Find Nearby Plumbers In Danbury, Connecticut

The single review available describes a boiler installation that was completed but with a significant technical error — the pipe was extended too far into the chimney, causing the new boiler to shut off repeatedly. The reviewer was incorrectly directed to hire a chimney cleaning service at their own expense ($200), which turned out to be unnecessary, as the fault lay with Adams Plumbing's own installation work. Professionalism scores very low because the owner David repeatedly failed to return calls or follow through on promised reimbursement and visits. Project completion is also scored poorly because while the boiler was physically installed, the job was not delivered correctly and the contractor did not take responsibility for remedying their own error.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• All four dimension scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• The review describes a potential accountability and follow-through failure by the business owner, including unreturned calls and a refused reimbursement for a service call caused by the contractor's own installation error.
• No fake review patterns detected — the review is detailed, specific, and includes named third parties (Eagan's Chimney, Mahopac), which adds credibility.

This score is based on a single detailed review and should be considered highly unreliable as a general assessment of this contractor — more reviews are needed before any confident conclusions can be drawn.

This single review paints a strongly positive picture of Tim Conlan Co. across multiple dimensions. The reviewer explicitly praises fair pricing, kind and trustworthy behavior, and quality workmanship over a long relationship spanning decades. The mention of handling plumbing emergencies in an antique home suggests meaningful technical experience. However, with only one review available, no dimension can be scored with meaningful confidence, and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 1 review provided — far below the minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is from 2019 — over 5 years old. No recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• Single review with highly emotional and personal context (end-of-life family reference) — while likely genuine, it cannot serve as a statistically meaningful data set.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as highly speculative.

This score is not reliable — it is based on a single review from 2019, providing insufficient data to draw any confident conclusions about current service quality across any dimension.

Only one review is available for analysis, which severely limits scoring reliability. The reviewer explicitly noted the contractor was 'very professional' and that scheduling was straightforward, supporting a modest professionalism score. Project completion is partially supported — the tank was pumped and the yard was left in good condition — but no detail on timeliness, follow-through, or complexity is provided. Pricing and experience dimensions received no mention whatsoever and cannot be scored. All scores are treated conservatively given the single-review basis.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2018 — over 6 years old. This data may not reflect current service quality.
• Professionalism and project completion scores are LOW CONFIDENCE due to single mention each — treat with caution.
• Pricing and experience dimensions have zero data and are entirely unscored.

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

Only a single review is available, dated August 2018, making any scoring highly conservative and unreliable. The reviewer explicitly praised promptness (arriving within 20 minutes of the call), professionalism, and cleanliness, supporting moderate-to-high marks in professionalism. The job was completed within the hour with the problem fully resolved, supporting a reasonable project completion score. Workmanship was described as 'excellent,' lending some evidence for experience, though no technical detail was provided. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated August 2018, which is more than 1 year old. Recency weighting is a concern — this data may not reflect current performance.
• Single review provides no basis for detecting fake review patterns, but also offers no corroboration for any score.
• Pricing dimension has zero data and is entirely excluded from scoring.

This score report is based on a single review from over six years ago and should be considered highly unreliable — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or consistency can be drawn.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, making any scoring highly unreliable. The review praises promptness, professionalism, knowledge, transparent pricing, and efficient problem resolution, which touches all four dimensions. However, the language is notably generic — phrases like 'fantastic experience,' 'highly knowledgeable,' and 'transparent and fair' lack specific detail about the actual work performed, costs, or timeline. All scores have been kept conservative in accordance with the limited evidence available. No WW Score can be calculated with fewer than 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review language is generic and lacks specific details (no job type described, no dollar amounts, no timeline mentioned), which is a common pattern in potentially inauthentic reviews.
• Single 5-star review with broad praise across all dimensions in one short paragraph — treat with caution.
• Recency note: Review is from May 2024, which is within the past 12 months and therefore carries full recency weight, but sample size remains critically insufficient.

This score should not be trusted for any decision-making purposes — a single generic review provides virtually no reliable signal about this contractor's actual performance.

This single review provides explicit evidence of strong professionalism (punctuality, communication, follow-up care), reliable project completion (identified and fixed the primary issue, returned promptly to address secondary damage), and solid experience (problem diagnosis and resolution). However, pricing is not mentioned at all. With only one review, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per protocol, and all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to insufficient mention count.

• Insufficient data: only 1 review analyzed. WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old); recency is a concern for current contractor reliability assessment.
• No pricing information provided; cannot evaluate Price Friendly dimension.

This assessment is unreliable for decision-making purposes. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a trustworthy WW Score; only 1 review was provided.