Find Nearby Plumbers In Madison, 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. The reviews do provide evidence of technical skill and problem-solving ability (minimally-invasive leak detection, knowledge of when to refer), but lack sufficient detail on professionalism, pricing, and project completion to establish reliable dimension scores.

• Total review count (2) is below the minimum threshold of 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Significant recency gap: one review from 2024, one from 2014 (10-year-old review with limited relevance to current service quality)
• Professionalism dimension: no explicit mentions of punctuality, communication, attitude, or responsiveness
• Pricing dimension: completely absent from both reviews — no data on value, fairness, or transparency of quotes
• Project completion dimension: only 1 mention with limited detail on timeliness or follow-through

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and sparse coverage across key dimensions. Any score derived would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

Both reviews consistently praise John for punctuality, courteousness, and reasonable pricing, which supports moderate-to-strong scores across professionalism and pricing dimensions. Project completion is implied positively — the sewer backup was resolved and John cleaned up afterward — but neither review provides granular detail about the scope or complexity of the work. Experience scores are inferred from the efficient resolution of a main water line backup, which suggests competence, but no technical specifics are provided. All scores are held conservative due to the very small sample size of only two reviews.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are from 2020 (over 4 years old) — recency is a concern; no recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• Both reviews are 5-star with broadly positive but non-specific language. While not conclusively fake, the limited detail and identical rating pattern warrants caution.
• Pricing described only as 'reasonable' in both reviews — no specific figures or comparisons provided, limiting confidence in the pricing score.

This score profile should be treated as highly preliminary and low-trust due to only 2 reviews, both over 4 years old, with limited technical detail — significantly more recent reviews are needed before any reliable assessment can be made.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a statistically meaningful WW Score. While both reviews are positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience favorably, the sample size is too small to produce a trustworthy composite score. Additional reviews are needed before a reliable assessment can be made.

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for WW Score calculation.
• One review is from 2021 (over 3 years old); only one review from 2024. Recency of data is limited.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback mentioned. While not necessarily fake, the absence of any critical detail or balanced perspective limits confidence.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 2 were provided. Collect additional customer reviews before making hiring decisions based on this data.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews explicitly praise professionalism (prompt service, professional technician, clear communication) and project completion (furnace and A/C installed, work completed). One review mentions pricing favorably (one-third the cost of competitor quote). However, with only 2 reviews total, confidence in any aggregate score is severely limited. No technical experience or skill-level details were discussed beyond successful installation.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable WW Score calculation
• Both reviews are older than 5 years (2014 and 2019) — recency is a concern for current service quality assessment
• No mention of experience/technical knowledge dimension in either review
• Limited detail on specific workmanship quality or problem-solving ability

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score — minimum 3 reviews required. The two reviews available are too few and too old to confidently assess current contractor performance.

Both reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of a contractor who fails to follow through on commitments. The first review documents a detailed, multi-day pattern of broken promises, no-shows, unanswered calls, and ultimately an implausible claim of retirement to avoid the job — representing near-total failure in professionalism and project completion. The second review corroborates this pattern, describing work that had to be begged for and plumbing installations so defective that a second contractor was required to fix the leaks, indicating serious deficiencies in workmanship. No pricing information was mentioned in either review, so that dimension cannot be scored. With only two reviews available, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably, but all available signals are severely negative.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The most recent review is from January 2020, which is over 4 years old. The second review is from December 2016, nearly 9 years old. Neither review reflects recent contractor performance and both should be treated with caution regarding current operations.
• The contractor in Review 1 ultimately claimed to be retired and no longer doing plumbing — this may indicate the business is no longer active, which would make all scores moot.
• No positive reviews were provided for analysis. It is unknown whether this sample represents the full review history or a filtered subset. If this is the complete review record, the contractor's track record is entirely negative.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both of which are several years old, making it insufficient for a reliable WW Score calculation — however, the available evidence is unambiguously and severely negative across all scoreable dimensions.

The two reviews present a sharply divided picture. The 2013 review is highly detailed and damning: the crew destroyed a toilet and refused to take financial responsibility, offered only $20 toward a $200+ replacement, charged full rate for a job they damaged, and one plumber later left an incoherent, profanity-laced voicemail — all of which severely drags down professionalism, project completion, and experience scores. The 2011 review is brief and positive, praising professionalism, pricing, and responsiveness, but lacks any specific detail. Because only two reviews exist and they directly contradict each other, no reliable WW Score can be produced. The negative review is substantially more detailed and credible, and it also generated a BBB complaint that went unanswered, which further weighs against the contractor.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold of 3 for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• The 2011 positive review is extremely brief and generic with no specific details, raising concerns about its evidentiary value.
• The 2013 negative review is highly detailed and corroborated by a BBB complaint filing, lending it significantly more credibility.
• Both reviews are over 10 years old (2011 and 2013) — no recent data exists. Current contractor quality is entirely unknown.
• A BBB complaint was filed per the negative review and reportedly went unanswered — this is a serious flag regarding accountability.
• Alleged unprofessional after-hours voicemail containing profanities was reported — if accurate, this represents a severe professionalism violation.

This WW Score report should not be trusted for decision-making purposes: only 2 reviews exist, both are over a decade old, they directly contradict each other, and the sole detailed review describes serious misconduct including property damage, financial evasion, and an unanswered BBB complaint.