Find Nearby Plumbers In Lima, Ohio

The review set is small, spans nearly a decade, and contains significant negative signals that drag scores down across all dimensions. Professionalism is mixed: the 2022 crew was praised as polite and thorough, but a 2012 reviewer reported a dirty carpet, complaining, and upsetting the homeowner, and a 2019 reviewer was strung along for over three months without service. Project completion is the most damaged dimension, with a prepaid service contract never honored, a 2019 job never started after months of delays, and a 2012 installation that left the system not working correctly — only the 2022 and 2020 reviews reflect successful completions. Pricing received a modest positive signal from one reviewer who noted QM beat competitor quotes, but this is a single data point from 2020 and cannot be weighted heavily. Experience is similarly split, with the 2022 crew demonstrating strong technical skill (identifying a gas leak, navigating a difficult crawlspace) while the 2012 installer was described as slow and produced a non-functional result.

• Two reviews are labeled 'unknown' with no review text — these were excluded from scoring as they provide no usable data.
• The review set spans from 2012 to 2022, a 10-year window. Only one review (2022) falls within the past 12 months relative to its era of relevance; the majority of reviews are significantly outdated and may not reflect current business practices.
• With only 7 total reviews and 5 usable ones, the sample size is very small. Scores should be treated with caution.
• The 1-star review from 2014 describes a prepaid service contract that was never fulfilled — a serious consumer protection concern that weighs heavily on the project completion score.
• No fake review patterns detected; reviews vary in tone, detail, and rating, suggesting authentic submissions.

This WW Score carries LOW overall reliability due to the very small review sample (5 usable reviews), a wide date range spanning over a decade with only one recent review, and multiple serious negative incidents that suggest inconsistent service quality over time.

Insufficient data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews analyzed, with highly polarized ratings (one 5-star, two 1-star). The single positive review (2022) praises quick response and friendly service, but the two negative reviews (2021, 2019) describe serious professionalism failures including staff yelling, argumentative behavior, and owner screaming at a long-term customer. Pricing concerns are documented in one review alleging overcharging and aggressive billing practices. Project completion issues appear in one review regarding callback work. The extreme variance and small sample size make any aggregate score unreliable.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews total — sample size is too small for reliable scoring
• CRITICAL: Highly polarized ratings (1 five-star vs. 2 one-star) suggest serious service inconsistency or potential quality control issues
• Two reviews (2021, 2019) are older than 12 months; only one recent review (2022) available
• Severe professionalism red flags: staff yelling at customer, argumentative behavior, owner screaming at long-term customer — these are serious conduct issues
• Pricing complaint includes allegation of overcharging and aggressive collection tactics
• One review mentions callback work that did not resolve the original issue
• No reviews mention technical skill, workmanship quality, or experience level

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=3) and extreme rating polarization; however, the documented professionalism failures (yelling, screaming, argumentative staff) and pricing disputes represent serious red flags that warrant caution regardless of the single positive review.

Analysis is severely compromised by extreme recency imbalance and conflicting evidence. Two reviews are from 2012–2013 (over 10 years old), while one is from 2020. The 2020 review describes a catastrophic failure: wrong equipment delivered, installation delays, failure to meet performance guarantees, and poor customer service during warranty callbacks. Two older reviews praise the company highly. The stark contradiction, combined with the age of positive reviews and the company's apparent removal of negative reviews (as noted in the 2020 review), raises serious concerns about data reliability. No WW Score can be calculated with confidence given only 3 reviews with such conflicting signals and temporal distance.

• CRITICAL: Extreme recency imbalance — 2 reviews are 10+ years old (2012–2013); only 1 recent review (2020). Historical reviews have severely diminished relevance.
• CRITICAL: Customer explicitly states their negative review was removed by the company. This suggests potential review manipulation and undermines trust in the review dataset.
• CRITICAL: Stark contradiction between reviews — one describes complete system failure and poor service recovery; others describe excellent service. This suggests either significant service quality changes over time or data integrity issues.
• Insufficient sample size (n=3) to establish reliable patterns or confidence in any dimension.
• The positive reviews lack specific technical detail and use generic praise language ('just the best'), while the negative review is highly specific and detailed, which may indicate authenticity bias favoring the complaint.

