Find Nearby Plumbers In Middletown, Connecticut

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.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generic positive language and limited specific detail about work scope or challenges.
• One review is from December 2023 (older than 12 months); one is from September 2024 (recent).
• Pricing dimension mentioned in only 1 review; all other dimensions mentioned in 2 reviews. Confidence across all dimensions is LIMITED due to low mention counts.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 2 were provided. Do not rely on any composite scoring at this time.

Both reviews are highly positive and mention rapid response times, problem resolution, and fair pricing. However, with only 2 reviews total, the sample size is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The reviews explicitly praise Clint's responsiveness (called back in minutes, arrived within hours on Saturday), honesty, reasonable rates, and ability to restore water service quickly. All dimensions show strong performance but are based on extremely limited data.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are significantly dated (2016 and 2019). No recent reviews from past 12 months available.
• LIMITED SAMPLE: All scores are based on 1-2 mentions only, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all dimensions.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews). While the available feedback is positive, the age of reviews and minimal sample size prevent reliable assessment of current service quality.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The review explicitly praises the plumber's professionalism and describes him as 'very good,' but also indicates the project took several weeks due to initial contractor failure. Project completion is scored conservatively due to the extended timeline, though the plumber ultimately delivered. No data exists regarding pricing or technical experience beyond general competence.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• Review is from 2014 (10+ years old) — recency is very low
• Limited detail on scope, pricing, and technical problem-solving
• Cannot assess for fake review patterns with only one review

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient data volume (minimum 3 reviews required); treat any single-review assessment as exploratory only.

This single review from June 2019 reports severe deficiencies across all dimensions: poor communication and responsiveness (professionalism), a significant discrepancy between quote and final bill (pricing), delayed completion and incomplete work quality evidenced by low water pressure in new installation (project completion and experience). However, with only one review and data from over 5 years ago, no reliable WW Score can be calculated. The review provides explicit negative feedback but insufficient volume to establish trustworthy contractor performance metrics.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from June 2019 (5+ years old). Does not reflect current contractor performance.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot determine if this represents systemic issues or isolated incident without additional data.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (n=1) and significant age of the single review. Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for contractor evaluation.

Based on a single review, Jeff demonstrated strong professionalism by responding quickly on a holiday weekend, maintaining a polite and friendly demeanor throughout the visit. Project completion was solid — both the originally reported sink issue and a secondary shower pressure problem were resolved within approximately 90 minutes. His experience is reflected in his ability to diagnose and fix two separate plumbing issues efficiently, as well as proactively offering advice on future preventive upgrades. Pricing was not mentioned at all in this review, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. All scores are treated conservatively due to the extremely limited sample size of one review.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from June 2020, which is more than 4 years old. Recency weighting is a concern — this review does not reflect recent performance.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Price Friendly dimension has no data and cannot be scored.
• Single review with all positive sentiment — insufficient data to detect patterns, fake review risk cannot be assessed.

This score report is based on a single review from 2020 and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use this data to make a hiring decision without gathering significantly more recent customer feedback.

Only one review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. Professionalism received a conservative score of 72 because while the plumber Jorge was described as courteous and on time, there was a notable failure in responsiveness — the first call went unanswered and no callback was ever received, which is a meaningful negative mark. Project completion scores moderately at 80, as the job appears to have been completed (gas line moved, insert installed) with neatness noted, though no explicit confirmation of full sign-off or follow-up is provided. Experience scores highest at 85, supported by explicit mentions of Jorge being knowledgeable and efficient. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Responsiveness issue flagged: reviewer explicitly states the first call resulted in no callback, which negatively impacts the professionalism score.
• Review is dated January 2020 — over 4 years old at time of analysis. This data may not reflect current service quality.
• Single review provides insufficient basis for confidence in any dimension score. All scores should be treated as highly speculative.

This score report is based on a single review from 2020 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality — far more reviews across a recent time period are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.