Find Nearby Plumbers In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 4 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews needed for confidence. While professionalism and experience dimensions show strong scores based on explicit mentions of helpfulness, respect, expertise, and problem-solving, the pricing dimension has zero mentions, making it impossible to assess value for money. Project completion mentions are limited to 2 reviews. The review set is heavily skewed toward older dates (3 of 4 reviews are from 2020–2023), with only 1 recent review from 2024.

• INSUFFICIENT SAMPLE SIZE: Only 4 reviews analyzed. Minimum 5+ reviews recommended for reliable scoring.
• RECENCY CONCERN: 75% of reviews are older than 1 year (3 of 4 from 2020–2023). Only 1 recent review from April 2024.
• MISSING PRICING DATA: No reviews mention pricing, value, fairness of quotes, or affordability. Cannot assess Price Friendly dimension.
• LIMITED PROJECT COMPLETION DATA: Only 2 reviews explicitly mention completed work/installations. Insufficient to draw confident conclusions.
• POTENTIAL SELECTION BIAS: All 4 reviews are 5-star ratings with uniformly positive language. No negative or mixed feedback present. This may reflect genuine quality or may indicate a curated/incomplete review set.
• BUSINESS TYPE AMBIGUITY: Reviews describe both a plumbing supply shop and installation services. Unclear if this is primarily retail, service-based, or hybrid.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (4 reviews, minimum 5 required) and missing critical data on pricing. The professionalism and experience dimensions show promise but are based on limited mentions. Do not rely on this assessment for contractor selection decisions; seek additional recent reviews and explicit feedback on pricing and project timelines before making a choice.

Insufficient Data — cannot calculate WW Score reliably. Only 3 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 usable reviews required for reliable scoring. While the reviews are positive and mention professionalism, pricing, project completion, and experience, each dimension is supported by only 1–2 mentions, resulting in LIMITED confidence across all dimensions. The review dates span from 2007 to 2020, with the most recent review from April 2020 (over 4 years old), raising concerns about currency and relevance.

• Insufficient review volume: Only 3 reviews analyzed. Minimum 5–10 reviews recommended for reliable WW Score calculation.
• Recency concern: Most recent review is from April 2020 (4+ years old). No recent data available to assess current performance.
• All reviews are 5-star ratings with generic positive language and limited specificity. Pattern suggests potential selection bias or incomplete review dataset.
• Review from 2007 is extremely outdated and should not be weighted equally with recent reviews.

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume and age of data. A minimum of 5–10 recent reviews (within past 12 months) is required to produce a trustworthy WW Score.

With only 3 reviews, this dataset is too small to produce a reliable WW Score. The reviews show extreme polarization: two 5-star reviews (2019) praising professionalism, knowledge, and problem-solving, versus one detailed 1-star review (2016) documenting no-shows, dishonesty, low-balling, and project abandonment. The negative review is highly specific and credible, detailing months of broken promises and financial harm. The positive reviews lack specificity and are dated 4-5 years ago. This contradiction makes any aggregate score meaningless without substantially more recent data.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews total — insufficient for reliable scoring. Minimum 5-8 reviews recommended.
• EXTREME POLARIZATION: Two 5-star vs. one 1-star with no middle ground. Suggests either inconsistent service quality or potential selection bias.
• RECENCY CONCERN: Positive reviews are from 2019 (4-5 years old). Negative review is from 2016 (7+ years old). No recent reviews to assess current performance.
• CREDIBILITY IMBALANCE: The 1-star review is highly detailed, specific, and credible (names, timeline, financial impact, witness accounts). The 5-star reviews are generic and lack specifics.
• PROJECT COMPLETION RED FLAG: The 1-star review documents severe project abandonment, no-shows, and months of broken promises — a critical failure dimension.
• PRICING CONCERN: Evidence of low-balling strategy to win jobs, then canceling or no-showing — suggests predatory pricing practices.
• RECOMMENDATION: Do not rely on this score. Obtain at least 5-10 additional recent reviews before making a hiring decision.

