Find Nearby Plumbers In Omaha, Nebraska

Only a single review is available, making any scoring highly tentative. The reviewer noted same-day responsiveness and a successful return visit to fix a water leak, which speaks positively to professionalism and project completion. However, no information was provided about pricing, workmanship quality, or technical skill. Scores for professionalism and project completion are intentionally conservative given the extremely limited data. Pricing and experience dimensions cannot be scored at all due to a complete absence of relevant mentions.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review is dated 2021-05-06, making it over 3 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces its reliability as an indicator of current performance.
• No pricing, workmanship, or technical skill details mentioned — two of four dimensions have no scorable data.
• Single review with enthusiastic tone and no specifics beyond scheduling and leak fix — insufficient detail to validate quality claims.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (1 review); the dimension scores shown are illustrative only and should not be used to make a hiring decision.

Only a single review is available, dated June 2020, which is over four years old and therefore carries reduced recency weight. The reviewer speaks positively about fair pricing and honest labor, supporting modest scores in pricing and professionalism. The phrase 'knows his stuff' provides minimal but explicit evidence of technical competence, justifying a conservative experience score. Project completion is entirely unmentioned and cannot be scored. All scores are held conservative due to the extremely limited data pool.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• The sole review is dated June 2020, making it over 4 years old. Recency weighting significantly reduces reliability.
• No data available for Project Completion (weight: 35%), the highest-weighted dimension — this is a critical gap.
• With only one review, it is impossible to detect fake review patterns or establish any meaningful trend.

This score report is based on a single, years-old review and should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or consistency.

This single review provides explicit feedback across all four dimensions but with severely limited data. The contractor was criticized heavily on pricing (charged $1,599.65 for routine replacements with no itemized breakdown), professionalism (left lights on, created mess, disposed of garbage improperly), and experience (took considerable time to source a toilet). Project completion was achieved but without distinction. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review; at minimum 3 reviews are required to establish meaningful patterns.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. Minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Review is from April 2020 (4+ years old). Does not reflect current contractor performance.
• SINGLE NEGATIVE REVIEW: Cannot determine if this represents typical service or isolated incident without comparative data.

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score. A single review, especially one from 2020, is insufficient to assess contractor quality reliably. Additional recent reviews are essential before any scoring conclusion should be acted upon.

Only a single review exists for this contractor, dated February 2018, making any reliable scoring impossible. The one review is strongly negative, citing an excessively long job duration of 12 hours for a straightforward drop-in sink replacement, and a near-$900 charge that the customer found unreasonable. These details suggest poor workmanship efficiency and questionable pricing practices. Professionalism could not be scored as it was not explicitly addressed in the review. All dimension scores are treated with extreme caution given the single data point.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is over 6 years old (February 2018) — no recent data exists to assess current contractor performance.
• Pricing concern flagged: customer reported being charged approximately $900 for a drop-in sink replacement, which they found excessive.
• Efficiency concern flagged: 12 hours to complete a drop-in sink replacement is abnormally long and suggests a significant skill or experience deficiency.
• No positive reviews exist to balance this negative signal — score should be treated as directional only, not definitive.

This score is highly unreliable and should not be used for decision-making, as it is based on a single negative review from over six years ago with no corroborating data.

This single review describes a severe case of project abandonment and non-responsiveness. The contractor accepted payment for a furnace and AC unit replacement, completed only half the work, collected full payment via PayPal, then ceased all communication and never returned to finish the job. The reviewer reports filing a police report and having video documentation of the incomplete work. No positive dimensions are evident in this review.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required)
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old) — recency is severely compromised
• Allegations include potential fraud, abandonment of work, and non-responsiveness to customer contact
• Police report filed according to reviewer — suggests potential legal/criminal matter
• Cannot calculate weighted WW Score with confidence due to single-review limitation

This score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted. Only one review is available, and it is over 5 years old. A minimum of 3 recent reviews is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score. The single review describes severe misconduct but does not provide sufficient data for a generalizable assessment.

This single review from November 2014 describes severe and persistent failures across all dimensions. The reviewer reports multiple technical failures (frozen lines, pipe debris, water main failures), unprofessional blame-shifting and excuse-making, payment disputes, and lack of accountability. However, a WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review, and this review is nearly a decade old, raising questions about current business practices.

• CRITICAL: Only 1 review analyzed — insufficient data for reliable WW Score calculation per Rule 4 (minimum 3 reviews required)
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review is from November 2014 (10+ years old) — does not reflect current contractor performance
• SEVERE NEGATIVE PATTERN: Multiple systemic failures reported (workmanship, communication, accountability, payment disputes) — if accurate, indicates serious operational problems
• SINGLE DATA POINT: All dimension scores are based on 1 mention only, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all metrics

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume (1 review minimum 3 required) and extreme age of the data (2014). Any score derived would be unreliable. Current contractor performance cannot be assessed from this review alone.