Find Nearby Plumbers In Topeka, Kansas

The review set is extremely small and deeply polarized, making any score highly unreliable. Two of the three reviews describe serious misconduct: one alleges embezzlement of funds meant for a storage unit payment resulting in loss of a family member's belongings, and another describes a $1,000 deposit being withheld for over three months with no work performed and no refund initiated. These are not minor service complaints — they describe potential fraud and financial harm. The single positive review praises a drywall and paint installation job but is generic in tone and lacks specific detail, raising authenticity concerns. The overwhelming weight of evidence points to a business with severe integrity and follow-through problems.

• SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ALERT: One review alleges embezzlement of funds entrusted to the contractor for a third-party payment, resulting in direct financial harm to a customer's family member.
• DEPOSIT FRAUD CONCERN: A second review reports a $1,000 deposit retained for over 3 months with no work performed and no refund initiated despite multiple attempts through the payment processor.
• POTENTIAL FAKE REVIEW: The single 5-star review uses generic, effusive praise with no specific dates, project details, or verifiable information. Its tone contrasts sharply with the two detailed negative reviews and may not be authentic.
• VERY LOW SAMPLE SIZE: Only 3 reviews total. The WW Score cannot be considered statistically reliable with this few data points.
• LEGAL ACTION NOTED: At least one reviewer states they are actively pursuing legal action against this business, which is a significant red flag for prospective customers.

This WW Score should be treated as extremely low confidence due to the tiny sample size of 3 reviews, credible allegations of financial misconduct in 2 of those reviews, and a single positive review of questionable authenticity — prospective customers should exercise extreme caution.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, with 1 containing usable data. The single detailed review (from 2013) describes severe failures across professionalism, project completion, and technical judgment. The contractor failed to take basic precautions, caused property damage, refused cleanup, and was verbally abusive when confronted. However, a single negative review from over a decade ago cannot establish a reliable overall score. No pricing information was mentioned in any review.

• Only 2 reviews total; 1 review is undated with no text content and cannot be analyzed
• Single detailed review is from 2013 (11+ years old) — recency is severely limited
• Insufficient volume to establish reliable scoring; one very negative review dominates the dataset
• No recent reviews available to assess current business practices or whether issues have been corrected

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 usable reviews). The single detailed review is extremely old and highly negative, but does not provide a trustworthy basis for current contractor assessment.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are highly positive (5-star ratings) with explicit praise for fair pricing, quality workmanship, and project completion. Review 1 highlights honest pricing (charged original estimate despite extra work) and technical skill. Review 2 emphasizes professionalism, listening to customer needs, and problem-solving. However, with only 2 reviews, confidence in any aggregate score is severely limited and does not meet the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per STEP 4 protocol
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — limited diversity in data
• Review 2 is dated 2022-05-16 (over 2 years old) — recency concern for one of two data points
• Review 1 is recent (2024-10-18) but sample size remains critically small

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 required). The two reviews provided are uniformly positive but too few to establish confidence in any aggregate scoring. Additional reviews are essential before drawing conclusions about contractor performance.

Only one review contained usable content, dating back to July 2011 — over 13 years ago. That single review mentioned reasonable prices, punctuality, ease of scheduling, and good quality of work, which touches on all four dimensions. However, because all scores are derived from a single, very dated review, every dimension carries only LIMITED confidence. The second review had no text content and cannot contribute meaningful data to any dimension.

• Only 2 reviews total — insufficient for a reliable WW Score calculation per scoring rules.
• One review (2015-09-15) contained no text ('unknown') and provided no scorable data.
• The sole usable review is from July 2011 — more than 13 years old. This data is severely outdated and may not reflect current contractor performance.
• With only 1 usable review, all dimension scores are speculative and should be treated with extreme caution.

This score report is highly unreliable due to only 1 usable review, which is over 13 years old — prospective customers should seek additional, recent reviews before making any hiring decision.

Both reviews speak positively across all four dimensions, noting Kirk's responsiveness, affordability, and quality of work. Professionalism is supported by mentions of same/next-day response, good communication about arrival times, and a friendly demeanor. Pricing is explicitly praised in both reviews, with one reviewer noting costs came in below expectations and another highlighting affordability during an emergency. Project completion is affirmed in both cases, with jobs described as finished quickly, cleanly, and thoroughly — including preventative measures in one instance. Experience is implied through competent execution of plumbing tasks and a referral from a retired master plumber, though technical depth of commentary is limited.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules requiring a minimum of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings; while the reviews contain specific details and distinct writing styles that reduce fake review suspicion, the extremely small sample size means scores carry very low statistical weight.
• Review dates are from late 2023 and early 2024 — both fall within the past 12–18 months, which is acceptable for recency, but the sample is too small to draw firm conclusions.
• All dimension scores are marked LIMITED confidence due to only 2 mentions each — treat all scores as directional indicators only, not reliable assessments.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly preliminary — the WW Score cannot be calculated, and all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be used as a definitive measure of contractor quality.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, falling below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. The reviews present sharply contradictory evidence: one 1-star review from 2021 citing chronic lateness, poor workmanship, and work beyond the contractor's skill level; one 5-star review from 2019 praising competitive pricing, same-day availability, and quality work. This extreme polarity and small sample size prevent meaningful aggregation. All dimension scores are based on LIMITED mentions (1–2 each) and should not be trusted for decision-making.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable WW Score calculation
• EXTREME POLARITY: Reviews are contradictory (1-star vs 5-star) with no middle ground, suggesting possible different service experiences or inconsistent quality
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are older than 1 year (2019 and 2021); no recent data available to assess current performance
• INSUFFICIENT MENTIONS: All dimensions scored on 1–2 mentions only, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all metrics

This report cannot be relied upon for decision-making. With only 2 reviews and extreme contradictory ratings, no trustworthy WW Score can be calculated. Additional recent reviews are essential before making a hiring decision.