Find Nearby Plumbers In Brooklyn Park, Minnesota

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. The reviews present a stark contradiction: one 5-star review from 2019 praising quick response, technical knowledge, and fair pricing; one 1-star review from 2017 criticizing high trip charges and labor fees for diagnostic work without completion. This polarity, combined with the very small sample size and age of reviews (both older than 5 years), makes any aggregate score unreliable.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: Both reviews are older than 5 years (2017 and 2019). No recent data available to assess current business practices
• EXTREME POLARITY: Ratings are 5.0 and 1.0 with fundamentally opposing claims about pricing fairness and work completion. This suggests either significant service inconsistency or context-dependent experiences
• INSUFFICIENT MENTIONS: All dimensions have 1–2 mentions only, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all scores

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2, minimum n=3 required) and extreme age of data (5+ years old). The contradictory nature of the two reviews and lack of recent feedback make any WW Score meaningless for current decision-making.

This single review contains extremely serious allegations of fraud, dishonesty, and overcharging. The reviewer claims the contractor (Jim Prior) misrepresented time spent on-site, inflated labor hours, and charged $460 for minimal work on a 3-foot line with negligible parts cost. The review explicitly criticizes professionalism (deception about time), pricing (alleged scam and massive overcharge), project completion (incomplete or inadequate work), and experience (poor quality workmanship). However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as one customer's experience—even if entirely accurate—does not establish a statistically meaningful pattern.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review provided — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required)
• CRITICAL: Review is from 2018 (6+ years old) — does not reflect current business practices or quality
• SEVERE ALLEGATIONS: Reviewer accuses contractor of fraud, time theft, and price gouging with specific evidence (video documentation). If accurate, this represents serious misconduct. If false, this is a defamatory review.
• Cannot determine if this is an isolated incident or pattern without additional reviews
• No corroborating reviews available to validate or refute these claims

This score is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. A single review from 2018, regardless of severity, cannot establish a contractor's current performance or trustworthiness. Additional recent reviews are essential before drawing any conclusions.

Only a single review is available for analysis, which severely limits scoring reliability across all dimensions. The reviewer, an HOA president managing a 44-unit building, notes competitive pricing, prompt work, and attention to detail — providing at least some specific context rather than purely generic praise. Professionalism and project completion are inferred from mentions of promptness and repeat selection for multiple projects. All scores are held conservative per scoring rules given the single-mention basis for every dimension.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and must be treated as LOW CONFIDENCE estimates only.
• Review is from August 2023, which is within the past 12 months relative to a mid-2024 reference point — recency is acceptable.
• Review is generally positive with no critical feedback; while it contains some specific detail (HOA context, multiple projects), the absence of any negative commentary should be noted.

This score report is based on a single review and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's overall performance — significantly more review data is required before any dimension score or overall WW Score can be trusted.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was provided, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. The single review mentions experience/skill level (several years of service) but provides no explicit information about professionalism, pricing, or project completion. Generic praise without specific details limits confidence further.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review contains generic praise with minimal specific details about work performed
• No mention of pricing, punctuality, communication, or project completion specifics
• Suspiciously generic language ('top notch', 'Great job') without concrete examples

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume; at least 3 reviews are required to begin meaningful assessment.

This single review documents a pre-project communication failure rather than actual work performance. The reviewer reports initial engagement with the owner, followed by a one-line rejection email and subsequent non-responsiveness to follow-up inquiries. Only professionalism (communication and responsiveness) is explicitly mentioned. No data exists regarding pricing, project completion, or technical experience since no work was performed. The review is dated October 2019 (over 4 years old) and reflects a business development/sales interaction rather than service delivery.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably
• Review is from 2019 — significantly outside the 12-month recency window
• No actual work was performed — this is a pre-project rejection, not a service evaluation
• Three of four dimensions have zero mentions and cannot be scored
• Reviewer's frustration is evident but does not constitute evidence of poor workmanship or pricing practices

This analysis is unreliable for contractor evaluation purposes; a single pre-project communication failure from 2019 does not provide sufficient evidence to assess overall service quality, and at least 3 additional reviews with actual work experience are required before any meaningful WW Score can be calculated.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a trustworthy WW Score calculation. The single review mentions project completion (utility sink and faucet installation completed) and workmanship quality (clean piping appearance), but provides no explicit information about professionalism, pricing, or communication.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is generic with minimal specific detail about contractor behavior, communication, or pricing
• No information provided on professionalism, pricing, or punctuality dimensions

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume. At least 3 reviews are needed to establish meaningful patterns and confidence levels.