This score is unreliable and should not be used for decision-making. The sample size is too small (n=3), reviews span 7+ years with no recent data, and extreme polarization suggests either inconsistent service or data quality issues. The detailed negative review raises serious concerns about project completion and honesty that cannot be dismissed by two generic positive reviews.

With only 3 reviews spanning 7 years (2013–2020), this dataset is too small and temporally dispersed to calculate a reliable WW Score. The reviews present sharply contradictory evidence: one 1-star review from 2020 documents serious workmanship failures (messy pipe installation, poor communication about qualifications, excessive billing at $797 for a shutoff valve replacement), while two older positive reviews (2013, 2016) praise professionalism and problem-solving. The most recent review is highly negative and specific in its complaints, whereas the positive reviews lack detail. Recency and specificity favor the negative assessment, but the sample size is critically insufficient for confident scoring.

• CRITICAL: Only 3 reviews total — below minimum threshold for reliable WW Score calculation
• RECENCY ISSUE: Reviews span 7 years (2013–2020); most data is 4+ years old. Only 1 review from past 5 years
• CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: Extreme polarity (1-star vs. 5-star) with no middle-ground reviews suggests either significant service inconsistency or potential selection bias in review submission
• SPECIFICITY DISPARITY: Negative review is highly detailed with concrete complaints (workmanship, billing, drywall damage); positive reviews are generic praise without specifics
• SKILL CLAIM MISMATCH: Contractor claimed experience with shutoff valves ('many times') but struggled significantly during execution — suggests possible misrepresentation of qualifications

This score cannot be trusted for decision-making. With only 3 reviews across 7 years and extreme contradictions, any calculated score would be meaningless. Seek additional recent reviews or direct references before engaging this contractor.

Insufficient data to calculate a reliable WW Score. Only 2 reviews were analyzed, which falls below the minimum threshold of 3 reviews required for meaningful scoring. The reviews present a stark contradiction: one 5-star review praising professionalism, fair pricing, and job completion, and one 1-star review citing substandard materials and workmanship. The 1-star review also raises a red flag by referencing a suspicious 5-star review allegedly from a realtor, suggesting potential fake review activity. With such limited and conflicting data, no confident overall assessment can be made.

• CRITICAL: Only 2 reviews analyzed — below minimum threshold of 3 for reliable scoring
• SUSPICIOUS PATTERN: 1-star review explicitly references a potentially fake 5-star review from a realtor, suggesting review manipulation or quality inconsistency
• EXTREME POLARITY: Stark contradiction between 5-star and 1-star reviews with no middle ground — suggests either highly variable service quality or review authenticity issues
• INSUFFICIENT MENTIONS: All dimensions have 1-2 mentions only, resulting in LIMITED confidence across the board

This score cannot be calculated reliably due to insufficient review volume (n=2) and suspected review authenticity issues. Do not rely on any scoring until at least 3-5 additional verified reviews are collected.

Both reviews speak positively across all four dimensions, with Review 1 providing meaningful specifics: Brian responded quickly, visited the site before quoting, returned multiple times to source matching materials, and completed a long-unfinished project to a high standard. Review 2 is brief and generic, offering little beyond broad praise. Pricing is described as fair and reasonable in both reviews, with Review 1 noting transparent quoting practices. Professionalism scores are supported by explicit mentions of communication, politeness, and honesty. However, with only two reviews total, no dimension can be scored with meaningful confidence, and the WW Score cannot be reliably calculated.

• Only 2 reviews provided — well below the minimum threshold of 3 required for a reliable WW Score.
• Review 2 is notably brief and generic ('expert handyman who is able to repair anything') with no specific details about the project, timeline, or outcome. This pattern is consistent with low-effort or potentially unverified reviews, though it does not conclusively indicate fabrication.
• Both reviews are dated 2020–2021, meaning all data is over 3 years old. No recent reviews are available to confirm current performance standards.
• All scores carry LIMITED confidence due to the very small review sample. These scores should not be treated as statistically meaningful.

This score report is based on only 2 reviews, both over 3 years old, making it insufficient to reliably assess this contractor — treat any dimension scores as directional indicators only, not validated performance benchmarks.