Find Nearby Plumbers In Frederick, Maryland

Only 3 usable reviews were available for analysis, which is below the minimum threshold of 5 reviews needed for reliable scoring. The data shows extreme polarization: one 5-star review from 2014 praising punctuality and workmanship, one 1-star review from 2018 citing major plumbing failures and lack of warranty responsibility, and one 2-star review from 2021 complaining about high pricing. The reviews span over 20 years with significant recency gaps, making trend analysis unreliable. No consistent pattern of evidence exists across dimensions.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 usable reviews — below minimum threshold for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY ISSUE: Reviews span 2014–2021 with a 7-year gap between first and second review; most data is older than 3 years
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: Ratings range from 1.0 to 5.0 with no middle ground, suggesting either highly variable service or different customer expectations
• FAKE REVIEW SUSPECTED: One review marked 'unknown' with 5-star rating from 2001 — appears to be placeholder or corrupted data; excluded from analysis
• SERIOUS QUALITY CONCERN: 2018 review alleges repeated major plumbing failures (main water line broke twice in <2 years) in a 5-year-old house, suggesting potential workmanship or design issues
• PRICING COMPLAINT: 2021 review cites $225 for <1 hour work as excessive, but insufficient pricing data to establish pattern

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3, minimum required=5) and extreme temporal gaps in the data. The conflicting evidence and serious quality allegations in the 2018 review warrant caution; any decision should be based on additional recent reviews and direct verification of warranty practices.

Only one of four reviews contains any usable text, and that review is from 2014 — over a decade old — making it highly unreliable as a current indicator of performance. The single usable review mentions good pricing and great work in very generic terms, without specific details to substantiate either claim. Three reviews have completely unknown text and cannot be scored on any dimension. Due to the near-total absence of usable data, no WW Score can be reliably calculated.

• 3 out of 4 reviews have unknown or missing text — no dimensional scoring is possible for these reviews.
• The only usable review is from May 2014, making it over 10 years old. Recency weighting severely diminishes its reliability.
• The single usable review uses generic, non-specific praise ('great work', 'good pricing') with no concrete details — low evidentiary value.
• Rating spread (1.0, 4.0, 5.0, 5.0) across unknown-text reviews suggests potential mixed experiences that cannot be evaluated.
• Insufficient data: fewer than 3 reviews with usable content — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably.

This score report should not be trusted as a meaningful assessment of contractor quality; with only 1 usable review from over a decade ago and 3 reviews containing no text, there is effectively no reliable data on which to base any hiring decision.

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. While both reviews are positive and mention professionalism, punctuality, pricing fairness, and technical skill, the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about overall contractor performance.

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — consider collecting more reviews to validate consistency.
• One review is from November 2023 (6+ months old); one is from May 2024 (recent). Limited recency data.

This analysis cannot produce a valid WW Score due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 2 were provided. Do not rely on any aggregate score until additional reviews are collected.

Both reviews speak highly of Randy Renner across all four dimensions, describing him as punctual, personable, and communicative — hallmarks of strong professionalism. Pricing was explicitly called reasonable and less than expected in both reviews, suggesting good value. Project completion is supported by descriptions of work being finished thoroughly, with cleanup and follow-through noted. Experience is evidenced by his Master Plumber credentials, 8+ years of training, and specific praise for the quality and thoughtfulness of his workmanship. However, with only 2 reviews — one of which is from 2013 — these scores carry very limited confidence and should not be treated as statistically reliable.

• Only 2 reviews provided — insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score per scoring rules.
• One review is from 2013 (over 10 years old) and carries significantly reduced recency weight. Only one review is from 2018, which is itself over 5 years old. No recent reviews are present.
• Both reviews are 5-star with positive sentiment. While the reviews contain specific details and do not appear fabricated, the absence of any critical or neutral feedback across only 2 reviews limits balanced assessment.
• No reviews from the past 12 months were provided. Score reliability is further diminished by the age of the data.

This score should be treated as highly unreliable due to the critically small sample size of 2 reviews, both of which are more than 5 years old, making it impossible to draw confident conclusions about current service quality.

Both available reviews are strongly negative and paint a consistent picture of poor performance across multiple dimensions. The first review describes a technician quoting $600 for a repair that cost $8 in parts and took two elderly homeowners 20 minutes to complete themselves, raising serious concerns about pricing integrity and technical honesty. The second review describes a confirmed appointment that resulted in a no-show, followed by a scheduling representative denying the customer was ever on the books — a significant failure in both professionalism and project completion. Across both reviews, there is no positive feedback whatsoever to offset these serious concerns. With only two reviews available, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated, but the directional signal from the available data is very negative.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 2 reviews provided. A minimum of 3 reviews is required for a reliable WW Score calculation. Results are directional only.
• RECENCY NOTE: One review is from 2023 (within past 12 months relative to mid-2023) and one is from 2021. The older review carries reduced weight, but both are negative.
• PRICING CONCERN: A $600 quote for an $8 gasket replacement is a significant red flag for price gouging or gross overestimation. The $99 diagnostic fee was charged with no work performed.
• RELIABILITY CONCERN: A confirmed appointment resulted in a complete no-show, and the company's representative denied the customer was scheduled — suggesting either poor internal systems or dishonest handling of a scheduling failure.
• NO POSITIVE SIGNALS: Neither review contains any positive feedback. There are no offsetting compliments to moderate the negative scores assigned.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable as a general assessment; however, both reviews are independently and severely negative, which is a meaningful warning signal for prospective customers.

With only two reviews, the data is sharply divided. One customer had a highly positive experience, praising Joshua's knowledge, problem-solving ability, and reasonable pricing during a faucet replacement. However, the second review describes two consecutive no-shows with no communication until prompted, followed by being ignored entirely — a serious professionalism and reliability failure. The no-show incident heavily drags down professionalism and project completion scores, as the job was never started let alone completed. Given the direct contradiction between the two reviews and the critically small sample size, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• The two reviews are in direct conflict: one is a glowing 5-star review and the other is a 1-star review describing repeated no-shows and ignored communications.
• Both reviews are from December 2023 and are within 9 days of each other, which is noted but not inherently suspicious.
• The positive review, while detailed and specific, cannot offset the serious reliability concern raised by the no-show review given the tiny sample size.
• Scores for pricing and experience are each based on a single mention and should be treated with very low confidence.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality — significantly more reviews are needed before any confident assessment can be made.