Find Nearby Plumbers In Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Both reviews speak positively about responsiveness, timeliness, and attitude, with one reviewer specifically noting mask-wearing and courteous behavior, supporting a modest professionalism score. Pricing is described as 'fair' and 'reasonable' in both reviews, but no specific figures or comparisons are provided, keeping the pricing score conservative. Project completion is supported by both reviews indicating jobs were finished successfully — a sink installation with trap and drain piping, and a stubborn basement clog resolved in about an hour. Experience is implied through successful technical outcomes in both cases, but neither review goes into detail about skill level or problem-solving complexity, warranting a conservative score. With only 2 reviews total, none of these scores carry meaningful statistical weight and should be treated as early indicators only.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings; while the content is specific enough to appear genuine, the small sample size makes it impossible to assess whether this reflects a consistent pattern.
• One review dates from January 2021, which is over 3 years old at time of analysis — recency weighting is a concern given only 1 of 2 reviews falls within the past 12 months.
• No negative feedback or constructive criticism present, but this is likely attributable to the very small sample size rather than fake review patterns — language and specifics in both reviews appear authentic.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — no reliable WW Score can be produced until at least 3 or more reviews are available, and meaningful confidence requires 5 or more.

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. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience favorably. However, the sample size is too small to establish reliable patterns or confidence in the overall assessment.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews provided — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• RECENCY CONCERN: One review is from 2011 (13+ years old); only one review from recent period (2021)
• LIMITED MENTION COUNTS: All dimensions scored on 1–2 mentions only, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all dimensions
• INSUFFICIENT DATA: WW Score cannot be calculated with only 2 reviews

This assessment cannot be considered reliable due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews, with 1 being over a decade old). A minimum of 3 recent reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Both reviews speak positively to professionalism, with specific mentions of respectful attitude, clear communication, and handling a heavy workload gracefully. Project completion is supported by both reviews describing jobs that were fully finished, including an emergency repair and a multi-fixture plumbing job completed in a single visit. Experience is evidenced by the technician's ability to diagnose and explain the issue clearly and manage complex multi-toilet and shower work. Pricing is entirely absent from both reviews, so no score can be assigned to that dimension. With only two reviews total, all scores must be treated as very low confidence and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — minimum threshold of 3 reviews not met; WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.
• One review is dated 2019 (over 4 years old at time of analysis); recency weighting significantly reduced for that review.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — the Pricing dimension has no data and cannot be scored.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings; while the review content contains specific details that reduce fake review suspicion, the small sample size prevents meaningful pattern analysis.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, one of which is over 4 years old, making all dimension scores LOW confidence and the overall WW Score unreliable — significantly more review data is needed before this contractor's ratings can be trusted.

This single review paints a severely negative picture across nearly every scoreable dimension. The contractor was fired after completing only one-third of the project, and the work that was completed was found to be in clear violation of local building codes, requiring complete disassembly and redo. Professionalism was explicitly poor — the contractor reportedly hung up on the customer repeatedly during attempts to discuss construction concerns, made daily excuses about slow progress, and ultimately blamed the customer for having 'too high of expectations.' The experience dimension scored extremely low given that footings were installed at only 24 inches when code requires 42 inches, a fundamental error confirmed by two separate contractors and a building inspection authority. Pricing could not be assessed as no mention of cost, quotes, or value was made in the review.

• Only 1 review is available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• The review is highly specific and detailed (photos referenced, building inspection cited, measurements given), which increases its credibility as a genuine account.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review — that dimension returns null.
• Review is dated 2023-08-07, which is within the past 12–24 months and considered reasonably recent.

This score report is based on a single detailed negative review and should be treated as directionally informative only — no statistically reliable WW Score can be produced until at least 3 reviews are available.

Only a single review is available, dated August 2018, making it over six years old and of limited current relevance. The review confirms a toilet installation was completed successfully, suggesting adequate project completion and workmanship. The humorous 'flushing golf balls' comment implies the installation functioned well, lending modest support to the experience dimension. However, no information is provided about pricing, professionalism, punctuality, communication, or any other dimension. With only one older review, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score calculation.
• The sole review is dated August 2018, making it more than 6 years old. It carries very low recency weight and may not reflect current service quality.
• Three of four scoring dimensions (professionalism, pricing, experience) have no explicit data and cannot be scored.
• Experience score of 78 is based on a single indirect comment ('flushing golf balls') and should be treated with extreme caution.

This score report is highly unreliable due to a single, outdated review with minimal detail — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's current quality or consistency can be drawn.

This single review paints a deeply concerning picture across all four dimensions. The contractor left a kitchen remodel unfinished, failed to deliver materials (a cabinet and window) that were picked up in the customer's name, and made a measurable workmanship error by sizing the refrigerator space incorrectly. The customer withheld payment for electrical and plumbing work specifically because the project was not completed, indicating a serious breakdown in follow-through and accountability. With only one review available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated, but the evidence present is uniformly negative.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Serious allegation: contractor allegedly took possession of customer materials (cabinet and window) and did not deliver them — potential misappropriation of property.
• Project abandonment reported: kitchen remodel left unfinished with no resolution noted.
• Workmanship defect reported: refrigerator space measured or built incorrectly.
• All scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence — treat all dimension scores with extreme caution.

This score report is based on a single 1-star review and should not be considered statistically reliable; however, the specific and serious nature of the allegations — including unfinished work, missing materials, and a measurable installation error — are credible red flags that warrant significant caution.