Find Nearby Plumbers In Jersey City, New Jersey

Both available reviews are strongly negative, each awarding a 1-star rating. The first review explicitly describes repeated no-shows, broken time commitments, and complete unresponsiveness — directly impacting professionalism and project completion scores. The second review, while vague and lacking specific detail, alleges dishonesty, unreliability, and poor workmanship, touching on experience and project completion. Because only two reviews exist and both predate 2017, the dataset is too small and too old to produce a reliable WW Score. All scored dimensions carry LIMITED confidence and should be interpreted with caution.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold rules.
• Both reviews are dated 2015–2016, making them over 8 years old. Recency weighting heavily discounts their relevance to current performance.
• The second review ('completely cheating people', 'No good work at all') uses vague, generic language with no specific details. This may indicate an unreliable or emotionally driven review rather than a factual account, though it cannot be confirmed as fake.
• Pricing dimension has zero mentions across all reviews — no score can be assigned.
• No positive reviews exist in this dataset. While this is a strong negative signal, the extremely small sample size means this should not be treated as a definitive assessment of the contractor.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 8 years old, and should be considered highly unreliable — significantly more recent and numerous reviews are required before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn about this contractor.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. While this single review is positive and mentions professionalism (promptness, efficiency), fair pricing, and follow-up service, a reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews. The review does not explicitly address technical skill or experience level. All dimension scores are based on extremely limited evidence and should not be considered representative.

• Only 1 review available — below minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from December 2023 (over 1 year old) — recency is limited
• No explicit mention of technical experience or workmanship quality
• Single positive review cannot establish pattern or reliability

This score cannot be calculated reliably with only 1 review. Collect at least 2 additional reviews before generating a trustworthy WW Score.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was provided, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for reliable scoring. Additionally, the single review is from 2020 (over 4 years old) and contains only generic praise without specific evidence of performance across the four scoring dimensions.

• Only 1 review provided — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is from July 2020 — significantly outside the preferred 12-month recency window
• Review contains generic praise ('talented, trustworthy, friendly') with no specific examples or details about professionalism, pricing, project completion, or experience
• No actionable evidence for any of the four dimensions — review does not explicitly mention punctuality, communication, pricing, job completion, or technical skill

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume and age; at least 3 recent reviews with specific performance details are required.

Only a single review is available, which describes a positive phone-based support experience with a staff member named Ozzie who was described as courteous, patient, and helpful. The reviewer explicitly praised the pricing as fair. The issue — no water in the apartment — was resolved successfully via a phone walkthrough, suggesting competence and effective problem-solving. However, all scores are heavily discounted due to the extremely limited sample size of one review, and no WW Score can be reliably calculated.

• Only 1 review analyzed — far below the minimum of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be used as a reliable indicator of contractor quality.
• The review is from October 2021, which is over 1 year old — recency weighting applies and further reduces reliability.
• The resolution was phone-based only; no in-person workmanship or on-site project completion can be assessed from this review.

This score is based on a single review from over a year ago and should not be trusted as a meaningful indicator of this contractor's overall quality or consistency.

This single review from January 2018 documents severe professionalism failures including disrespectful language, abusive conduct, and lack of courtesy. Project completion issues are evident: damage to the tub was caused during service, and a missing cap for the hot water handle suggests incomplete work. No data exists regarding pricing practices or technical experience level. The review is over 6 years old and represents only one customer perspective.

• INSUFFICIENT DATA: Only 1 review analyzed. WW Score cannot be calculated reliably with fewer than 3 reviews.
• RECENCY ISSUE: Review is from January 2018 — over 6 years old. Does not reflect current business practices.
• SEVERE CONDUCT ISSUE: Review alleges abusive language and disrespectful behavior by owner. This is a critical professionalism concern but based on single account.
• LIMITED SCOPE: Pricing and experience dimensions have no data. Cannot assess full contractor capability.

This analysis is unreliable for decision-making. Only one review exists, it is very old, and critical dimensions lack data. At least 3 recent reviews are needed to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 1 review was analyzed. The single review mentions reasonable pricing and reliability/speed, but provides no specific details about professionalism, communication, or technical skill. The review is too generic and limited in scope to establish a trustworthy overall score.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable WW Score calculation
• Review is generic and lacks specific details about workmanship, communication, or professionalism
• Review date is from 2023 (over 1 year old) — recency is limited
• No explicit mention of professionalism dimensions (punctuality, communication, attitude, appearance)

This analysis cannot produce a reliable WW Score with only 1 review. A minimum of 3 reviews is required to calculate a trustworthy score.