, fair pricing, complete project delivery, and strong technical skill. However, this single data point is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The other two reviews are either abusive/incoherent (2022-07-16) or lack specificity (2022-06-10), and neither provides actionable dimension data. The single usable review is also over 5 years old, limiting its relevance to current service quality.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 of 3 reviews contains usable information. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• REVIEW QUALITY ISSUE: 2022-07-16 review contains abusive language, incoherent phrasing, and excessive capitalization suggesting emotional distress rather than factual assessment. Credibility is questionable.
• REVIEW SPECIFICITY ISSUE: 2022-06-10 review ('Complete scammers, ran up huge bill with no results') lacks any specific details about what work was performed, what went wrong, or what the actual charges were. Cannot extract reliable dimension data.
• RECENCY CONCERN: The only substantive positive review is from June 2018 — over 5 years old. No recent reviews with usable data to assess current service quality.
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: One detailed positive review vs. two negative/unclear reviews creates an unreliable picture. Cannot determine if negative reviews reflect legitimate service failures or other issues.

This analysis is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Fewer than 3 usable reviews exist, and the single positive review is from 2018. Additional recent, detailed reviews are required before a trustworthy WW Score can be calculated.