Find Nearby Plumbers In Maple Grove, Minnesota

Bob consistently receives strong praise for professionalism, with multiple reviewers specifically calling out punctuality, responsiveness, and pleasant demeanor. Project completion is well-supported across reviews, with jobs described as finished thoroughly and in a timely manner, including a water heater install completed the same day. Pricing transparency is mentioned positively in a small number of reviews, with one reviewer explicitly noting upfront phone quotes, though most reviews do not address cost at all. Experience scores are supported by references to competent handling of varied tasks including gas lines, water heaters, toilet repairs, and leak fixes. All reviews are 5-star and several lack specific detail, which warrants mild caution, though enough reviews contain concrete specifics to suggest genuine feedback.

• All 11 reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative or mixed feedback — this pattern warrants mild caution.
• Several reviews are very brief and generic (e.g., 'It was very good and excellent.', 'It was good.') with no specific details, which slightly reduces confidence in those individual reviews.
• The majority of reviews are dated between 2019 and 2021 — no reviews from the past 12 months (relative to a 2024/2025 evaluation date), meaning recency is a concern and current performance cannot be confirmed.
• One reviewer explicitly noted they have no pricing reference point, limiting the reliability of the pricing dimension.

This WW Score carries moderate-to-high reliability for the professionalism, project completion, and experience dimensions due to sufficient specific mentions, but the score should be treated with some caution given the age of all reviews (all pre-2022), the absence of any negative feedback, and a handful of suspiciously vague reviews.

All three reviews speak positively to Darrell's professionalism, highlighting punctuality, communication, and courteous behavior such as avoiding tracking snow indoors and sweeping up after removing old equipment. Project completion is consistently praised across all reviews, with jobs described as thorough, neat, and completed without issue. Experience is supported by two reviews that reference technical competence, including helping a customer evaluate water heater options and efficiently repairing an emergency shut-off valve. Pricing is entirely absent from all reviews, so no score could be assigned for that dimension. The overall picture is positive but the dataset is very small and all reviews are over 13 years old, which significantly limits reliability.

• All 3 reviews are dated between 2007 and 2010 — none are within the past 12 months or even the past decade. These reviews are significantly outdated and may not reflect current service quality.
• Sample size is extremely small (only 3 reviews). Scores should be treated with caution and are not statistically reliable.
• No pricing information was mentioned in any review. The pricing dimension could not be scored.
• No fake review patterns detected — reviews contain specific details, varied language, and distinct scenarios, suggesting authenticity.

This WW Score carries LOW reliability due to only 3 reviews being available, all of which are more than 13 years old and therefore unlikely to reflect the contractor's current performance.

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer noted that John arrived the next day, resolved a clogged laundry tub quickly, was friendly and professional, and offered a good price — covering professionalism, pricing, and project completion at a basic level. No specific technical or workmanship details were provided, so the Experience dimension cannot be scored. All scores are conservative due to the extremely limited data set. The review appears genuine with specific context (laundry tub clog, next-day visit), though it is brief.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as LOW CONFIDENCE indicators only.
• Experience dimension has no data — workmanship and technical skill were not addressed in the review.
• Review is from 2023-03-30, which is over 12 months old depending on current date — recency weighting may apply.

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 reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.