Find Nearby Plumbers In Des Moines, Iowa

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews available. Both reviews mention professionalism positively (hard working, efficient, does best to do it right), and one explicitly mentions job completion quality. However, one review from 2006 is severely outdated (18+ years old) and provides minimal actionable insight. One review mentions pricing as too high, suggesting value concerns. With fewer than 3 recent reviews and no substantive detail on technical skill or experience, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews total — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: One review is from 2006 (18+ years old) — extremely outdated and should be disregarded for current assessment
• LIMITED DETAIL: Reviews are generic and lack specific examples of work quality, problem-solving, or technical expertise
• EXPERIENCE DIMENSION: No mentions of skill level, technical knowledge, or workmanship quality — cannot assess this critical dimension
• PRICING CONCERN: One review explicitly states price was 'a little too high' — suggests potential value-for-money issue, but only 1 mention

This assessment is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. Minimum 3 recent reviews are required; only 1 review from the past 12 months is available, and the second review is from 2006 and should be disregarded entirely.

Both reviews are near-identical duplicates of the same complaint, so only one unique review contains usable data. That single review paints a deeply negative picture across multiple dimensions. Professionalism scores very low due to complete communication breakdown — the reviewer reports that numerous calls, emails, and texts went unanswered after October. Project completion scores extremely low because multiple issues (recurring utility room leak, improper water heater installation, knocking pipes) were never fully resolved, with the most recent problem left open and unaddressed for months. Experience also scores very low, as the reviewer describes repeated failed repair attempts, improper initial installations, and a persistent unresolved issue that should have been installed correctly from the start. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored.

• DUPLICATE REVIEW DETECTED: Both reviews are virtually identical in text, rating, and date (submitted within approximately 26 hours of each other). Only one unique review is treated as usable data. This may indicate an accidental double submission rather than a fake review, but it inflates the apparent review count.
• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 1 unique review exists. The WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews. All dimension scores carry very low confidence.
• ALL REVIEWS ARE NEGATIVE: With only one unique data point and a 1-star rating, there is no counterbalancing positive evidence. Scores should be interpreted with extreme caution.
• RECENCY NOTE: Both reviews are dated late November to early December 2022, making them over 2 years old. Business performance may have changed since then.

This score report is based on a single unique review (one duplicate was excluded) and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance — far more reviews across a broader time range are needed before any confident assessment can be made.

Both reviews speak positively about professionalism, with one reviewer explicitly calling the technician 'most professional and kind' and another describing him as 'meticulous.' Project completion is supported by both reviews, with jobs described as finished quickly and thoroughly, including a complex sump pump installation and a hot water heater replacement that a prior plumber had failed and worsened. Pricing is only mentioned in one review, where the contractor is described as 'fair priced,' making that dimension very low confidence. Experience is inferred from both reviews — one describes a successful emergency sump pump install, the other a successful recovery from a botched job by a different plumber — suggesting solid technical competence, though the evidence base is thin. With only 2 reviews total, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• One review is dated 2020 (over 4 years old) and should be weighted significantly less than the 2024 review.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings; while the review content is specific and detailed enough to reduce fake review concern, the small sample size prevents meaningful pattern analysis.
• Different technician names appear across reviews (Eric vs. Ricky) — this may indicate multiple employees or could reflect inconsistency in service quality not captured by only 2 reviews.

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 can be meaningfully evaluated.

Only one review is available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is positive and mentions professionalism (honesty, timeliness, punctuality), reasonable pricing, and project completion (implied by willingness to use again). However, with only one data point, confidence in any dimension is severely limited, and no meaningful overall score can be derived.

• Insufficient review volume: only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• All dimensions except Experience are based on a single mention, resulting in LIMITED confidence across the board.
• No specific project details provided; praise is generic without concrete examples of work quality or scope.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; at least 3 independent reviews are needed to establish baseline reliability.

This single review provides explicit positive feedback across all four dimensions: professionalism is evidenced by Rick and Peggy's coordination and the installer's outstanding work; pricing is praised as reasonable and fair with no gimmicks; project completion is demonstrated through successful shower installation and hardware selection; and experience is reflected in the quality of workmanship. However, with only one review, the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per methodology requirements (minimum 3 reviews needed).

• Insufficient review count: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Review is from 2022 (over 2 years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• Single review is uniformly positive with no critical feedback or specific problem areas mentioned, which limits ability to validate consistency.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume; at least 3 reviews are required for reliable scoring.

Only one review was provided, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review explicitly praises professionalism (respectful, courteous, responsive communication) and project completion (issue resolved quickly). However, pricing is not mentioned, and experience/workmanship quality is not discussed in detail. A minimum of 3 reviews is required for meaningful analysis.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably
• Review is from 2009 (15+ years old) — recency is a significant concern for current contractor assessment
• No pricing information provided
• Limited detail on technical skill or workmanship quality

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable assessment of the contractor. A single review from 2009 is too old and too sparse to form a credible WW Score; at least 3 recent reviews are needed.