Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Louis, Missouri

Both reviews speak positively about Ed Bellm Plumbing across multiple dimensions, but the sample size of only 2 reviews is too small to produce a reliable WW Score. Professionalism is highlighted strongly in Review 1, where the owner Chris visited in person, diagnosed the issue honestly, and charged nothing — a notable act of integrity. Review 2 praises knowledgeable installation, careful workmanship, and post-job cleanup, supporting positive scores in experience and project completion. Pricing is only explicitly addressed in Review 1, where the company chose not to charge for a visit that could have been billed, earning a high but limited-confidence score. All reviews are from 2017, meaning this data is over 7 years old and may not reflect current service quality.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per scoring rules. A minimum of 3 reviews is required.
• Both reviews are dated 2017 (over 7 years ago). These scores carry significant recency risk and may not reflect the contractor's current performance.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings. While the review content is specific and detailed enough to reduce fake review suspicion, the absence of any critical feedback across both reviews warrants caution.
• No negative or mixed feedback present — this may reflect genuine satisfaction, but could also reflect a limited or curated review sample.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews from 2017 and should be treated as highly preliminary — prospective customers are strongly advised to seek more recent and numerous reviews before making a hiring decision.

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. While both reviews are positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience favorably, the sample size is too small to draw reliable conclusions about Brad's overall performance across all dimensions.

• Only 2 reviews available — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are from 2014–2015 (9+ years old) — no recent data to assess current performance
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with limited specific detail — cannot fully validate claims
• Insufficient mention density across all dimensions to establish confidence

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume and age of reviews; at least 3 recent reviews are needed to generate a trustworthy score.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. Both reviews are positive and mention professionalism (friendly, knowledgeable, kept informed, thoughtful service), with one mentioning affordable pricing and one referencing completion of a large job. However, with fewer than 3 reviews total, the WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per methodology. All mentions are limited in frequency, preventing confident scoring.

• Insufficient review volume (n=2) — WW Score calculation requires minimum 3 reviews for reliability
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generic positive language and limited specific detail about work quality or outcomes
• One review is over 1 year old (September 2023); only one recent review from 2024
• No explicit mention of punctuality, timeliness, callbacks, or detailed workmanship quality in either review

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume (fewer than 3 reviews). Any scoring would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.

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. Both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience explicitly. One review mentions pricing as reasonable. However, with such a small sample size, these scores cannot be considered representative of the contractor's typical performance.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• Both reviews are from 2020-2021 (3+ years old) — recency is limited
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with no negative feedback — limited diversity in data
• Sample size too small to detect patterns or validate consistency

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 2 were provided. Any score calculated would be statistically unreliable and should not be used for decision-making.

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. While both reviews are highly positive and mention professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience favorably, the sample size is too small to produce a statistically meaningful composite score. All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence due to only 2 mentions each.

• Sample size critically low: only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring.
• Both reviews are 5-star ratings with generic positive language; however, the first review contains specific project details (bathtub, drain, faucet, garbage disposal installation) and consulting advice, reducing suspicion of fabrication.
• Review dates are older than 12 months (2020-2021); no recent data available to assess current service quality.
• Second review is very brief and generic ('excellent service, very friendly, reasonable price') with minimal specificity.

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score due to insufficient review volume. A minimum of 3 reviews is required; only 2 were provided. Do not rely on any composite score calculation at this time. Collect additional recent reviews before making contractor selection decisions.

Only one review contains substantive data about Grove's service quality. That review (from 2007) praises professionalism, reasonable pricing, and quality workmanship. However, with only a single mention per dimension and a review dating back 17+ years, confidence in these scores is severely limited. The second review is not usable as it reports an incorrect phone number and does not evaluate the contractor's actual services.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 usable review from a dataset of 2 total reviews — insufficient data for reliable scoring
• RECENCY ISSUE: The only substantive review is from April 2007 (17+ years old) — does not reflect current business practices or quality
• BUSINESS STATUS UNCLEAR: First review (2015) suggests possible business closure or contact information problems
• WW SCORE CANNOT BE CALCULATED: Fewer than 3 reviews with usable data

This analysis is unreliable. With only one usable review from 2007 and no recent data, any score would be speculative and should not be used for decision-making.