Find Nearby Plumbers In Canton, Ohio

Both available reviews are strongly negative and were posted within the past 12 months (May and September 2024), giving them full recency weight. Professionalism is rated extremely low across both reviews, with explicit complaints about no call-backs, no-shows, poor communication, and refusal to acknowledge mistakes. Project completion is also critically low — one reviewer describes a misdiagnosed problem that resulted in an unnecessary water heater replacement, and a subsequent failure to respond when the issue persisted. Pricing concerns are raised in one review, where the customer felt charged significantly for work that did not address the actual problem. Technical experience is called into question by the misdiagnosis of the water source, with the reviewer noting that multiple other professionals confirmed a basic diagnostic step was skipped.

• Only 2 reviews are available — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 1-star with no positive reviews present — this may reflect a selection bias or a genuinely poor service record, but the small sample size prevents a definitive conclusion.
• No fake review patterns detected — both reviews contain specific, detailed, and distinct accounts of separate incidents, lending credibility to their authenticity.
• Both reviews are recent (within the past 12 months as of the analysis date), which increases their relevance but also means there is no historical baseline for comparison.
• Contractor allegedly replaced a water heater without diagnosing the root cause, then failed to respond when the problem persisted — this is a significant professional and technical red flag.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews and should be considered highly unreliable as a statistical measure; however, the specific and credible nature of both negative accounts warrants serious caution for any prospective customer.

Insufficient data — only 2 reviews analyzed. The first review is highly generic, self-referential, and lacks specific details about actual work performed, raising authenticity concerns. The second review is detailed and credible, documenting severe damage caused during service, failure to complete repairs, avoidance of responsibility, and lack of follow-through. These two reviews are contradictory and cannot be reliably synthesized into a trustworthy overall score. A minimum of 3 substantive reviews is required for meaningful analysis.

• FAKE REVIEW SUSPECTED: First review (2023-08-24) exhibits classic fake review patterns — generic praise, self-referential language ('great reviews on their website says it all'), no specific details about actual work, and suspiciously vague compliments ('very knowledgeable, reasonable and very professional'). This review provides no actionable evidence.
• EXTREME POLARITY: Two reviews are diametrically opposed (5-star vs 1-star), suggesting either a fundamental service quality problem or review authenticity issues.
• CRITICAL INCIDENT: Second review documents property damage, broken pipes, failure to honor promised repairs, and alleged responsibility avoidance. This is a serious allegation with specific dates and details.
• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 2 reviews is below the minimum threshold for reliable scoring. At least 3 substantive reviews are needed.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient data (only 2 reviews) and suspected fake review in the dataset. The one credible negative review documents serious service failures, but a single detailed complaint cannot establish a trustworthy overall rating without corroborating evidence from additional independent reviews.

With only two reviews spanning five years, meaningful scoring is extremely limited. The 2021 review is deeply concerning: the technician applied electrical tape as a temporary fix on a drain leak and then failed to follow up for at least two weeks, indicating a serious breakdown in both professionalism and project completion. The 2016 review is strongly positive, praising rapid holiday response and thorough work including pulling a toilet to snake 100 feet of sewer line, which reflects solid experience and follow-through. These two reviews directly contradict each other, making any aggregate score unreliable. The negative review is more recent and therefore carries slightly more weight under recency rules.

• Only 2 reviews total — far below the minimum threshold of 3 for a reliable WW Score.
• The two reviews are contradictory: one praises thorough workmanship and responsiveness, while the other describes an abandoned repair with no follow-up after two weeks.
• The positive review is from 2016 (over 8 years old) and should be weighted significantly less than the 2021 negative review under recency rules.
• No pricing information was mentioned in either review — the Pricing dimension cannot be scored.
• The 2021 review describes a potentially unsafe temporary fix (electrical tape on a drain leak) followed by complete failure to follow up — this is a serious project completion and professionalism concern.

This WW Score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (only 2 reviews), a wide date gap between them, and directly conflicting accounts of service quality.

Both reviews are positive and mention professionalism explicitly, with one reviewer noting accommodating scheduling and professional employees, and the other calling the contractor knowledgeable. Pricing is mentioned favorably in one review as 'fair,' but no detail is provided. Project completion is implied in both reviews — a backflow preventer was installed successfully and the second reviewer expressed intent to return — but neither review describes a complex or lengthy project. With only two reviews total, all scores are conservative and carry very limited confidence.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• One review is from 2021 (over 3 years old) and carries reduced recency weight; only one review is from the past 12 months.
• Both reviews are 5-star with limited specificity. While not conclusively fake, the lack of detail warrants caution — scores have been kept conservative as a result.
• No negative feedback present, but this is likely due to the extremely small sample size rather than a genuine absence of issues.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor quality — only 2 reviews were available, all dimensions are LIMITED confidence, and the WW Score formula cannot produce a meaningful result with fewer than 3 reviews.

With only two reviews, the data is insufficient to produce a reliable WW Score. The two reviews are sharply contradictory — one is a detailed 1-star complaint citing unprofessionalism, unpreparedness, tracking mud through the home, failure to diagnose the problem after nearly 3 hours, and leaving work incomplete; the other is a 5-star review praising professionalism, speed, reasonable pricing, and repeat positive experiences. The negative review carries significant weight because it includes specific, credible details about workmanship failure and project abandonment. Scores have been kept conservative across all dimensions due to the direct conflict between the two reviews and the very low mention count. Recency note: both reviews are from 2017–2018 and are over 6 years old, further reducing reliability.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are dated 2017–2018, making them over 6 years old. These scores may not reflect current business performance.
• The two reviews are directly contradictory, suggesting high variability in customer experience. Scores have been averaged conservatively rather than defaulting to either extreme.
• The negative review references multiple other negative reviews on other platforms — this is a credibility signal that warrants caution and further research before hiring.
• The positive review, while detailed enough to not be flagged as fake, lacks specifics about the nature of the work beyond drain unclogging, limiting its evidentiary weight.

This WW Score report is highly unreliable due to only 2 available reviews, direct contradiction between those reviews, and the age of all data being 6+ years old — prospective customers should seek more current and numerous reviews before making a hiring decision.

This single review paints a strongly positive picture across all four dimensions. The reviewer explicitly praises Sam's responsiveness and willingness to come out at unusual hours, supporting a solid professionalism score. Pricing is directly called out as 'fabulous,' and the work is described as 'stellar' and 'beautiful,' indicating high-quality workmanship and full project completion across multiple jobs including drain clearing and kitchen sink replumbing. However, all scores are held conservative due to the extremely limited sample size of one review, and no WW Score can be reliably calculated with fewer than three reviews.

• Only 1 review provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should not be used as definitive indicators of contractor quality.
• Single review is enthusiastically positive with specific details, which reduces fake review suspicion, but one data point is inherently insufficient for pattern analysis.

This score report is based on a single review and should be considered highly unreliable — submit at least 3 reviews to generate a meaningful WW Score.