Find Nearby Plumbers In Toledo, Ohio

Both reviews are recent (2024) and speak positively about Otterson Contracting across multiple dimensions. Professionalism is supported by mentions of prompt communication, collaboration, and going above and beyond. Project completion is evidenced by both jobs being described as finished well and to the customer's satisfaction. One review explicitly mentions a 'great estimate' and 'very good price,' supporting a positive but conservatively scored pricing dimension. Experience is inferred from praise of workmanship quality and the team 'knowing what they are doing,' though specifics are limited. All scores are held conservative due to the very small sample size of only two reviews.

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are 5-star with enthusiastic language; while not conclusively fake, the small sample size and uniformly positive tone warrant caution.
• Superlative phrasing ('Most awesome team ever!', 'cannot say enough good things') is generic and lacks granular detail in places, slightly reducing confidence in authenticity.
• With only 2 mentions per dimension, all confidence levels are LIMITED — scores should not be treated as statistically representative.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, which is below the minimum threshold for a reliable WW Score — treat all dimension scores as preliminary indicators only and seek additional reviews before making a hiring decision.

Both reviews are positive and mention punctuality and friendly demeanor, supporting a modest professionalism score. One review explicitly notes no extra charges were applied, providing limited but favorable pricing evidence. Both reviews indicate the work was completed satisfactorily with no mention of abandoned or incomplete jobs. Workmanship is described in general positive terms ('did their job well', 'excellent job') but lacks specific technical detail, keeping the experience score conservative. All scores are held conservative due to the very small sample size and the age of the reviews (both from 2006).

• Only 2 reviews provided — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• Both reviews are from 2006, making them over 18 years old. Recency weighting is severely impacted and these scores should not be considered representative of current performance.
• Reviews are generically positive with limited specific detail, which reduces confidence in all dimension scores.
• Possible generic praise pattern: both reviews use broad complimentary language without describing specific work performed, tools used, or problems solved. Cannot confirm fake reviews but specificity is low.

This score should not be trusted as a reliable indicator of current contractor quality — only 2 reviews were available, both are nearly two decades old, and all dimension scores carry only LIMITED confidence due to minimal and non-specific evidence.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for trustworthy scoring. The reviews present sharply conflicting signals: one positive review from 2020 praising punctuality and workmanship, and one highly negative review from 2014 citing severe professionalism failures, poor cleanup, and argumentative owner behavior. The extreme age gap and contradictory nature of these reviews prevent confident dimension scoring.

• INSUFFICIENT REVIEW COUNT: Only 2 reviews analyzed. Minimum 3 required for reliable WW Score calculation.
• EXTREME RECENCY GAP: One review is from 2014 (10+ years old), one from 2020 (4+ years old). No recent data within past 12 months.
• CONFLICTING SIGNALS: Positive and negative reviews describe vastly different service quality, making it impossible to establish reliable patterns.
• CRITICAL INCIDENT IN OLDER REVIEW: 2014 review documents serious professionalism failure (owner arguing with customer, rude behavior, water damage left behind), but age limits current relevance.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (2 reviews, minimum 3 required) and extreme age of data (most recent review is 4 years old). Do not rely on any scoring from this analysis.

Both reviews are strongly negative and raise serious concerns about this contractor. The first review explicitly flags honesty and integrity issues, noting that a city inspector — when asked off the record — could only say the company 'has a current license,' implying a known poor reputation among inspectors. The second review documents a pricing quote of $2,136.95 for a water heater replacement, more than double the next highest competing quote of $900, strongly suggesting predatory or deceptive pricing practices. Project completion and experience scores are inferred from the inspector's repeated visits due to failed inspections, suggesting substandard workmanship. With only 2 reviews, no WW Score can be reliably calculated, but all available signals are deeply negative.

• Only 2 reviews available — insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score.
• Serious honesty and integrity concerns raised explicitly in Review 1, corroborated by an off-the-record statement from a city inspector.
• City inspector reportedly required two visits due to multiple deficiencies — strong indicator of poor workmanship and failed inspections.
• Review 2 documents a pricing quote more than 2x the next highest competitor quote ($2,136.95 vs $900), suggesting potential price gouging or deceptive quoting.
• Both reviews are dated 2011 and 2015 — all data is more than 8 years old. Current performance cannot be assessed from this data.
• The company is noted to also operate under the name 'Knights Plumbing' — potential flag for reputation management or identity obfuscation.
• Both reviews are 1-star with no positive reviews present — this may reflect selection bias in the data provided, or a genuinely poor track record.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both highly negative and both more than 8 years old, making it insufficient for a reliable WW Score — treat all dimension scores as directional indicators only and seek current, independent verification before engaging this contractor.

Both available reviews are negative and date back to 2007–2008, making them over 15 years old with no recent data to assess current performance. Professionalism scores extremely low due to explicit mentions of tardiness, strong odor, unauthorized sticker placement, and failure to follow through on a promised estimate. Project completion also scores very low, as one reviewer noted the contractor left black oil smudges on multiple surfaces including white countertops and a stainless steel sink, indicating poor workmanship cleanup and incomplete professional delivery. Experience is scored low based on the physical evidence of poor workmanship left behind, though only one review speaks to this directly. No pricing information was mentioned in either review, so that dimension cannot be scored.

• Only 2 reviews total — WW Score cannot be calculated reliably per minimum threshold of 3 reviews.
• All reviews are from 2007–2008, making them more than 15 years old. These scores should not be used to assess current contractor quality.
• No recent reviews are present — it is impossible to determine whether performance has improved or declined over time.
• With only 2 reviews, all dimension scores carry LIMITED confidence and should be interpreted with significant caution.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 15 years old, and should not be considered a reliable indicator of this contractor's current quality or practices.

Only two reviews were available, and one of them is not a customer review at all — it appears to be a cease-and-desist-style message from a competing or legitimate contractor claiming this business is using their company name and license number fraudulently. The single usable customer review describes a no-show with no communication, which is a serious professionalism and project completion failure. There is no data on pricing or experience. Given the extremely limited and alarming nature of the available data, no reliable WW Score can be calculated.

• CRITICAL: One review appears to be from a licensed contractor (License #0079981) alleging that this business is fraudulently operating under their company name. This is a serious legal and identity concern that should be investigated before hiring.
• Only 1 of 2 reviews is from an actual customer, falling well below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews needed for a reliable WW Score.
• The sole customer review describes a complete no-show with zero communication, indicating a significant professionalism and reliability failure.
• Insufficient review volume to detect fake review patterns, but the overall profile raises serious red flags about the legitimacy of this business listing.

This score report cannot be considered reliable — the review pool is critically small, and a potential business identity fraud allegation makes this contractor profile highly suspect; consumers should exercise extreme caution.