Find Nearby Plumbers In Madison, Wisconsin

This single review from 2011 provides limited evidence across three dimensions. The reviewer explicitly mentions competitive pricing, friendly/considerate attitude, and satisfaction of needs. However, with only one review and no data on technical experience or workmanship quality, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated. The review is over 13 years old, which further limits its relevance to current performance.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from November 2011 (13+ years old). Does not reflect current contractor performance.
• EXPERIENCE DIMENSION: No mention of technical skill, workmanship quality, or problem-solving ability in available review.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review) and extreme age of the data (2011). At least 3 recent reviews are needed to establish baseline confidence.

This single 1-star review describes a deeply problematic service visit. The plumber caused collateral pipe damage by using an inappropriate method (snake on fragile plastic pipes) despite the customer's expressed concerns, then left the property dirty and refused to provide a receipt. While the clog was technically cleared, a new leak was introduced and Phil's suggested fix was a cheap workaround rather than a proper repair. Pricing was low at $45 but the customer incurred $140 in downstream damages, severely undermining any value perception. The plumber's own admission afterward that he should have known the pipes were fragile confirms a significant lapse in professional judgment and technical experience.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from February 2009, making it over 15 years old. This data is extremely dated and may not reflect current service quality.
• No receipt was provided by the contractor, which the reviewer flagged as a potential tax reporting concern — this is a business practice red flag.
• Contractor caused property damage (burst pipe, water leak into kitchen below) and did not offer compensation or accountability beyond a $45 charge for the original job.
• Single review only — all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be used as a reliable indicator of overall contractor quality.

This score is based on a single review from 2009 and should be considered highly unreliable as a representation of the contractor's current or general quality of work.

This single review presents a mixed picture. The reviewer acknowledged the work looked professional and was completed in a workmanlike manner, but the core problem — a constantly running well pump — returned shortly after the repair, strongly suggesting a misdiagnosis. The $1,300 cost for a water tank replacement was described as 'very high,' and the reviewer explicitly believes the repair was unnecessary. The combination of a recurring problem and a potentially incorrect assessment drags down both the experience and project completion scores significantly, despite the physical work appearing tidy.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Reviewer explicitly states the original problem returned after the repair, suggesting possible misdiagnosis rather than a completed fix.
• Pricing was flagged as 'very high' by the reviewer, and the value is questionable given the problem was not resolved.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to single-review basis — treat all dimension scores with caution.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance; significantly more review data is required before any dimension score can be trusted.