Find Nearby Plumbers In Springfield, Ohio

Only a single review is available, which limits the reliability of any scoring. The reviewer praises quick response and friendly attitude, supporting a modest professionalism score. Pricing is described as 'competitive,' suggesting fair but not exceptional value. The job is described as completed with 'great quality' in the master bathroom, indicating satisfactory project completion. Jason is called an 'experienced professional,' lending some support to the experience dimension, though one data point is far too few to draw firm conclusions.

• Only 1 review analyzed — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All dimension scores are based on a single mention and should be treated as highly provisional.
• Review language is positive but generic in places ('great quality,' 'experienced professional') with limited specific detail, which slightly reduces confidence in authenticity assessment.
• No negative feedback or nuance present — this is expected with a single 5-star review but cannot be evaluated for fake review patterns without more data.

This score is based on a single review and should not be trusted as a meaningful indicator of contractor quality — significantly more reviews are required before any dimension score or overall WW Score can be considered reliable.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review is available, which is below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a statistically meaningful assessment. The single review describes non-completion of work and financial loss, but a single data point cannot establish reliable contractor performance metrics across dimensions.

• Only 1 review available — far below minimum threshold of 3 reviews for reliable scoring
• Review is from November 2022 (over 1 year old) — recency is poor
• Severe allegations (money taken, job not completed) but single-source claim cannot be independently verified
• Insufficient data to assess professionalism or experience dimensions

This assessment cannot be trusted as a reliable indicator of contractor performance; a minimum of 3 recent reviews is required to produce a meaningful WW Score.

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.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only one review was analyzed. The single review explicitly addresses project completion, citing failure to complete the job (unfilled hole left for customer to finish) and excessive time to diagnose and repair the main drain backup. No other dimensions were mentioned with sufficient specificity to score. A reliable WW Score requires a minimum of 3 reviews.

• Only 1 review available — minimum 3 reviews required for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2018 (over 6 years old) — recency is a concern
• Cannot assess overall contractor performance from single negative review without corroborating data

This analysis cannot produce a trustworthy WW Score due to insufficient review volume and age of the single available review.

This single review from 2019 documents severe failures in professionalism (non-responsive communication, broken promises to call back) and project completion (failure to return for scheduled work, resulting in property damage). The contractor did not follow through on commitments, leading to a flooded basement. No information is available regarding pricing or technical experience. A WW Score cannot be reliably calculated from a single review.

• Only 1 review available — insufficient data for reliable scoring
• Review is from 2019 (5+ years old) — does not reflect current business practices
• Severe outcome (property damage) documented but based on single source

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (minimum 3 reviews required). The single available review is outdated and should not be treated as representative of current service quality.

This single review is strongly negative across all four dimensions. The contractor misdiagnosed the problem, performed unnecessary and poorly placed plumbing work, damaged flooring in the kitchen and stairwell landing, and refused to take responsibility or honor any form of callback or warranty. The customer ultimately paid $750 total — $600 to this contractor plus $150 to a second contractor — only to end up still using the original plumbing, rendering the contractor's work entirely useless. The experience dimension is particularly damning, as the misdiagnosis and impractical installation placement suggest a significant lack of technical competence. All scores are heavily penalized and treated as LOW confidence given only one review is available.

• Only 1 review available — WW Score cannot be reliably calculated per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Review is from 2014, making it over 10 years old. Recency weighting is extremely low — contractor performance may have changed significantly since this review.
• All four dimensions are negatively impacted by this single review, meaning scores are entirely dependent on one customer's experience with no corroborating data.
• No fake review concerns detected — review contains specific details, dollar amounts, property context, and a coherent narrative consistent with a genuine customer complaint.

This score is based on a single review from 2014 and should not be considered a reliable representation of this contractor's current or overall performance — treat all dimension scores as highly provisional and seek more recent, multiple-source reviews before making a hiring decision.