Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Paul, Minnesota

Both reviews explicitly praise Dan's professionalism, including punctuality, communication, and trustworthiness. Project completion is evidenced by successful water heater replacement and leak repairs with no follow-up issues. Technical skill is demonstrated through pressure-testing and pilot light instruction. Pricing satisfaction is mentioned once positively. However, with only 2 reviews all from 2013 (over 10 years old), the sample size is critically insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score, and recency is severely compromised.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for WW Score calculation
• CRITICAL: All reviews are from 2013 (11+ years old) — no recent data available to assess current service quality
• All dimensions scored with LIMITED confidence due to minimal mention counts (1–2 mentions each)
• Cannot reliably assess whether current performance matches historical reviews

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. The sample size of 2 reviews combined with extreme age (2013) makes any score unreliable for assessing current contractor performance.

Only 2 reviews were provided, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation. Both reviews explicitly praise project completion (complex installations completed perfectly, difficult fixture repaired successfully) and technical experience (skilled crew, willingness to tackle complex problems others avoided). However, neither review mentions professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, attitude) or pricing considerations. The extreme age of one review (2013) and limited sample size severely restrict confidence in any conclusions.

• Insufficient review count (n=2) — cannot calculate reliable WW Score
• One review is over 10 years old (2013) — recency is poor
• No data on professionalism or pricing dimensions
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no critical feedback — limited ability to assess balanced performance
• Sample size too small to detect patterns or validate consistency

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. A minimum of 3 reviews is required, and ideally 5+ reviews across multiple dimensions are needed to produce a trustworthy score.

With only two reviews, the data is sharply divided: one highly positive experience and one severely negative one. The negative review raises serious concerns across all dimensions — a technician who lacked knowledge, performed substandard workmanship (backward pipe pitch, unattached spigot, taped access panel), overcharged, and then refused to honor callbacks or answer calls. The positive review praises professionalism, communication, and reasonable pricing for a different job. The contradictory nature of these two reviews makes it impossible to establish a reliable pattern, and the critical failure described in the negative review — particularly the refusal to follow through — significantly drags down project completion and experience scores.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• The negative review describes a serious workmanship failure: pipe pitched incorrectly causing it to refreeze, spigot left unattached, and an access panel secured only with tape — all indicators of low technical skill.
• The negative review explicitly states the company refused to answer calls and would not honor a callback, which is a significant red flag for accountability and follow-through.
• The negative review alleges overcharging for work that was not completed correctly, raising a pricing integrity concern.
• The two reviews are diametrically opposed in sentiment, suggesting either inconsistent technician quality or that different staff members produce very different outcomes — this inconsistency itself is a warning sign.
• No fake review patterns detected, but the extremely small sample size means no meaningful trend can be established.

This score should not be trusted as representative — with only 2 reviews presenting completely opposing experiences, no reliable conclusion about this contractor's overall quality can be drawn.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. The reviews present a stark contradiction: one 5-star review from 2019 praising communication and service quality, and one 1-star review from 2017 detailing severe failures in project completion, professionalism, and reliability. The negative review explicitly documents no-shows, abandonment of work mid-project, unresponsiveness, argumentative behavior, and cursing. The positive review is generic and lacks specificity. Given the extreme polarity and very limited sample size, a reliable WW Score cannot be calculated.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews — insufficient for reliable scoring. Minimum 3 reviews required.
• EXTREME POLARITY: One 5-star and one 1-star review with contradictory claims about the same contractor.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Both reviews are significantly dated (2017 and 2019). No recent reviews available to assess current performance.
• POSITIVE REVIEW LACKS DETAIL: The 5-star review is vague and does not provide specific evidence of professionalism or project completion.
• NEGATIVE REVIEW IS DETAILED AND SPECIFIC: The 1-star review documents concrete failures including no-shows, project abandonment, deposit taken without completion, unresponsiveness, and unprofessional behavior (cursing, argumentative).
• RED FLAG: Contractor allegedly took 50% deposit plus material costs and abandoned project mid-work, then became unresponsive.

This score cannot be reliably calculated due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews) and extreme polarity between them. The detailed negative review from 2017 raises serious concerns about project completion and professionalism, but without additional recent reviews, no trustworthy overall assessment can be made. Do not rely on this analysis for hiring decisions.

With only 2 reviews, reliable scoring is impossible. The first review (5-star, Sept 2024) provides generic praise with no specific details and uses repetitive language ('top notch' appears twice identically), raising authenticity concerns. The second review (2-star, Nov 2023) is detailed and specific, citing poor communication, missed notifications, scheduling failures, unresolved defects, broken promises of compensation, and no follow-up. The stark contradiction between these reviews and the limited sample size prevents meaningful scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• SUSPECTED FAKE REVIEW: First review (Diane Peters, 5-star) exhibits red flags — generic praise, repetitive phrasing ('top notch' used twice identically), no specific details about work performed, suspiciously enthusiastic tone with no substantive information. This pattern is consistent with fabricated reviews.
• EXTREME POLARITY: Stark contradiction between 5-star and 2-star reviews with no middle ground suggests potential review manipulation or highly inconsistent service delivery.
• RECENCY IMBALANCE: One review from Sept 2024 (recent), one from Nov 2023 (older). Insufficient data to assess trend.
• DETAILED NEGATIVE REVIEW: Second review is highly specific with multiple documented failures (communication, scheduling, defects, broken promises, no follow-up), lending it credibility despite low rating.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and suspected authenticity issues with the positive review. Any scoring would be meaningless and potentially misleading.

Both available reviews are strongly negative, describing failed repairs where the underlying problem was not resolved after service was performed. The boiler review is particularly detailed and credible, written by a licensed Class A Chief Engineer with nearly 20 years of boiler experience, who ultimately fixed the issue himself for $50 after paying $442 for an ineffective repair. The heat pump review similarly describes a paid service call that left the problem unresolved. Pricing concerns are explicit in the boiler review, with the reviewer feeling the $390 labor charge was unjustified given the failed outcome. Both reviews suggest a pattern of incomplete or misdirected work, with one reviewer alleging the contractor may have been steering toward an unnecessary full replacement rather than a legitimate repair.

• Only 2 reviews available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules; all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence only.
• Both reviews are older than 12 months (2016 and 2022); no recent reviews are available to assess current performance.
• The boiler review alleges possible upselling misconduct — contractor reportedly pushed for full boiler replacement despite no confirmed evidence of heat exchanger failure, and the actual repair (fill valve) was not properly completed.
• No positive reviews present in the dataset; this may reflect selection bias in the data provided, or may indicate a genuine pattern of poor service — interpret with caution given the very small sample size.

This score is based on only 2 reviews, both negative and both dated more than one year ago, making it insufficient to draw reliable conclusions about the contractor's current overall performance.