Find Nearby Plumbers In Oshkosh, Wisconsin

Both reviews are extremely positive and mention professionalism (customer-oriented, wonderful service), project completion (furnace installed, problem found and resolved), and experience (efficient work, thorough checks). However, with only 2 reviews total and no pricing information mentioned, the dataset is too small to calculate a reliable WW Score. The reviews lack specific technical details and contain generic praise language, which limits confidence in the assessment.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — cannot calculate reliable WW Score
• Both reviews are 5-star with generic praise and minimal specific details
• Oldest review dates to 2018 (6+ years old) — recency is a concern
• No pricing dimension data available across any reviews
• Suspiciously similar positive tone and lack of specificity may suggest limited authentic feedback

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews with usable data) and lack of pricing information. A minimum of 5-10 reviews with diverse feedback is required for meaningful WW Score calculation.

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. The positive review praises professionalism and fair pricing in general terms, while the negative review — which is significantly more detailed — describes a serious pattern of poor workmanship, charging for the contractor's own mistakes, and a non-itemized bill of $475. The negative review directly contradicts the positive review's claims about fair pricing and professionalism. The weight of the detailed negative account pulls all dimension scores down considerably, particularly project completion and experience, where the contractor installed a defective product and failed to resolve the issue without additional cost to the customer.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The positive review (2022) is generic and lacks specific detail, which reduces its evidentiary weight.
• The negative review (2020) is highly detailed and describes potential deceptive billing practices — charging the customer for the contractor's own defective product installation and non-itemized invoicing.
• Both reviews are older than 12 months from a typical current date, reducing recency confidence. The most recent review is from November 2022.
• The stark contrast between a vague 5-star review and a detailed 1-star review warrants caution — the positive review may not reflect a genuine or complete customer experience.

This score report should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality due to the critically low review count of 2, the age of both reviews, and the significant imbalance between a vague positive review and a highly detailed negative account describing billing misconduct and poor workmanship.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score calculation. Both reviews are highly negative, citing poor professionalism (yelling, arguing, disrespect, failure to follow house rules) and unresponsiveness to emergency service claims. No meaningful data exists for pricing or experience dimensions.

• Total review count (2) is below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are 1-star ratings with no positive mentions
• One review is from 2019 (5+ years old) — recency is poor
• Limited dimensional coverage — only professionalism and project completion mentioned
• Insufficient data to assess whether negative pattern is representative or isolated

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews). Any conclusions drawn from this data would be unreliable.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. The reviews present sharply contradictory experiences: one highly positive account praising timeliness and helpfulness, and one strongly negative account citing lack of transparency on pricing, poor warranty communication, and indifferent customer service. The 2018 review is significantly older (5+ years), limiting its relevance to current operations. Professionalism and pricing show conflicting signals across the limited sample.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• EXTREME POLARITY: Reviews are contradictory (5-star vs 1-star) with no middle ground, suggesting either significant service inconsistency or non-comparable customer experiences.
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from August 2022 (recent), but the other is from January 2018 (5+ years old). Historical data may not reflect current business practices.
• GENERIC PRAISE: First review contains vague superlatives ('top notch,' 'won't find any better') with limited specific detail about actual work quality.
• PRICING TRANSPARENCY ISSUE: Negative review explicitly cites lack of upfront disclosure on installation fees, a serious professionalism concern.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2). The extreme divergence between reviews and significant age gap of one review prevent confident assessment of current contractor performance.

This single review paints a deeply negative picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism scored near zero due to explicit dishonesty — the company falsely claimed they could fix the well cap issue, the technician admitted he did not know how to address it, and a promised follow-up call never came. Project completion is critically low because the primary reason for the visit was entirely unresolved and abandoned without any follow-through. Experience is also very low, as the technician openly stated he did not know how to handle the core issue the customer called about. Pricing received a poor score because the customer was charged over $100 for a minor sink drain replacement plus a service fee, while the main problem went unaddressed — representing extremely poor value.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• This review is dated 2018-02-08, making it over 6 years old. It may not reflect the contractor's current performance.
• All four dimension scores are based on a single mention each and should be treated with very low confidence.
• No positive reviews are present to provide balance — this report reflects only one customer's experience.

This score is based on a single review from 2018 and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall quality or current performance.

This single review documents severe failures across all dimensions. The contractor failed to complete the septic tank emptying on two separate visits despite being paid in advance, demonstrating poor project completion and technical competence. Professionalism was compromised by rude phone behavior and inability to locate a septic tank cap. Pricing concerns are evident through advance payment collection ($163) followed by an additional bill ($200) for work never completed. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as the scoring methodology requires minimum evidence thresholds to ensure statistical validity.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews to be statistically meaningful.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from July 2020 (4+ years old). Does not reflect current business practices.
• SEVERE PERFORMANCE ISSUES: Review documents failure to complete contracted work twice, advance payment collection without service delivery, and unprofessional communication. If accurate, this represents critical business failure.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW BIAS: One extremely negative review cannot be balanced against positive feedback. Additional recent reviews are essential before drawing conclusions about current service quality.

This analysis is unreliable for decision-making purposes. A single review from 2020 is insufficient to calculate a valid WW Score. At minimum, 3 recent reviews are required; ideally 5+ reviews from the past 12 months would be needed to establish trustworthy scoring.