Find Nearby Plumbers In Columbia, Missouri

This single review is broadly positive, citing prompt communication, punctuality, and a job well done — all meaningful signals. Professionalism scores highest given the explicit mention of timely communication and on-time arrival. Project completion and experience receive conservative scores because the praise ('did a great job') is genuine but lacks specific detail about the scope or complexity of the work. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored. With only one review, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Praise is positive but somewhat generic ('did a great job') with no specifics about the type of work, scope, or outcome — limits confidence in experience and project completion scores.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension has no data.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable — do not use it to make a confident hiring decision without gathering significantly more customer feedback.

Only one review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer describes a completed electric fireplace and mantle installation with specific details — wall extension to 3.5 inches, a dedicated outlet, and internal bracing — suggesting competent workmanship and follow-through on agreed specifications. Professionalism is implied through the collaborative planning process and the customer's stated intent to rehire. However, no mention of pricing, punctuality, communication quality, or any challenges encountered limits the depth of analysis considerably.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Pricing dimension has zero data and cannot be scored.
• All scores are based on a single review and carry very low evidentiary weight — treat all dimension scores as preliminary indicators only.
• No review dates within the past 12 months relative to a current 2024/2025 evaluation window — this review is from October 2022 and may not reflect current performance.

This score report is based on a single review from 2022 and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's overall quality — significantly more review data is required before any confident assessment can be made.

All four dimensions are supported by explicit mentions in the single review: promptness and professionalism (arrived within an hour, explained everything, described as professional and honest), fair pricing (quote provided transparently), project completion (repaired the main waterline break as promised), and experience (successfully diagnosed and resolved a complex waterline issue). However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from only one review, as the methodology requires a minimum of 3 reviews to establish meaningful confidence levels.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• All dimensions scored based on single mention each — confidence is LIMITED across the board.
• Recent review (August 2024) but sample size too small to draw conclusions.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review; at least 3 independent reviews are needed to establish reliable confidence in contractor performance.

Only one review was available for analysis, which is insufficient to calculate a reliable WW Score. The single review is highly positive, praising Erskine's personability, work quality, attention to detail, and problem-solving on a challenging installation. However, with only one data point, no pricing information mentioned, and no information about punctuality or communication responsiveness, confidence in any aggregate score is severely limited.

• Insufficient review volume (n=1) — cannot calculate WW Score reliably per Step 4 guidelines
• Review is from 2021 (3+ years old) — recency is a concern for current contractor assessment
• No pricing dimension data available — cannot evaluate value for money or transparency
• Single review with no contradictory perspectives — cannot assess consistency or reliability of claims

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable contractor evaluation; a minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a meaningful WW Score, and current data falls far short of that threshold.

This single review paints a severely negative picture across multiple dimensions. Professionalism scored near zero due to explicit complaints about months of non-responsiveness, poor communication, and ultimately being fired by the general contractor for unprofessional conduct. Project completion scored very low because the installed HVAC system experienced repeated failures and the contractor refused to honor warranty labor obligations, representing a fundamental failure to stand behind completed work. Experience scored marginally above zero because the system was installed and did function initially, but multiple component failures shortly after installation suggest substandard workmanship or product selection. Pricing data was entirely absent from the review and could not be scored.

• Only 1 review exists — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated 2016-03-30, making it over 8 years old. This data may not reflect the contractor's current practices or business status.
• Reviewer identifies as a business owner (AAA Columbia, MO) and references other affected customers, suggesting a potential pattern of warranty non-compliance beyond this single case — however, no corroborating reviews are present in this dataset.
• Warranty refusal is a serious flag: contractor allegedly refused to honor labor warranty on a York HVAC system they installed, which may constitute a contractual or legal violation.
• Contractor was reportedly terminated by the general contractor on this project due to poor professionalism — an unusually severe outcome that elevates the credibility of the negative claims.

This score is based on a single review from 2016 and should be considered extremely low confidence — no meaningful conclusions about current contractor quality can be drawn from this data alone.

This single review describes severe failures across professionalism and project completion. The contractor failed to show up on multiple scheduled dates, provided excuses (tire issues), and ultimately did not complete the work after several days of attempts. The job remains unfinished and the cover was not replaced as promised. No pricing concerns were explicitly mentioned, and technical skill level was not discussed. With only one review, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. WW Score requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability.
• RECENCY: Review is from February 2021 (3+ years old). Does not reflect current contractor performance.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot establish patterns or trends with only one data point.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score with only one review. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a reliable score. This single review suggests serious performance issues, but broader assessment is impossible without additional data.