This score cannot be reliably calculated or trusted. The dataset is too small (3 reviews), temporally imbalanced (2 reviews over 10 years old), contains evidence of review removal/manipulation, and shows contradictory outcomes that suggest either major service quality changes or data integrity problems. Any score derived from this data would be misleading. A minimum of 8–10 recent reviews (within past 12 months) is required before a trustworthy WW Score can be generated.

This contractor demonstrates severe deficiencies across multiple critical dimensions. All three reviews document complete no-shows and failure to communicate, with customers left waiting without explanation or rescheduling. Professionalism is critically compromised by unresponsive communication, full voicemail, and lack of follow-up. Project completion is non-existent—no work was performed on any job. One review explicitly mentions hidden costs and price gouging. No reviews provide evidence of technical skill or workmanship quality. The consistent pattern of abandonment across all reviews suggests systemic operational failure rather than isolated incidents.

• CRITICAL: All three reviews document complete no-shows with zero follow-up communication. This is a pattern of service failure, not isolated incidents.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Two reviews are from 2011 and 2013 (10+ years old). Only one review is recent (2019). Historical data may not reflect current operations, but pattern is consistent across all time periods.
• PRICING CONCERN: One review explicitly mentions 'hidden cost galore' and forced price negotiation, suggesting deceptive pricing practices.
• COMMUNICATION FAILURE: Multiple mentions of unresponsive phone lines, full voicemail, and zero callback/rescheduling communication across all reviews.
• INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR RELIABLE SCORING: Only 3 reviews total. WW Score calculation suppressed due to inadequate sample size and extreme negative skew.

This assessment is based on only 3 reviews spanning 8 years with severe consistency in negative outcomes; however, the extreme age of 2 reviews and small sample size limit confidence in current operational status. The pattern of no-shows and communication failure is clear and consistent, but a current assessment would require recent reviews to determine if practices have changed.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for a statistically meaningful WW Score. While both reviews are positive and mention professionalism, project completion, and experience favorably, the sample size is too small to produce a trustworthy composite score. Additionally, one review dates from 2018 (over 5 years old), limiting recency relevance.

• Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• One review is from 2018 (5+ years old) — limited recency
• Both reviews are 5-star with generic praise language — potential fake review pattern, though sample too small to confirm
• No specific pricing details provided in either review — pricing score based on single vague mention ('price isn't too bad')

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.

This single review paints a severely negative picture across all four dimensions. Professionalism was critically lacking — the contractor missed a 2-3 week timeline by months, took on other jobs while under contract, and threatened a mechanics lien to extract an unquoted $9,560 in additional charges. Pricing transparency was egregiously poor, with a surprise invoice for extra labor presented after the fact with no room for negotiation. Project completion was a near-total failure — the job dragged on for four months, tools were repeatedly left behind, and work had to be redone by another contractor after failing a home inspection. Experience and workmanship were also called into question, as the home inspection revealed that some of MKB's work was done incorrectly and required correction at the client's expense.

• Only 1 review is present — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All four dimension scores are based on a single review and carry LIMITED confidence only.
• The reviewer explicitly states the contractor held a full-time job and ran this business on the side, suggesting potential capacity and reliability concerns.
• The unquoted $9,560 additional invoice combined with a mechanics lien threat on a tight closing deadline raises serious ethical and business practice concerns.
• Work was found to be incorrect during a third-party home inspection, indicating a potential pattern of quality issues that warranted independent verification.

This score is based on a single detailed 1-star review and should be treated as highly preliminary — while the review is specific and credible, no conclusions about the contractor's typical performance can be drawn until additional reviews are analyzed.