Find Nearby Plumbers In Ann Arbor, Michigan

Only a single review is available, dated August 2016, making this data over 8 years old and of very limited reliability. The reviewer praises fast service, responsiveness, fair rates, and attention to detail including passing city inspections, which touches on all four dimensions. Professionalism is supported by mentions of dependability, pleasant demeanor, and easy communication via online tools and direct phone access. Experience is modestly supported by the reference to passing city inspections, suggesting adequate technical competence. However, with only one review and no corroborating data, all scores are conservative and should be treated with significant caution.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated August 2, 2016 — over 8 years old. This data is significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• Single review with broad praise across multiple dimensions and no specific criticisms — while not conclusively fake, it cannot be independently verified or weighted with confidence.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and are therefore scored conservatively with LIMITED confidence.

This score report is based on a single review from 2016 and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor performance — significantly more recent and numerous reviews are required before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a reliable WW Score calculation. The single review mentions professionalism (friendly, quick communication) and pricing (reasonable rates, transparent charges), but provides no explicit information about project completion or technical experience. Any score derived from a single review would be unreliable.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2014 (10+ years old) — recency is a significant concern
• No data on project completion or experience dimensions
• Generic praise language without specific project details

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume and extreme age of the single available review.

Insufficient data — only one review was analyzed, and it provides minimal information. The single review mentions professionalism positively but offers no specifics about pricing, project completion, or technical experience. The review is also from 2021, over 3 years old, which limits its relevance. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review.

• Only 1 review analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• Review is from May 2021 — over 3 years old and outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• Review is extremely generic ('Very professional') with no specific details, examples, or context
• Insufficient data across 3 of 4 dimensions (pricing, project completion, experience)

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (only 1 review) and lack of dimensional coverage. At least 3 reviews with substantive detail are required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

This single review does not describe a direct paid service engagement — the reviewer is an Illinois homeowner who used Mr. Postma's YouTube video remotely to resolve a sump pump emergency. No in-person work was performed, so Project Completion and Pricing cannot be scored at all. Professionalism receives a modest LIMITED score because the reviewer expresses strong trust and gratitude, implying helpful and clear communication via the YouTube content. Experience receives a similarly conservative LIMITED score because the reviewer credits Mr. Postma's technical guidance with successfully resolving a flooding situation, suggesting practical knowledge. With only one review and no direct service transaction, no reliable WW Score can be produced.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• This review does not describe a paid, in-person service engagement. The reviewer used a YouTube tutorial remotely and is not a direct customer. Scores derived from this review should be treated with extreme caution.
• No pricing, scheduling, or on-site workmanship data is present. Three of four dimensions are either null or scored with very low confidence.
• The review is genuine in tone with specific detail (8 inches of rain, water over ankles, specific troubleshooting step described), so no fake review concern is flagged.

This WW Score report is not reliable for contractor evaluation purposes — it is based on a single non-transactional review from a remote viewer of a YouTube video, not a paying customer who received direct plumbing services.

The single available review is a severe 1-star complaint describing a contractor who left equipment stuck in a sewer line, rendering the home completely unusable. The contractor then became unresponsive to calls and made no attempt to remedy the situation, indicating a critical failure in both professionalism and project completion. Experience received a marginally non-zero score only because the reviewer implies the contractor performed some work, though it resulted in damage and abandonment. Pricing could not be assessed as it was not mentioned in the review. With only one review available, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Reviewer alleges contractor may be uninsured, which is a serious legal and liability concern.
• Contractor allegedly abandoned the job site after causing damage and became completely unresponsive — pattern consistent with unprofessional or fraudulent business conduct.
• All dimension scores are based on a single review and should be treated with extreme caution.

This score report is based on a single negative review and carries very low reliability — no meaningful conclusions about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn until substantially more reviews are available.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score. The single review indicates serious issues with project completion (drain clogged again within one month) and pricing (charged again for same problem), but a single negative review cannot establish a reliable overall score.

• Only 1 review available — far below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2012 (12+ years old) — does not reflect current business practices
• Single data point is insufficient to assess true contractor performance

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 1 review was provided, and it is over a decade old.