Find Nearby Plumbers In St. Louis, Missouri

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer explicitly praised the contractor as friendly, polite, and knowledgeable, supporting modest scores in professionalism and experience. The job — a full toilet tank replacement — was completed quickly (approximately 20 minutes), indicating reasonable project completion. Pricing was not mentioned at all and cannot be scored. All scores are conservative given the extremely limited data.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score.
• No pricing information mentioned in any review — Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• With a single review, there is no way to assess consistency of performance or detect patterns.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only one review exists, providing insufficient data to draw meaningful conclusions across any dimension.

This single review provides exceptionally detailed and specific praise across all four dimensions. The reviewer explicitly commends professionalism (no complaints despite long hours, friendly demeanor, problem-solving attitude), fair pricing (described as 'reasonable' and 'fair'), project completion (work finished despite obstacles, callbacks honored, final resolution achieved), and experience (unconventional problem-solving, technical skill, ability to identify root causes others missed). However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, as the scoring methodology requires minimum 3 reviews to establish statistical validity and reduce the risk of outlier bias.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review provided. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• SINGLE REVIEW BIAS: This review is exceptionally detailed and positive (5-star), but represents only one customer experience. No comparative data available to validate consistency.
• RECENCY NOTE: Review is recent (August 2024), which is positive for currency, but cannot offset the fundamental lack of sample size.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. While this single review is detailed and specific with no apparent fake review indicators, a minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score. Current data suggests strong performance across all dimensions, but this cannot be generalized without additional customer feedback.

This single review describes a responsive and compassionate service during a Christmas Eve pipe burst emergency, with a plumber dispatched on Christmas morning — indicating strong professionalism and follow-through. The reviewer explicitly describes the team as competent, pleasant, and respectful, supporting positive scores across professionalism and experience. Project completion is inferred from the water being restored, though no explicit confirmation of full job completion is stated. Pricing is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored. With only one review, all scores carry very limited confidence and should not be treated as representative of consistent performance.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single data point and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• Pricing dimension has no data whatsoever and is excluded from any scoring.
• Review is dated December 2022, which is over 12 months old — recency weighting is reduced.
• No fake review patterns detected; the review contains specific situational detail (Christmas Eve pipe burst, Christmas morning dispatch) suggesting authenticity.

This score report is based on a single review from over two years ago and should be considered highly unreliable — significantly more reviews are needed before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn about this contractor's performance.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The single review mentions project completion (fixed issues, set up water heater) and experience (ability to correct prior contractor's work), but provides no explicit information about professionalism, pricing, or communication. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to produce a reliable WW Score.

• Only 1 review available — statistically insufficient for reliable scoring
• No pricing information mentioned
• No explicit professionalism details (punctuality, communication, attitude) mentioned
• Generic praise without specific technical details limits confidence in experience score

This analysis cannot be trusted as a reliable score due to insufficient review volume; at least 3 reviews are needed for meaningful assessment.

Only a single review was available for analysis, making any reliable scoring impossible. The one review mentions 'great customer service,' which loosely maps to professionalism, but provides no specific detail about punctuality, communication, attitude, or responsiveness. Pricing, project completion, and experience are entirely unaddressed. The review is also over 8 years old, significantly reducing its relevance to current performance.

• Only 1 review provided — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• The sole review is dated March 2016, making it over 8 years old. It carries very low recency weight and may not reflect current business practices.
• The review is extremely vague with no specific details — 'great customer service' is generic praise that cannot be scored with confidence.
• Suspected low-detail review: no mention of any specific job, outcome, technician behavior, or pricing. Could be a placeholder or solicited review.

This WW Score cannot be calculated or trusted — there is only one review, it is nearly a decade old, and it contains no actionable detail across three of the four scoring dimensions.

Only a single review is available, dated February 2010, making this analysis over 15 years old and of very limited reliability. The reviewer positively noted professionalism and neatness from Andy and his crew, as well as on-time and on-budget project completion. Pricing was described favorably as not costing too much, suggesting reasonable value. The bathroom modernization implies a degree of skill and experience, though no specific technical details were provided. All scores are conservative given the single data point and significant age of the review.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is dated February 2010, making it over 15 years old. This data is severely outdated and should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• All four dimensions are based on a single mention each — all confidence levels are LIMITED and scores should be treated with extreme caution.
• No recent reviews available to confirm whether quality and practices have been maintained over time.

This score is highly unreliable due to a single, 15-year-old review — prospective customers should seek current reviews before making any hiring decision.